Cameron helps the bankers and the hunters
I would like to comment on the BBC Countryfile programme, in which the Prime Minster, David Cameron, lent his support for the badger cull trials. These could ultimately lead to the destruction of our native badger, so often used for the sport of badger baiting – both now and in the past. The cull could mean it is blasted out of existence in the countryside.
David Cameron also used the interview to repeat his pledge to allow a vote on repeal of the Hunting Act in this Parliament, stating that: "I always thought the hunting ban was a pretty bizarre piece of legislation; I think there should be a free vote in the House of Commons. My problem has always been that it was just taking the criminal law into an area of activity where it didn't really belong."
What he is actually saying is that the hunters are exempt from the rule of law! Currently, hunters are pretending to go out trail hunting and if they hunt a fox it's an accident. This does not help the poor fox but at least keeps the hunts under some sort of constraint. If the Hunting Act was repealed then the hunters would be allowed to hunt as before the ban and be free of the minor constraints of pretending to be trail hunting.
The hounds would be after the fox and able to go anywhere the fox runs. They would not be accountable for trespass; hunts and their starving hounds (hounds are usually not fed for two days before going out to hunt foxes and other prey) would be running into people's gardens and attacking people's pets. Darting across roads and railway lines would be the norm.
What we seem to have is the police using every effort to track down and prosecute every city and urban rioter, but hunting gangs in the countryside would be untouchable and outside any laws and regulations. They and their hounds could riot as much as they like and the police would do nothing!
But I suppose that this is what we should expect. After all, David Cameron is from a family of stockbrokers and bankers and, like the Conservative Party, is heavily funded by the banking sector. The veto of the EU transaction tax and the repeal of the Hunting Act is payback time for the vested interest groups!
3 Comments
by tkwinston4
Monday, January 23 2012, 9:51AM
“"This method of fox control may not be the most efficient method, but there are no cases of maimed foxes due to the animal either being caught and killed or getting away. This method is therefore far better than shooting." This method is not better, this method involves chasing the fox for miles until it is totally and utterly exhausted, it is then cornered and dug out to be ripped apart by over excited and starving hounds. This method is sick and barbaric - fact!
"The whole issue concerning the hunting act is not due to animal rights, it comes down to social issues. People believe that hunting is carried out by the rich, but in most cases its just a normal person, with a normal standing in life enjoying a day out in the countryside and they should not be judged by people who have little or no understanding on these issues."
What total and utter rubbish!! I am a normal person with a normal standing living in the countryside and I have an excellent understanding of the issue but I want all forms of hunting with dogs banned completely and permanently. Fox hunting serves no purpose apart from entertainment for those sick individuals that choose to take part.
You are a minority and your rating of minus five reflects that.”
by davegb2
Thursday, January 19 2012, 8:28PM
“"The whole point of the law and the police is that it should intervene when a crime has occurred or is occurring, not to follow a perfectly legal gathering of people. "
Brilliant! No need for the police at football matches then. Or at far-right marches. In fact, they may as well all just stay indoors and wait for a crime to be committed!!!!
"This method is therefore far better than shooting."
Why do you people keep repeating this pathetic comment? Are you telling me that when hunting was legal foxes are not shot?
The only reason people hunt is because they get a sadistic pleasure from seeing things killed as inhumanely as possible. I suspect a lot of hunters dream of killing people too. No surprise the Countryside Alliance have just appointed somebody who has made a living from killing people!!”
by sedimentology
Thursday, January 19 2012, 1:12PM
“The idea that the badger cull 'could ultimately lead to the destruction of our native badger' is a ludicrous suggestion. Do you really believe that in the 21st century this country would allow the extinction of one of its native species? These badger culls are only part of a pilot scheme in which it will be determine whether the culls are actually a good way of managing the spread of bovine TB, which is a major problem for British farmers. This could lead to the ultimate destruction of our native dairy and cattle farmer!
David Cameron is correct in saying that the hunting ban is a 'pretty bizarre piece of legislation'. How is an activity that occurs over many square miles in a day and taking place mainly on private land going to be policed properly. The whole point of the law and the police is that it should intervene when a crime has occurred or is occurring, not to follow a perfectly legal gathering of people. This isn't to say that they can't be followed by hunt 'monitors' but these people are still restricted by the fact they can't access private land and in many cases are responsible for breaking the law themselves.
If the hunting act was repealed then it is true the hunts will continue in the same way as they did before the ban ( which was perfectly legal). This method of fox control may not be the most efficient method, but there are no cases of maimed foxes due to the animal either being caught and killed or getting away. This method is therefore far better than shooting.
The whole issue concerning the hunting act is not due to animal rights, it comes down to social issues. People believe that hunting is carried out by the rich, but in most cases its just a normal person, with a normal standing in life enjoying a day out in the countryside and they should not be judged by people who have little or no understanding on these issues.”