|
WELCOME TO FOXMAN ON FOXHUNTING IN THE UK
INTRODUCTION
This site is a personal view and may not coincide with the views of organisations which support Foxhunting. It is intended to assist the fight to save/restore Hunting in the UK. Click on the menu links to see more detail about how the Ban happened, about Hunting itself , about the case for restoring Hunting and about how you can help. This site was started as http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/foxman in 1995 although the counter was reset to zero in 2000. It was updated every time there was a development in the fight to save Hunting, even a small change. It will continue the same way as the fight to restore Hunting develops. I wish to close down my dspace as soon as possible. Please amend your favourites to http://www.foxmanonline.org.uk) .
INDEX OF THIS PAGE
THIS SITE RECOMMENDS ACTIONS FOR ALL WHO ARE DISGUSTED BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ABUSING ITS POWER IN ORDER TO STOP THE PROVEN LEAST CRUEL MANAGEMENT OF THE FOX POPULATION AND TO OPPRESS A MINORITY THAT DOES NO HARM TO THE GENERAL POPULATION. (Some claim that Hunters are analogous to bear- baiters, dog-fighters etc. But these were rightly suppressed b
|
|
THE TIMETABLE
(more detail please see future.htm)
Parliament Acts
Nov 2004:"Banks Ban Bill" forced through using the Parliament Act.
Permission to apply for judicial review has been granted.
On the 25th and 26th January 2005, the Judges sitting in the Divisional Court did not feel able to uphold our case that the 1949 Parliament Act is invalid. For some time our lawyers have made clear the pressures on the Divisional Court of overturning an Act of Parliament. They have always considered that the higher courts are more likely to accept the important constitutional argument that we are putting forward. The case went to the Court of Appeal (three or more Lord Justices), on 8 February.
Their decision was announced on 16 Feb . The Countryside Alliance commented as follows:
“Three senior judges accepted that the provisions of the Hunting Act are “highly controversial” and “bitterly opposed by substantial sections of the public”, but decided not to overturn the 1949 Parliament Act. However, in their judgement they agreed with most of the key arguments put forward by the Alliance’s legal team. The Attorney General, on behalf of the Government said that he supported our application for the case to be heard in the House of Lords.
Furthermore, the Courts instructed the Attorney General not to ‘hide behind the courts’ in rejecting the question of Interim Relief. Earlier the Attorney General conceded that our application had considerable merit. The Courts also rejected the Attorney General’s wish that we should bear the Government’s costs.
On 10 March the House of Lords agreed to hear the appeal to the Parliament Act challenge. The constitutional significance of this case means that it is only right that it should be heard in the highest court in the land, a view shared by the Attorney General, representing the Government. The case were heard by nine Law Lords in a two-day hearing, which took place on 13th & 14th July. A decision was expected to be announced in Mid to late August. But was announced finally in late October 2005.
Although the Appeal Court ruling provided strong grounds for the Law Lords to find in our favour. The Law Lords felt uneasy about overturning an Act of Parliament that has been accepted for 55 years even though there were question marks over its validity.
If an Act of Parliament is incorrectly enacted, then it is invalid, irrespective of whether it was passed yesterday, last week, last year or 55 years ago. We were confident in the strength of this challenge as well as the very important challenge to the legislation on human rights grounds. However the obvious legal problems of overturning an act extant for 55 yrs and having been used to bludgeon through several laws against the wisdom of the House of Lords were considered more important than ending the dictatorship of government by restoring the powers of the House of Lords. One Law Lord commented as follows: ” I am deeply troubled about assenting to the validity of such an exorbitant assertion of government power” Foxman says “God help freedoms in the UK”. How can prejudice and spite over so relatively unimportant a matter as killing vermin with dogs have stopped a much needed restoration of “true democracy” in the UK? Let us hope that, despite the prevalent misuse of the Parliament Acts, the House of Lords will continue to retain enough influence to force reasonable compromises between the interests of the majority and of the minorities. Having been bludgeoned over something as relatively unimportant as hunting bodes ill for the ability of The Lords to safeguard our minorities; particularly our minority religions. Julius Caesar claimed that he acted for “the people” BUT.....
Human Rights
A huge amount of work is currently going into the preparation of what will be a compelling case.
All claimants are identified and will cover hunting and coursing
The Human Rights case has been given the go ahead. We await a date for a hearing in the High Court. From that hearing the losing side may appeal to the House of Lords (five or more Law Lords).
The Government will then be trying to make a case for the legality of the Ban on two fronts simultaneously while they are handling the Election.
Interim Relief
Interim Relief is an order that is made pending the conclusion of a case.
The court will only make the order if it thinks it is the right thing to do - irrespective of whether the parties agree one should be ordered.
The Government has signalled that it will not oppose our application whilst legal proceedings are in play.
|
|
|
ecause their cruelty was excessive and served no purpose other than to entertain the vicious. In contrast, Hunters perform a service valuable to farmers and wild life management. Hunters are not vicious. They rarely see a fox being killed and take no pleasure from it if they happen to see it).
Foxman is a member of that minority (We), which covers all who support our Rural Culture as set out in the Countryside Agenda
THE SITUATION ATER THE BAN ON 18 NOVEMBER 2004 IS VERY SERIOUS FOR THE FUTURE WELFARE OF THE FOX POPULATION AND FOR RESPECT OF THE LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS. FOR THE SAKE OF FOXES, THERE IS AN URGENT NEED FOR THE BAN TO BE REVISED TO PREVENT THE EXCESSIVE WOUNDING AND SUFFERING OF FOXES NOW BEING CAUSED BY SHOOTING FOXES INSTEAD OF CONTROLLING NUMBERS BY KILLING WITH PACKS OF HOUNDS, WHICH VIRTUALLY NEVER RESULTS in WOUNDING. RECENT RESEARCH HAS CONFIRMED THAT SHOOTING FOXES RESULTS IN WOUNDING IN ABOUT 50% OF CASES.
Once again MPs have voted overwhelmingly and have passed into law an all-out ban on Foxhunting in England and Wales. They used the Parliament Acts to overrule the Lords.
THIS BAN IS THE TIP OF AN ICEBERG OF EMERGING TOTALITARIANISM. Click this link to see why.
As long predicted the "Social Totalitarians" (mostly Labour MPs) have switched the full force of their attack on freedom to Game Shooting and rumbles against Fishing have got louder. In its report on the draft Animal Welfare Bill, published recently, the Labour dominated Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee launched an attack on the rearing of game birds and suggested: “limiting the numbers of game birds that are able to be reared”. Furthermore, DEFRA has stated that their licences to shoot pests "can only be relied upon in circumstances where the authorised person is satisfied that appropriate non-lethal methods of control such as scaring are either ineffective or impracticable".
The Countyside Alliance, with the Council of Hunting Associations, has published plans for the rest of this hunting season. All packs of foxhounds, hare hounds, deer hounds and other hunts and clubs met legally on Saturday 19th February. The meets were widely advertised and held at locations well placed to allow everyone who supports freedom and tolerance to support their local hunt. Most Hunts went on Hound Exercise, Trail Hunting or fox control with 2 Dogs and guns. Almost as many foxes were killed as on previous saturdays: BUT there was very little selectivity in the foxes despatched.
The ban will gravely degrade the Welfare of the Fox Population in several ways:
1. Reduction in selection;
Foxhunts tended to kill the weak and diseased thus ensuring that the strong and fit produced a higher proportion of the next generation. Shooting will have very little of this selection.Naturalists agree that the UK rural fox population is unusually robust in contrast with the Urban Fox Population that contains a higher proportion of mange and genetic weakness.One reason for this is Hunting.
2. Increase in deaths of foxes;
In Scotland foxes cannot be chased and caught. Thus Hunts carrying out essential fox control (as requested by farmers, shoots, wild life sanctuaries etc.) must shoot foxes even if they have first had to be chased out of cover to give a clear site so that there is a chance of a shot hitting. This has created an ethos approving shooting as the accepted method of preventing number of foxes in any pocket increasing to the point where they predate upon man's possessions or upon treasured members of the wild population (e.g. poultry, birds, lambs, piglets.) It is easier to shoot foxes than cull them through the Hunt. Thus the rate of fox deaths in hunted areas of Scotland has already doubled. It follows that there is a risk that populations will fall below the steady level achieved through the balanced cull which existed for centuries because of the Hunting World's ethos of shooting being a last resort.
3. Increase in suffering.
All the research to date confirms that shooting incurs a very much greater risk than Hunting of wounding followed by slow death or severely degraded welfare and, as explained above, more foxes are being shot.
4.Worsening of their environment.
Less preservation of many woods (coverts) that were organized to provide breeding and living places suitable for foxes in areas where there are few other suitable places. Hunting organizes woodland to suit foxes (e.g. by allowing light to reach low vegetation, such as brambles). The incentive for this will have gone.
The Countryside Alliance is starting independent research to confirm or disprove the points made above.
The ban will have the effect of making some humans happy because they think they have benefited foxes and prevented "the privileged" continuing to ride over the "humane concerns" of the majority of humans. Perversely, it will have made life worse for the majority of foxes and also worse in several other ways:
- A noticeable increase in fox numbers and resultant predation were farmers, managers of wildlife sanctuaries etc. are unwilling to increase shooting at foxes due to the significant risk of wounding followed by a slow death in many cases.
- Increased concentration of foxes, hence higher predation near concentrations, as happened following the cessation of hunting in February 2001 due to foot and mouth disease. A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE OF HUNTING WAS THIS DISPERSING OF FOXES. It would seem, however, that this role of dispersal without intent to kill has not been banned. It is not flushing out for subsequent shooting, nor is it chasing with intent to kill.
- Destruction of hedgerows. The Hunting Field like to jump them and they assist foxes, birds etc. to pass safely across the countryside.
- Severe damage to a major part of the structure of society in rural areas.
- Much harm to the UK's Horse related industry and equestrian competitive competence: E.g. Eventing, Export of Event Horses and Hunters, Point-to-Points, National Hunt Racing. They would not die out if Hunting were banned but they would be seriously damaged.
The Countryside Alliance is starting independent research to confirm or disprove the points made above.
It seems that the prime minister abandoned his hope of finding a "middle way". In terms of Parliamentary Practices, the government never had powers, other than of persuasion of MPs, to stop The Speaker invoking The Parliament Acts if wished by a majority view of MPs.
A majority of the Commons decided to follow some backbenchers rather than the wishes of the Prime Minister. They believed that their unsubstantiated assertion that Hunting is cruel and should, therefore, be banned outweighed the possible backlash from countryside opponents. We must show them how wrong they are, let's put overwhelming weight of sound argument and of all other political and legal civil means behind our backlash. BUT PENDING RESOLUTION OF OUR LEGAL CHALLENGES NOTHING MUST BE DONE WHICH COULD BE INTERPRETED AS PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE COURTS.
The ban came into force on 19 Feb 2005. On 18 Nov there was a debate in both houses on timing of implementation; the Commons voted for July 2006, the Lords for February 2005. The Government does not want us to have the "leverage" of an implemented ban behind our campaign to unseat them in the General Election, nor behind our legal challenges. Whatever the prospective outcome of our legal challenges, Foxman recommends that we start organising ourselves now to chuck Labour out of office by a massive political campaign supporting selected candidates of other parties, together with a civil campaign organised like a military campaign. Please contact The Secretary of your nearest Hunt to volunteer to fight in the "Countryside Army" and negotiate how best you can help us win the battle. Your secretaries Tel No can be found in http://www.mfha.org.uk The Government has ignited a "cultural war" against the "Country Way of Life". It will be defended by the "Countryside Army" using every legal means available E.G: our votes, political activities, passive resistance; (E.G.interpreting contracts to the last letter, orderly and peaceful demonstrations, maximum allowable delay in interacting with government agencies etc, withdrawing permissions where this is not against existing contracts, refusal to renew or make new contracts with government agencies, local authorities & utility services, refusing access for creating public access and rights of way and in many, many other ways.)
All supporters of Hunting are to be congratulated in making it clear to anti-Hunting politicians that opposing Hunting is bad politics. The campaigning efforts of Supporters of Hunting played a significant part in ousting 29 anti MPs, reducing the majority of 21 to below 3%, some to a few hundred and boosting the majorities of 9 pro MPs.
The Vote -UK website http://www.vote-ok.co.uk/ reported:
Massive and unprecedented local campaigning by hunt supporters has contributed to the ousting of 29 anti-hunting former MP's. 3.4 million leaflets were delivered, 2.1 million envelopes hand-addressed 55,000 posters erected and 170,000 campaigning man hours provided in a nationally co-ordinated initiative.
Charles Mann, Vote-OK national campaign director, said, "29 anti hunting MP's out, and 21 left with tiny majorities to get next time- this has been a huge success for hunting and an important boost for the volunteers who have participated in the campaign.
"With only 6 weeks preparation and no previous experience thousands of hunt supporters have been organised to campaign on a substantial and hitherto unseen level in modern politics. As a result they have shown that when enough people get involved in politics with a purpose and in an organised and focussed way they can, and have, made a difference."
This has been the rehearsal, at the next election we will help ensure that this potent force is enabled to play an even greater role in securing an early repeal to the ban on hunting"
IF YOU CARE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE FOX POPULATION OR FOR RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND ARE NOT A MEMBER OF A POLITICAL PARTY. PLEASE JOIN ONE NOW. PLEASE CHOOSE ONE THAT HAS MOST MPs OPPOSED TO THE ABOLITION OF HUNTING. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE LABOUR PARTY PLEASE RESIGN.
You can join for a few tens of pounds on line by clicking on: Conservatives (who have said that they will repeal the ban) OR Liberal Democrats if a Conservative has no chance.
If you are a member of a political party or trade union that contains or sponsors several MPs, who support the abolition of hunting, please resign now. (Do you really want to support a poltical party or trade union that wants to ban hunting and force people out of work for dislike of a culture? What might they ban next---shooting, fishing?)
In order to make your effort fully effective IT IS VITAL TO WRITE to Mr BLAIR or email him via his website , your MP (of any Party) and your LOCAL CONSTITUENCY ORGANISATION and ,where applicable, the General Secretary of your Trade Union; telling them what you have done and why you have done it.
If you are not already a member, please fill in this form to join the force leading the fight to block or repeal the Hunting Ban and protect all Field Sports and their infrastructure----- The Countryside Alliance.
My thanks to all who supported us by writing in an attempt to stop the government invoking the parliament acts on 18 November. We did influence some politicians to prefer avoidance of the legal minefield into which they have been dragged by the bigots. I received a few encouraging replies from Labour Ministers.
Alun Michael (the Minister responsible for Hunting Bills) has admitted that the legislation passed has nothing to do with animal welfare or wildlife management. Dennis Skinner M.P. was honest enough to tell the House of Commons the real reason----"Payback for the treatment of the miners". However, we lost against the bigoted minority and their craven followers, who acted more from political expediency rather than conviction.The major "battle" now starts. It will be in the "Legal Field". Was use of the Parliament Acts unlawful? Is the Bill itself unlawful? Please continue to write to Cabinet Ministers, MPs and Newspapers pointing out that respect for the law has been severely degraded by this "Unsafe" bill.
ONE REASON FOR BELIEVING THAT THE BILL IS "UNSAFE" (i.e. likely to degrade respect for law) :
- DEFRA has stated that there are circumstances where and when Foxes should be controlled.
- A significant number of Veterinary Surgeons has stated that killing by dogs is less likely than other methods of control to result in prolonged suffering.
- Lord Burns, Chairman of the Inquiry, said on the issue of cruelty "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel. The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty." The assertion that hunting with dogs "inflicts unnecessary suffering" (i.e. cruel) is, therefore, at best premature and at worst likely to be wrong. Surely, it is unproved and it should not stand up to legal examination.
- The rationale by which The House of Commons passed the proposed bill was based on the alleged cruelty of Hunting with Dogs.
- In view of the facts outlined above, it would seem counter to any acceptable basis for "fair trial" to pronounce hunting guilty of cruelty before the "missing" research has progressed to the point where reasonable conclusions on the alleged cruelty could be drawn. Surely, the freedom and livelihoods of a significant minority of the population should not be curtailed as a result of an unsubstantiated allegation. This argument will form part of our legal challenge under Human Rights legislation.
- Use of the Parliament Acts to introduce a new crime in response to unsubstantiated allegations is "Unsafe" in the legal sense. It would undermine respect for the law.
GOVERNMENT SPONSORSHIP OF "THE BANKS BILL" WAS DESPICABLE. THEY TOOK EVIDENCE AND FIRST PUT FORWARD A GOVERNMENT BILL TO REGULATE FOXHUNTING. THEN, FOR PARTY POLITICAL GAIN IN THEIR DISPUTES WITH THEIR BACKBENCHERS, THEY SACRIFICIED THEIR OWN BILL AND ALLOWED THEMSELVES TO BE "RAILROADED" BY THE BIGOTS INTO PUTTING FORWARD A TOTAL BAN AS A GOVERNMENT MEASURE. THIS FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF TOOK . IT IS ALSO DEEPLY "UNCONSTITUTIONAL". IT WILL BE FOUGHT LEGALLY IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY, IN PARTICULAR THROUGH NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COURTS. THE COUNTRYSIDE WILL FIGHT THIS AND ALL OTHER PARTS OF THE LABOUR LEAD "CRUSADE" AGAINST ITS CULTURE. LABOUR HAS STARTED A "CULTURAL WAR" IN THE UK.
TIM YEO (MP) speaking for the Conservative Party stated that, if elected to power, they will pass a Government Bill to repeal the ban.
The primary thrust of our fight will be in the courts and in politics. Therefore, we need to keep the courts on our side while continuing to present politicians with stark choices emphasised by representations and protests at every opportunity for confrontation---- BUT ALWAYS RESPECTING THE LAW. Foxman is sure that the "Battle of Parliament Square" and the "Invasion of The Commons" were counter-productive. Our traditions of fairness and freedom, for which we are fighting, do not include permits for actions very close to riot and trespass.
In view of the Conservative leaders pledge to repeal the Bill, our supporters and all those who genuinely care for the fox population will wish to help the fight to restore Hunting by voting against Labour. To this extent Hunting will become a hot election issue. The draconian nature of the bill and the despicable weakness of the Government in allowing themselves to be overriden by some of their backbenchers has turned more of the Countryside unequivocally against Labour and has decreased their chances of reelection. Votes gained will be less than votes lost. Most ouside the Countryside are much more swung by more important issues. Clearly the Government fears this, why else would they have tried to delay enactment of a ban for 2 years through their proposed amendment?
THE SITUATION IS VERY SERIOUS
The "Frustrated Bigots against Hunting" have seen the Total Ban, which they foisted upon MPs, passed in the "Commons".
The contempt with which the bigots and the government view Parliament and the Public is well illustrated by their needless and repeated waste of scarce parliamentary time on Hunting. There are many issues requiring resolution by Parliament that the vast majority of people consider to be much more urgent and vital than Hunting (e.g. The European Constitution, Immigration & Asylum, Reform of the NHS, Reforming Education, Removing abuses by the Financial Services Industry.) The government will suffer grievous harm at the General Election because it has delayed resolving many of these issues because of yet another attack on Hunting through Parliamentary Legislation. Particular scorn will be placed on the government because it has used Hunting as a "political football" when it was easy to remove any needless cruelty simply without wasting valuable Parliamentary Time.
ERRORS IN THE PROPAGANDA AGAINST FOXHUNTING
WHY IT IS NOT CRUEL
One "anti-advert" alleges that "the stress and exertion of the chase is traumatic beyond imagination". In fact foxes are conditioned to being chased. Two British zoologists at the University of Nottingham, (Chris Barnard, professor of animal behaviour and Jane Hurst, a behavioural ecologist) back up observations that foxes seem not to anticipate death and appear not to be suffering while being chased. They found that:
- Animals who are hunted regularly (e.g. foxes) may well be conditioned to regard the stress of being hunted as normal.
- Do not confuse stress with suffering.
Stress is a physical condition. Suffering is a mental condition. The former does not inevitably cause the latter. A marathon runner is highly stressed but is not suffering unless his stress exceeds anything that he has experienced previously and has not, therefore, mentally adapted himself to cope with. Stress produces adrenalin and endorphins which produce exhilaration to mask some of the stress. Judgements in respect of animals about the balance between pain and exhilaration (both caused by a stress) are very difficult and human analogies are unlikely to be reliable.
- The fact that foxes are fully in control of their wits when being hunted is shown by the following examples:- they know how much scent they leave, how to mask it by running through ground fouled by cattle etc. or water and how to use the wind. Also other tactics too numerous to discuss here. They use these tactics methodically while being chased.
An animal may experience the subjective state of "fear", but that just tells it to run, just as "hunger" tells it to eat. Fear and hunger only lead to suffering when the animal's adaptive responses fail to assuage them. Thus suffering is triggered when the world frustrates an animal's adaptive drives (e.g. to flee when chased). This subtle distinction is a crucial one that has been neglected byanimal welfare campaigners weak on evolutionary theory.
Other "anti-adverts" allege that a fox caught by hounds has a slow agonising death. Many clips of "kills" show that under the pack of hounds a fox dies in seconds otherwise"he" escapes unhurt.
Much propaganda alleges that other methods of killing foxes are "better". 300 Veterinary Surgeons, Research Workers etc. disagree because all fail at least one of these tests:
- Effective and without unacceptable costs or impracticalities of application,
- Able and willing to be limited so that it does not decimate the fox population,
- Safe for humans and domestic animals,
- Does not tend to degrade the genetic adaptation of rural foxes to their natural environment,
- Relatively safe for other wild animals,
- Does not lead to a slow death or a relatively long period of suffering (e.g. when frustrated from flight by being trapped in a cage).
- For further details please see http://www.vets-for-hunting.org.uk/ and this link
WHY IT HAS USEFUL PURPOSES
Foxes have to be culled to protect farmers/landowners animal possessions against predation.The Government Bill reluctantly acknowledges this; however, they state that it is necessary in only a few areas to be decided by a National Registrar. But a risk of predation exists throughout most of the UK and, whatever the Government rules, farmers/landowners will seldom be prepared to accept it without attempting to reduce it by culling foxes. The Commons (Banks Bill) ruled that culling must be achieved by methods it deems, with no substantiated evidence, to be less cruel than Foxhunting. However, there are very few circumstances where other methods would be less cruel in all instances. Please see http://www.vets-for-hunting.co.uk and this link
- BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT BILL CONCENTRATED ON "UTILITY" IN THE NARROWEST SENSE, THE GOVERNMENT IS IN DANGER OF CONTRAVENING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE RIO DECLARATION OF 1992, UN AGENDA 21 & THE EU HABITATS DIRECTIVE amongst others. In particular, because it ignores the facts that Hunting is also useful in:
- Helping to maintain a healthy, genetically sound fox population by culling the genetically unsound, weak, old and wounded. Any ban would harm the UK fox population as a whole.
- Dispersing the fox population leading to the many advantages of reducing areas of over concentration. Most other methods of control are not effective in dispersing.
- Helping to maintain much of the traditional appearance and bio-diversity of the UK Countryside.
- Benefitting many UK farmers who earn money by assisting in the maintenance of the infrastructure of Foxhunting (e.g. by maintaining hunting horses for customers).
- Sustaining the livelihood of many people in the countryside and in the towns who derive a significant proportion of their income because of Foxhunting.
- Maintaining the social and cultural cohesion of many country communities where Foxhunting is pivotal to the social and other aspects of the "Country Way of Life".
APPEALS
Foxman hopes that this site will be referred to by all those involved in the Parliamentary processes following from The Period of Consultation. In particular we hope that people will refrain from taking a view on Foxhunting until they have learned about it. This site should help and another excellent source is at http://www.countryside-alliance.org/cfh/huntingtt/index.html
Those who follow the "Country Way of Life" won against Mr Foster (the last completed unsuccessful attempt at a ban) by the concerted actions of all of us. Our concerted actions WON AGAIN in leading the Government to introduce an Inquiry before framing proposed legislation. Concerted action can win yet again to ensure that the outcome of Burns is handled in a truly Democratic, rather than in a Dictatorial, manner. The Countryside Alliance will be organising many campaigns, marches, protests etc.
Some Pleas
- I have listened to all the debates in the House of Commons about banning Foxhunting, inter alia. They were characterised, on both sides of the argument, by a lamentable lack of knowledge of the subject and by a ludicrous level of emotion. There can be no confidence that The House has come to a just decision unless there is confidence that MPs have studied the subject thoroughly before voting on a ban. I am delighted that The Government allowed foxes and all those involved in Foxhunting the courtesy of a proper government sponsored inquiry "The Burns Inquiry" . After all Clement Attlee's Labour Government instigated such an inquiry in 1949 which did not recommend a ban. Parliament followed this recommendation. The danger is that such a high level of emotion and prejudice against hunting has now built up in MPs, The Public and The Media that Parliament will not take notice of the favourable (to hunting) aspects of The Burns Report.
- MPs please study The Burns Report carefully and in detail.
- Please study the subject before "preaching " against, or in favour, of Foxhunting.
- Please be more tolerant all round; "Rurals" of our "Urban Sub-Culture" and vice-versa.
- Both sides please "cool it" so that the level of emotion is reduced throughout the debate and Burns can be viewed logically, rather than emotively.
|
