Hundreds turn out to see Middleton Hunt (From Gazette & Herald)

baileyuk wrote:
here we go toff this toff that, class ect,, i bet this goes on to several pages of tripe about animal cruelty ect,,, same every year after the boxing day hunts, or whenever Lush decide to promote a shopping campaign by dressing up as foxes... media hype and folk fall fall it every time...

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.

Buzz Light-year wrote:
Amazing that we can discuss this divisive, highly charged and emotive subject but we can't comment on a bike race.

working class tory wrote:
The fox hunting ban was a politically motivated 'class-based' act forced through parliament by the last government.

It was Labour discriminating against a minority; something they are supposed to be much against.

As usual they were chasing the popular vote.

bloodaxe wrote:

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.

If foxes need culling - and that is not wholly clear - then there are other ways of doing it. When the ban was introduced in Scotland the master of hounds of the Buccleuch Hunt complained that too many foxes were being killed because of shooting ! What I like about the pro hunt lobby are their inconsistency and self contradictions. As for it being a toff pursuit, well it clearly is a hobby which is only fully open to people who can own and look after top grade hunters. However money doesn't make a toff. There's a lot of new money in hunting, part of its appeal is that it provides a social entree. As for the "supporters"' I suppose those are the rather menacing types who loiter in gateways in their SUVs adorned with arrays of lights.

Theendoftheworld wrote:
Woody, it blatantly is a 'class thing'.
How many of those in the photo do you think are shelf-stackers at Tesco or road sweeper etc etc.

baileyuk wrote:
here we go toff this toff that, class ect,, i bet this goes on to several pages of tripe about animal cruelty ect,,, same every year after the boxing day hunts, or whenever Lush decide to promote a shopping campaign by dressing up as foxes... media hype and folk fall fall it every time...

bloodaxe wrote:

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.

If foxes need culling - and that is not wholly clear - then there are other ways of doing it. When the ban was introduced in Scotland the master of hounds of the Buccleuch Hunt complained that too many foxes were being killed because of shooting ! What I like about the pro hunt lobby are their inconsistency and self contradictions. As for it being a toff pursuit, well it clearly is a hobby which is only fully open to people who can own and look after top grade hunters. However money doesn't make a toff. There's a lot of new money in hunting, part of its appeal is that it provides a social entree. As for the "supporters"' I suppose those are the rather menacing types who loiter in gateways in their SUVs adorned with arrays of lights.

bloodaxe wrote:

working class tory wrote:
The fox hunting ban was a politically motivated 'class-based' act forced through parliament by the last government.

It was Labour discriminating against a minority; something they are supposed to be much against.

As usual they were chasing the popular vote.

You're a victim of false-consciousness.

Buzz Light-year says...
12:31pm Thu 27 Dec 12
Amazing that we can discuss this divisive, highly charged and emotive subject but we can't comment on a bike race.

GoodDoc wrote:

bloodaxe wrote:

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.

If foxes need culling - and that is not wholly clear - then there are other ways of doing it. When the ban was introduced in Scotland the master of hounds of the Buccleuch Hunt complained that too many foxes were being killed because of shooting ! What I like about the pro hunt lobby are their inconsistency and self contradictions. As for it being a toff pursuit, well it clearly is a hobby which is only fully open to people who can own and look after top grade hunters. However money doesn't make a toff. There's a lot of new money in hunting, part of its appeal is that it provides a social entree. As for the "supporters"' I suppose those are the rather menacing types who loiter in gateways in their SUVs adorned with arrays of lights.

OK, I realise you've probably not had direct experience, but could you share what these other, humane ways of culling foxes might be? Would you have gassing or trapping? Maybe we can expect untrained farmers to despatch a moving fox in one clean shot from a distance? Or have you thought of something special that no one else has? I'm all ears.
.
Have to say it's disappointing that the anti-hunt argument hasn't evolved since last boxing day and seems to avoid the challenges to its claims. The 'toffs' stuff is simply misinformed and gets trotted out every year. 'Top grade hunters' indeed! Nonsense. I've seen some right old nags following a hunt! Yes it may have started as an upper-class pursuit, but certainly where I grew up the hunt consisted of local farmers who earn nowhere near what most of the surburban Yorkies get. In terms of cruelty, we all should know that some methods of slaughter in this country are far more barbaric, so let's not hear that argument from anyone other than staunch vegans.
.
If it's about the law, and consistency then I suppose far more people speed on public roads so let's be equally zealous about that. The difference being that speeding is enforcable and directly jeopardises the safety of others, and hunting does neither. Fundamentally though, when most of the UK live in built-up urban areas, rural pursuits won't be understood. When the opposition bases its arguments on things that many hunters and hunt followers know are simply false, I can forgive them for ignoring them and continuing their tradition.

twotonethomas wrote:

GoodDoc wrote:

bloodaxe wrote:

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
If there was a Rat hunt organised no one would care .... because fox's are seen as cute animals people choose to ignore the fact that they are vermin.

If foxes need culling - and that is not wholly clear - then there are other ways of doing it. When the ban was introduced in Scotland the master of hounds of the Buccleuch Hunt complained that too many foxes were being killed because of shooting ! What I like about the pro hunt lobby are their inconsistency and self contradictions. As for it being a toff pursuit, well it clearly is a hobby which is only fully open to people who can own and look after top grade hunters. However money doesn't make a toff. There's a lot of new money in hunting, part of its appeal is that it provides a social entree. As for the "supporters"' I suppose those are the rather menacing types who loiter in gateways in their SUVs adorned with arrays of lights.

OK, I realise you've probably not had direct experience, but could you share what these other, humane ways of culling foxes might be? Would you have gassing or trapping? Maybe we can expect untrained farmers to despatch a moving fox in one clean shot from a distance? Or have you thought of something special that no one else has? I'm all ears.
.
Have to say it's disappointing that the anti-hunt argument hasn't evolved since last boxing day and seems to avoid the challenges to its claims. The 'toffs' stuff is simply misinformed and gets trotted out every year. 'Top grade hunters' indeed! Nonsense. I've seen some right old nags following a hunt! Yes it may have started as an upper-class pursuit, but certainly where I grew up the hunt consisted of local farmers who earn nowhere near what most of the surburban Yorkies get. In terms of cruelty, we all should know that some methods of slaughter in this country are far more barbaric, so let's not hear that argument from anyone other than staunch vegans.
.
If it's about the law, and consistency then I suppose far more people speed on public roads so let's be equally zealous about that. The difference being that speeding is enforcable and directly jeopardises the safety of others, and hunting does neither. Fundamentally though, when most of the UK live in built-up urban areas, rural pursuits won't be understood. When the opposition bases its arguments on things that many hunters and hunt followers know are simply false, I can forgive them for ignoring them and continuing their tradition.

I'm a staunch vegan, so are you admitting that my stance on hunting is based on fact?

baileyuk wrote:
it always amuses me that year after year the same story is printed in York press re the boxing day hunts,, which some oppose,, however it always seems to come down to what is defined as a toff and class, rather then the real issue which is allegedly about animal cruelty.

Theendoftheworld wrote:
What makes my blood boil is that the toffs just carry on with complete immunity from the law. Ok a couple got fined over Xmas but they'll have got that back from donations from their Tory backers.
Same as the bankers, they get fined for embezzling millions whilst benefit fraudsters (quite rightly) get jailed for falsely claiming thousands.
Can you imagine if the London rioters had been members of The Bullingdon Club? Do you think they would have faced prison? Fat chance.
We also have the inquiry about Andrew Mitchell which is being treated with 'great urgency' because he was a Tory minister. Compare that with the Hillingdon inquiry which took over 20 years because no toffs were involved. Or the case of the Yorkshire mines at Orgreave where, allegedly, police accounts were fabricated. Do you think it would have taken 30 years for a inquiry if a Tory Minister was involved? No, the problem is there's one law for the rich and one for everybody else.
Rant over - compliments of the season!

inthesticks wrote:

baileyuk wrote:
it always amuses me that year after year the same story is printed in York press re the boxing day hunts,, which some oppose,, however it always seems to come down to what is defined as a toff and class, rather then the real issue which is allegedly about animal cruelty.

In the above posts I see a lot of issues raised, not just the class one. I replied to your previous post with references to cruelty and other people have made points about cruelty but it seems to me that you are trying to make out that anyone who has an opinion other than yours only has an issue because of class. Just proves people pick out what suits, and what suits you is obviously you know a couple of farm hands that go hunting. OK, so there are working class people who like to kill animals too, I see them all the time near where I live (yes the countryside, not the town). But at least they are shooting, which is quick and not chasing the animal for miles first which has been proven to terrorise and cause severe wounding before the animal is killed. There`s nothing "alleged" in this, it is cruel, the animal is terrorised and bitten before death, sometimes dug out of it`s hiding place. Post-mortems have been done on foxes (commissioned by the Home Office) and the conclusion was that the animals had been subjected to huge suffering before death. What is also cruel is that hunts have been known to breed and feed fox cubs to ensure they will have animals to chase and kill.
The fact that the hounds are bred for stamina is proof that the hunters want the chase to last for hours, otherwise they would use dogs that were bred for speed, like greyhounds and the fox would be dead within minutes.
Never once did I go hunting when I used to ride, even though I was asked, I was brought up to care for and respect animals & I did not want to see them torn to shreds, how on earth can any decent human being think that it is a fun sport?
Also it makes no sense that we are killing an animal whose primary source of food is rats and rabbits. If we reduce fox numbers artificially then we increase the numbers of rats and rabbits, which are the real nuisances.
And I find nothing "amusing" at all in this topic or any of the posts, anyone that does has a personality disorder in my opinion.

baileyuk wrote:

inthesticks wrote:

baileyuk wrote:
it always amuses me that year after year the same story is printed in York press re the boxing day hunts,, which some oppose,, however it always seems to come down to what is defined as a toff and class, rather then the real issue which is allegedly about animal cruelty.

In the above posts I see a lot of issues raised, not just the class one. I replied to your previous post with references to cruelty and other people have made points about cruelty but it seems to me that you are trying to make out that anyone who has an opinion other than yours only has an issue because of class. Just proves people pick out what suits, and what suits you is obviously you know a couple of farm hands that go hunting. OK, so there are working class people who like to kill animals too, I see them all the time near where I live (yes the countryside, not the town). But at least they are shooting, which is quick and not chasing the animal for miles first which has been proven to terrorise and cause severe wounding before the animal is killed. There`s nothing "alleged" in this, it is cruel, the animal is terrorised and bitten before death, sometimes dug out of it`s hiding place. Post-mortems have been done on foxes (commissioned by the Home Office) and the conclusion was that the animals had been subjected to huge suffering before death. What is also cruel is that hunts have been known to breed and feed fox cubs to ensure they will have animals to chase and kill.
The fact that the hounds are bred for stamina is proof that the hunters want the chase to last for hours, otherwise they would use dogs that were bred for speed, like greyhounds and the fox would be dead within minutes.
Never once did I go hunting when I used to ride, even though I was asked, I was brought up to care for and respect animals & I did not want to see them torn to shreds, how on earth can any decent human being think that it is a fun sport?
Also it makes no sense that we are killing an animal whose primary source of food is rats and rabbits. If we reduce fox numbers artificially then we increase the numbers of rats and rabbits, which are the real nuisances.
And I find nothing "amusing" at all in this topic or any of the posts, anyone that does has a personality disorder in my opinion.

yes many issues raised, but am i not allowed to reply to the posts claiming that everyone involved is a toff?

the relation to foxes and rats and rabbits are a little strange, foxes are a predator and will go for the easy food, which is why many foxes are seen in urban areas. so perhaps someone should tell those of us that keep chickens not to fox proof anything as keeping chickens attracts rats which the fox will come along and catch for us.


alot of the comments are made by folk who have never attended a hunt and are based around one sided reports in the media.

baileyuk wrote:

inthesticks wrote:

baileyuk wrote:
it always amuses me that year after year the same story is printed in York press re the boxing day hunts,, which some oppose,, however it always seems to come down to what is defined as a toff and class, rather then the real issue which is allegedly about animal cruelty.

In the above posts I see a lot of issues raised, not just the class one. I replied to your previous post with references to cruelty and other people have made points about cruelty but it seems to me that you are trying to make out that anyone who has an opinion other than yours only has an issue because of class. Just proves people pick out what suits, and what suits you is obviously you know a couple of farm hands that go hunting. OK, so there are working class people who like to kill animals too, I see them all the time near where I live (yes the countryside, not the town). But at least they are shooting, which is quick and not chasing the animal for miles first which has been proven to terrorise and cause severe wounding before the animal is killed. There`s nothing "alleged" in this, it is cruel, the animal is terrorised and bitten before death, sometimes dug out of it`s hiding place. Post-mortems have been done on foxes (commissioned by the Home Office) and the conclusion was that the animals had been subjected to huge suffering before death. What is also cruel is that hunts have been known to breed and feed fox cubs to ensure they will have animals to chase and kill.
The fact that the hounds are bred for stamina is proof that the hunters want the chase to last for hours, otherwise they would use dogs that were bred for speed, like greyhounds and the fox would be dead within minutes.
Never once did I go hunting when I used to ride, even though I was asked, I was brought up to care for and respect animals & I did not want to see them torn to shreds, how on earth can any decent human being think that it is a fun sport?
Also it makes no sense that we are killing an animal whose primary source of food is rats and rabbits. If we reduce fox numbers artificially then we increase the numbers of rats and rabbits, which are the real nuisances.
And I find nothing "amusing" at all in this topic or any of the posts, anyone that does has a personality disorder in my opinion.

yes many issues raised, but am i not allowed to reply to the posts claiming that everyone involved is a toff?

the relation to foxes and rats and rabbits are a little strange, foxes are a predator and will go for the easy food, which is why many foxes are seen in urban areas. so perhaps someone should tell those of us that keep chickens not to fox proof anything as keeping chickens attracts rats which the fox will come along and catch for us.


alot of the comments are made by folk who have never attended a hunt and are based around one sided reports in the media.

Theendoftheworld wrote:
baileyuk - do your friends ride with the hunt, if yes they're doing well on their minimum wage, if no, you've just proved the point that it is a Toff's pastime.

baileyuk wrote:

Theendoftheworld wrote:
baileyuk - do your friends ride with the hunt, if yes they're doing well on their minimum wage, if no, you've just proved the point that it is a Toff's pastime.

yes, they do ride, though the horse used is not their own.

GoodDoc wrote:
Paul Meoff - there's so much to challenge you on, but at least justify your comment that shooting is quick! Have you ever *seen* foxes shot? I can assure you that's is very rare a fox is shot in one go. A wild animal on the run, versus an untrained man with a shotgun from a distance. Urgh. This is what I mean! People just seem to have no idea. The methods these people are promoting are seriously cruel yet they are presenting themselves as humane! Insanity.

GoodDoc wrote:
Twotonethomas; yes many more foxes are shot. I for one, ( and I suspect many other rural people feel the same way ), think shooting foxes is usually more cruel than hunting. I've seen a fox maimed by 12bore and frankly I can imagine the fox wishing for a pack of hounds to end its misery in a second or two. If shooting really is the alternative we've been looking for, it's clear that cruelty isn't the reason why you want to ban hunting.
.
And as regards artificial sets, I would love more info on this. I've heard that there are a few sets in Cumbria, which is inexcusable. In my experience though, that is very much the exception. Again, where I'm from it would be ridiculous to encourage foxes in any way - probably illegal in fact. So if *that's* the reason not to hunt, that only applies in a tiny fraction of areas in the country. But I'm totally in agreement - if they promote foxes they mustn't hunt them.
.
I completely understand why people may not want to be anywhere near a hunt, based on media coverage. I do though genuinely think that most opposition is from people who simply don't know the reality of a hunt, and if they were to investigate a little further rather than bow to the emotional sensationalism from tabloids, they could well change their mind. Growing up, I was a member of Greenpeace yet once I'd seen local hunts and spoken to huntsmen, I never opposed them whereas I did oppose various forms of animal cruelty. I think it's time people challenge the reality of fox hunting rather than some pantomime pastiche of bloodthirsty toffs.

GoodDoc wrote:
Paul Meoff - there's so much to challenge you on, but at least justify your comment that shooting is quick! Have you ever *seen* foxes shot? I can assure you that's is very rare a fox is shot in one go. A wild animal on the run, versus an untrained man with a shotgun from a distance. Urgh. This is what I mean! People just seem to have no idea. The methods these people are promoting are seriously cruel yet they are presenting themselves as humane! Insanity.

gazzar wrote:

baileyuk wrote:

Theendoftheworld wrote:
baileyuk - do your friends ride with the hunt, if yes they're doing well on their minimum wage, if no, you've just proved the point that it is a Toff's pastime.

yes, they do ride, though the horse used is not their own.

ummmmmmmm.... must be nice to have a friend to pay for the upkeep and stabling of a hunter, wish i had friends like that! Anyone got a spare set of hunting gear i could borrow for a fancy-dress do I'm hoping to attend on new-years eve? Thought not

goatman wrote:
As somebody who's only lived in York for 21 years your prevailing politics of envy make me laugh. It's easy to sit on the barricades when the front line is over the horizon. Compared with BD and LS all you lot with a YO postcode are all toffs - you don't know how lucky you are!

twotonethomas wrote:
I see elsewhere in The Press that N Yorkshire has, yet again, the worst record in the country for bird of prey persecution.

Just another example of those law abiding country folk ignoring the laws that they don't agree with.

baileyuk wrote:

gazzar wrote:

baileyuk wrote:

Theendoftheworld wrote:
baileyuk - do your friends ride with the hunt, if yes they're doing well on their minimum wage, if no, you've just proved the point that it is a Toff's pastime.

yes, they do ride, though the horse used is not their own.

ummmmmmmm.... must be nice to have a friend to pay for the upkeep and stabling of a hunter, wish i had friends like that! Anyone got a spare set of hunting gear i could borrow for a fancy-dress do I'm hoping to attend on new-years eve? Thought not

did not say a friend paid for any upkeep! jumping to conclusions gazza,,but please dont cry! it could just possibly be that the horse belongs to someone who,s husband as died and the widow is too sentimental to sell the horse and so allows other people to use it? mmmmmmm enjoy your fancy dress!! why not nip down to lush and lend their foxes fancy dress that they have used the last few years..

Woody G Mellor wrote:

GoodDoc wrote:
Twotonethomas; yes many more foxes are shot. I for one, ( and I suspect many other rural people feel the same way ), think shooting foxes is usually more cruel than hunting. I've seen a fox maimed by 12bore and frankly I can imagine the fox wishing for a pack of hounds to end its misery in a second or two. If shooting really is the alternative we've been looking for, it's clear that cruelty isn't the reason why you want to ban hunting.
.
And as regards artificial sets, I would love more info on this. I've heard that there are a few sets in Cumbria, which is inexcusable. In my experience though, that is very much the exception. Again, where I'm from it would be ridiculous to encourage foxes in any way - probably illegal in fact. So if *that's* the reason not to hunt, that only applies in a tiny fraction of areas in the country. But I'm totally in agreement - if they promote foxes they mustn't hunt them.
.
I completely understand why people may not want to be anywhere near a hunt, based on media coverage. I do though genuinely think that most opposition is from people who simply don't know the reality of a hunt, and if they were to investigate a little further rather than bow to the emotional sensationalism from tabloids, they could well change their mind. Growing up, I was a member of Greenpeace yet once I'd seen local hunts and spoken to huntsmen, I never opposed them whereas I did oppose various forms of animal cruelty. I think it's time people challenge the reality of fox hunting rather than some pantomime pastiche of bloodthirsty toffs.

" I was a member of Greenpeace yet once I'd seen local hunts and spoken to huntsmen........"

Lmfao! What a load of BS!

GoodDoc wrote:
Vaguely pleasing 'Mr Anderson' (ahem) that the only thing you choose to challenge me on is something I know to be true.. and fairly unimpressive to be honest. If that's the flaw in my argument, I've done rather well. I was with Greenpeace for 8 years from my midteens, which just predated my involvement with hunts. Sorry to burst your bubble, poppet. Intriguing though that this isn't the first thread where you've suddenly appeared, simply to support Woody.. or vice versa. Tehe.

GoodDoc wrote:
Vaguely pleasing 'Mr Anderson' (ahem) that the only thing you choose to challenge me on is something I know to be true.. and fairly unimpressive to be honest. If that's the flaw in my argument, I've done rather well. I was with Greenpeace for 8 years from my midteens, which just predated my involvement with hunts. Sorry to burst your bubble, poppet. Intriguing though that this isn't the first thread where you've suddenly appeared, simply to support Woody.. or vice versa. Tehe.

GoodDoc wrote:
Vaguely pleasing 'Mr Anderson' (ahem) that the only thing you choose to challenge me on is something I know to be true.. and fairly unimpressive to be honest. If that's the flaw in my argument, I've done rather well. I was with Greenpeace for 8 years from my midteens, which just predated my involvement with hunts. Sorry to burst your bubble, poppet. Intriguing though that this isn't the first thread where you've suddenly appeared, simply to support Woody.. or vice versa. Tehe.

countrylove wrote:
huray great to see so much support for this lovely tradition. we enjoyed seeing them boxing day a good turnout. of course bunch of york middleclass townies who never set foot in the countryside exept for national trust houses lol, boohoo they don't like it. tough cheese! stick to cuddling ur cute litle animals and watchin pet rescue lol. same daft scum who think treat dogs and cats like people. poor ickle foxy woxys riping apart chickens attacking people in towns. well townies keep on wining about the hunts they aint gonna stop!!! wouldnt be christmas without the boxingday meet.

GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, how odd you can pick up a condescending attitude so quickly, yet have nothing to say of the commenters who write in with little else to say but abuse. Perhaps you're used to it. I have no reason to respect such people, and honestly if they can't come up with anything better they deserve to be patronised by anyone capable of basic, rational argument. And the reason I don't pipe up very often, is because unlike a large proportion of commenters here (ahem) I only speak out on things of which I have direct experience. I wish others would consider doing the same.
.
Paul, if you consider killing vermin to be in the same league as baiting bears, I've overestimated you... and that's really saying something. I'm not too good for anyone, but I can't deny what I've seen with my eyes and I have very little respect for people who use silly, playground insults instead of reasoning.
.
Hoofrted... where have I claimed to be a 'militant teenager'? Do you always reduce an argument to a form so ridiculous (and distant from the origin) that you finally feel able to challenge it? FYI my interest in Greenpeace was purely because I had an interest in tackling pollution and protecting endangered species; a view not incompatible with an ambivalence towards local farmers killing a very common pest. Come now; Greenpeace, 'a trendy childhood fad'? A privileged background? Parents who hunt? Your assumptions are laughably wide of the mark; again, if making wild guesses is your strongest challenge to this issue, huntsmen have nothing to fear.
.
One more thing, seriously, 'until its heart explodes through fear and exhaustion'? Such prose! That really was a laugh out loud moment. More emotive, sensationalist hogwash. Shall I talk about poor hens, terrified out of their minds while a fox tears them limb from limb in front of their desperate birdy friends? Oh maybe chickens aren't cute enough for you. OK, hows about foxes whose hind quarters have been peppered with buckshot, limping in agony into some ditch where they take hours, maybe days to die? Or a darling little fox cub, barely a month old, with its leg caught in a legal snare, mewing for its parents, forced to chew at its own limbs in a vain attempt to break free before it succumbs to the pain and brutal chill. We can all play silly beggars if that's what you want, but we get no medals for creative writing.

Mr Anderson wrote:

GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, how odd you can pick up a condescending attitude so quickly, yet have nothing to say of the commenters who write in with little else to say but abuse. Perhaps you're used to it. I have no reason to respect such people, and honestly if they can't come up with anything better they deserve to be patronised by anyone capable of basic, rational argument. And the reason I don't pipe up very often, is because unlike a large proportion of commenters here (ahem) I only speak out on things of which I have direct experience. I wish others would consider doing the same.
.
Paul, if you consider killing vermin to be in the same league as baiting bears, I've overestimated you... and that's really saying something. I'm not too good for anyone, but I can't deny what I've seen with my eyes and I have very little respect for people who use silly, playground insults instead of reasoning.
.
Hoofrted... where have I claimed to be a 'militant teenager'? Do you always reduce an argument to a form so ridiculous (and distant from the origin) that you finally feel able to challenge it? FYI my interest in Greenpeace was purely because I had an interest in tackling pollution and protecting endangered species; a view not incompatible with an ambivalence towards local farmers killing a very common pest. Come now; Greenpeace, 'a trendy childhood fad'? A privileged background? Parents who hunt? Your assumptions are laughably wide of the mark; again, if making wild guesses is your strongest challenge to this issue, huntsmen have nothing to fear.
.
One more thing, seriously, 'until its heart explodes through fear and exhaustion'? Such prose! That really was a laugh out loud moment. More emotive, sensationalist hogwash. Shall I talk about poor hens, terrified out of their minds while a fox tears them limb from limb in front of their desperate birdy friends? Oh maybe chickens aren't cute enough for you. OK, hows about foxes whose hind quarters have been peppered with buckshot, limping in agony into some ditch where they take hours, maybe days to die? Or a darling little fox cub, barely a month old, with its leg caught in a legal snare, mewing for its parents, forced to chew at its own limbs in a vain attempt to break free before it succumbs to the pain and brutal chill. We can all play silly beggars if that's what you want, but we get no medals for creative writing.

T1t. (Ahem)

countrylove wrote:
huray great to see so much support for this lovely tradition. we enjoyed seeing them boxing day a good turnout. of course bunch of york middleclass townies who never set foot in the countryside exept for national trust houses lol, boohoo they don't like it. tough cheese! stick to cuddling ur cute litle animals and watchin pet rescue lol. same daft scum who think treat dogs and cats like people. poor ickle foxy woxys riping apart chickens attacking people in towns. well townies keep on wining about the hunts they aint gonna stop!!! wouldnt be christmas without the boxingday meet.

GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, how odd you can pick up a condescending attitude so quickly, yet have nothing to say of the commenters who write in with little else to say but abuse. Perhaps you're used to it. I have no reason to respect such people, and honestly if they can't come up with anything better they deserve to be patronised by anyone capable of basic, rational argument. And the reason I don't pipe up very often, is because unlike a large proportion of commenters here (ahem) I only speak out on things of which I have direct experience. I wish others would consider doing the same.

Buzz Light-year wrote:

GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, how odd you can pick up a condescending attitude so quickly, yet have nothing to say of the commenters who write in with little else to say but abuse. Perhaps you're used to it. I have no reason to respect such people, and honestly if they can't come up with anything better they deserve to be patronised by anyone capable of basic, rational argument. And the reason I don't pipe up very often, is because unlike a large proportion of commenters here (ahem) I only speak out on things of which I have direct experience. I wish others would consider doing the same.

Not criticising you for not piping up often. You can be as infrequent as you want.

Despite that infrequency, the attitude has always been obvious over the years, no-one is being quick to judge.

There's over the counter abuse and there's the other kind.


Anyway, carry on, lad.
I don't want to pop any bubbles or detract from the real people who are actually capable of debate, son.
Poppet. Sweetie. Etc.

countrylove wrote:
huray great to see so much support for this lovely tradition. we enjoyed seeing them boxing day a good turnout. of course bunch of york middleclass townies who never set foot in the countryside exept for national trust houses lol, boohoo they don't like it. tough cheese! stick to cuddling ur cute litle animals and watchin pet rescue lol. same daft scum who think treat dogs and cats like people. poor ickle foxy woxys riping apart chickens attacking people in towns. well townies keep on wining about the hunts they aint gonna stop!!! wouldnt be christmas without the boxingday meet.

countrylove wrote:
inthesticks of course you are. we can all check that cant we ah the wonders of the internet again. hardworking normal country person who hates hunting lmfao. poor ickle animals getting hurt by big mean people. i think u and twotonnethomas should get back to what your good at ie sending threats and bombs to the guys that test out your medecene rather than making stuff up and being the grammer police.

twotonethomas wrote:

countrylove wrote:
inthesticks of course you are. we can all check that cant we ah the wonders of the internet again. hardworking normal country person who hates hunting lmfao. poor ickle animals getting hurt by big mean people. i think u and twotonnethomas should get back to what your good at ie sending threats and bombs to the guys that test out your medecene rather than making stuff up and being the grammer police.

Eh?

Do you only have the balls to comment when you've had too many shandies?

Please don't tell me you were actually sober when you typed your drivel.

inthesticks wrote:

twotonethomas wrote:

countrylove wrote:
inthesticks of course you are. we can all check that cant we ah the wonders of the internet again. hardworking normal country person who hates hunting lmfao. poor ickle animals getting hurt by big mean people. i think u and twotonnethomas should get back to what your good at ie sending threats and bombs to the guys that test out your medecene rather than making stuff up and being the grammer police.

Eh?

Do you only have the balls to comment when you've had too many shandies?

Please don't tell me you were actually sober when you typed your drivel.

Methinks the school bus broke down a lot in Ryedale...

twotonethomas wrote:

countrylove wrote:
huray great to see so much support for this lovely tradition. we enjoyed seeing them boxing day a good turnout. of course bunch of york middleclass townies who never set foot in the countryside exept for national trust houses lol, boohoo they don't like it. tough cheese! stick to cuddling ur cute litle animals and watchin pet rescue lol. same daft scum who think treat dogs and cats like people. poor ickle foxy woxys riping apart chickens attacking people in towns. well townies keep on wining about the hunts they aint gonna stop!!! wouldnt be christmas without the boxingday meet.

Well it's taken a while to draw one of the illiterate terrier type out, but I can't wait to hear GoodDoc, baileyuk et al, chastising this goon for stereotyping the antis in some class war.

Oh, and for letting slip that the hunts are not only breaking the law but that the participants enjoy it.

funny that shortly after I'm criticised for a condescending attitude, antis post 3 or 4 messages suggesting this person is still in school!

slaughtering travellers' horses? Such humanity.

Buzz Light-year wrote:
don't be dissing others for abuse when you're also doing it, only in a more sly fashion.

GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, sweetpea, I was objecting to the use of open abuse, and complete inability to tackle the arguments of pro-hunters. I won't say that I'm flattering with my comments, but surely you can appreciate the difference between my slightly pointed reactions and one word comments the like of "T1t". Maybe that slipped by you. I'm pretty sure you realise that suggesting someone is still in school is condescending, as well as insulting. Maybe that one evaded your radar too.
.
And yes, I do often write in on articles to do with travellers. So what? As I said, I only wish other keyboard warriors, bored students and forum nerds would follow suit, and only pipe up on subjects they understand. Not pointing any fingers, like. There is sadly a minority of regular, compulsive commenters here who very rarely have anything directly relevant to say, yet continually fill threads with criticism of other posters and generally facetious and abusive banter. There are enough of them to encourage each other, as we can see. I can't work out your view on the article or hunting in general, but then again I'm not so sure you care. You seem to be happier commenting on comments than the news itself. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

GoodDoc wrote:
but surely you can appreciate the difference between my slightly pointed reactions and one word comments the like of "T1t".

baileyuk wrote:
88 posts re foxhunting and at least 60% are about grammar and insults,, a very good argument on both sides...

its about as much of a joke as is the ban itself....

baileyuk wrote:
88 posts re foxhunting and at least 60% are about grammar and insults,, a very good argument on both sides...

its about as much of a joke as is the ban itself....

Paul Meoff wrote:

baileyuk wrote:
88 posts re foxhunting and at least 60% are about grammar and insults,, a very good argument on both sides...

its about as much of a joke as is the ban itself....

Nothing to do with fox hunting here. That's illegal. I thought the article was all about the fancy dress parade in Malton.

GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, for the second time, I was objecting to the use of open abuse, and complete inability to tackle the arguments of pro-hunters. I've not made one comment which is entirely abusive. I don't call that sly or clever, but perhaps you have a different understanding of those terms. But actually yes, I would consider it better or more valid if people were to address issues in a subtly derogatory way rather than barking playground abuse, with no reference to anyone's points. . My attitude is supposed to win people over? How sweet that you think that's what this is for. Sugarplum, I don't come here to make friends or to socialise as you do. I don't come here to form a weird bond with other anonymous commenters and garner some weird sense of belonging. I don't come here to get attention, nor even to try to rile people by saying ever-so naughty words (Woody). I'm here to share my views on things that I have some knowledge of. I suppose we use this facility very differently, you and I. If you commented on the news as much as you comment on people commenting, you might be vaguely more interesting.

GoodDoc wrote:
Twotone, another odd reply for someone trying to convince bailey that you're not abusive. It's a shame you fail to address any of the points and continue with the whole 'you're a drunk' line. My reading of his/her comment was that factually, the law is unenforcable and foxes will continue to be killed in a range of ways; some more cruel than hunting. I don't think that's a surprising idea.

GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, honeypie, as anyone can see? I beg to differ. I think it's patently obvious to anyone that uses these forums on a semi-regular basis that there *is* a 'Press Community' of sorts, and it does, as I said, comprise mainly of people such as yourself. Facetious comments irrelevant to the story, 'banter' you may call it, nit-picking, general abuse, grammar pedantry. I suspect you have a sense of place here. You're right, it's fairly hostile, except for a few folks such as yourself who relish all that and encourage one another; I can imagine the proud sense of validation you must feel when Woody or another chum agrees with you. I'm sure I, and many others, could name 5 or 6 regulars on here to whom this description would apply. It's nice you can feel some camaraderie with fellow cyberjokers, but really, it's not for me. I'll stick to articles where I have something to contribute. Call me crazy... or superior. See I am more than happy to stand corrected by people with experience of the issue on the table. That's why I keep quiet on topics I know nothing about, and I have learned things from reading views on certain threads; again, I'd recommend you try it, if only you could just take a break from desperately trying to get a rise. I'm equally prepared in this instance to be corrected by someone who has followed a range of hunts and can inform me of things that I didn't already know. People denying my first-hand experience without having any of their own isn't going to show me anything. I apologise that my reasonable amount of literacy and refusal to shout insults at people lead you to think I feel superior. I've not had that accusation before, so perhaps it's more something about your personal feelings. Fair enough. I can admit though that I feel superior to folk whose best line of attack is a string of insults. The purpose of sharing views is generally to point out things that aren't mentioned in the article or misunderstandings, or simply to provide another point of view. In my case, I feel the need to speak on things that I have seen that directly contradict what people are saying. I'm never the first to comment, and only respond when someone posts something I know to be incorrect. Differing views on the truth is one thing; people purposefully misleading others is another. What is your reason for commenting? You clearly have no interest in the subject matter. If putting effort into replying to people means I'm trying to win people over, you're just as guilty wouldn't you say? Anyway, once again you've managed an entire post without any reference to the article. Yes, we use it very differently; I took am thankful. I'd implore you to either find a chatroom to wile away the hours with Woody et al, making silly comments and picking up on each other's grammar, or start sharing views on the news articles featured.

GoodDoc wrote:
Buzz, my love, indeed entire threads stand as testament to how you and I use this site. I'm fine with that. Finally, having once again proven that you really have nothing relevant to add, no opinion on the article, no experience to draw on, I suggest you move on from your fascination with the posters here and try another thread.
.
Twotone, I don't think it's as similar as you think. Most of the birds of prey affected are protected and endangered, are they not? If not all of them. When populations of foxes dwindle to the levels of marsh harriers and kestrels, you would have a very strong point and I'm sure far fewer people would hunt.

GoodDoc wrote:
Huh don't people get rude with a few pints in them! It's a pity people can't exchange views here without descending to abuse. And is it fair to expect me to respond when people ask me direct questions? I think so.

So Twotone, no I don't believe the law should be repealed regarding birds of prey, because they are protected and endangered species. Really, I've never said all unenforceable laws should be repealed, and in fact I've never mentioned the hunting ban being repealed. I haven't said anything about badger baiting, and for the record I'm certainly not a 'blood sport enthusiast'. My main two points have been the same throughout; that the bloodthirsty toff argument is silly, and that hunting with dogs is often less cruel than the existing, legal alternatives... which no one appears to be bothered about. Neither point has been addressed, yet people have still found enough to get upset over. My patience is waning, I admit.

twotonethomas wrote:
Sorry bailey I thought I was trying to have a sensible and informed debate with gd, but as you are back I will gladly attempt to have one with you.

What proof do you want me to take to the police or RSPCA?
I don't think that any of the things I listed were illegal pre-ban, other than the assaults on antis, so what good would going to the police have been?

twotonethomas wrote:
Gd I never once mentioned all areas of the country. The Press is a North Yorkshire paper and you are talking to someone who has lived all their life in N Yorkshire, so when a story is been reported about N Yorkshire hunts, which you admit to having no experience of and which I have spent over 20 years campaigning against, often out in the field, forgive me if I take no notice of your opinion of what goes on.
Of course most riders don't want to hang around whilst a fox is dug out, that's why most riders know nothing about terrier men. Sabs however will hang around and prevent dig outs. And of course hunts would sooner catch a fox above ground, which they attempt to guarantee by blocking up earths, something that you deny happens.

I did not say that pet/livestock attacks, trespass or road/rail accidents are reasons for opposing hunting, I said that such incidents and the arrogant attitude that follows such incidents aids the anti argument.

Snaring I would ban outright and I have never said anything to the contrary. Once again you ask for alternatives yet you ignore the answer I keep giving you, that shooting with the correct weapon and by skilled marksmen is the only humane way to kill a fox.

When you say that there is no appetite for repeal among the hunts, you show just how little you admit you know about hunting. Vote OK didn't send out foot soldiers at the last election and spend money trying to get pro repeal MPs elected just for the fun of it.

baileyuk wrote:
in the sticks, the statment you make that you seem as a joke about school bus breaking down, means where I come from you are slow,mentally/physic

ally handicapped, special needs ect,so forgive me if I dont laugh! i,m just a blood thirsty scum bag with low intelligence.

as for bombs ask York uni about the animal rights alerts they get? or the spot at sand hutton when it was CSL..

as for sheep wandering the road can,t deny that as many sheep wander the roads Hutton le Hole ect,, It is well documented of gates being left open by country walkers who are not aware of good practice.

I wonder in comparison how many farm stock die of neglect compared to family pets?

countrylove wrote:
wasting ur time lads with these muppets they r just happy to get a reply each time. they wont change there mind they will never question what they r told or look into things themselves. let them think no foxes r killed any more, let them think the ban has reduced cruelty now more foxes are bein snared and shot! and let the country ppl do what we will always do. gona take more than a possy of ignorant towny sabs to change our habits! THEY need to get over it. til they get coppers on horses riding at the front of hunts then hunts can do as they please. twotonnethomas ur just gonna have to cry about it or perhaps u and ur peta friends can send a few more poisonpen letters and parcel bombs. when was the last time a huntsman was convicted of arson or mailbombs?

oh and as for the other coments what does it proof? a brickie can change his name but not his spots!!!

countrylove wrote:
what a suprise the hypocrites are at it again. inthesticks complaining about ppl being patronising and yet cant help suggesting i need school im drunk etc etc cant face my arguments. oh no i cant spell get over it! how imature.
lets remember paul meof on other news saying traveler horses should be slaughterd and turned to glue go and read it. thats how much these ppl care about animals. proberly the same scum who throw marbles under horses and throw broken glass onto fields. they would rather foxes were shot and injured left to die slowly instead of being dead within seconds of meeting the hounds. these so called antis are so far up there own backside they cant acept anyone elses opinion even on things that have nothing to do with them. spreading lies. violent nasty people as we can see. lets have a look at the kind of words they used to get there point across bloodthirsty toff, mindless moron, pervert, inbred, bear baiter, c0ck-fighter, goon, t1t, drunk, tw@t, nob, incest, @rsehole and 70s dj. yeh nice people these with very good arguments I THINK NOT. anyway its been said HUNTING CARRIES ON. nothing any of you can do about it thank god. big news that townies dont run the countryside after all!!! go snivel about it. happy new year and happy hunting!!

countrylove wrote:
what a suprise the hypocrites are at it again. inthesticks complaining about ppl being patronising and yet cant help suggesting i need school im drunk etc etc cant face my arguments. oh no i cant spell get over it! how imature.
lets remember paul meof on other news saying traveler horses should be slaughterd and turned to glue go and read it. thats how much these ppl care about animals. proberly the same scum who throw marbles under horses and throw broken glass onto fields. they would rather foxes were shot and injured left to die slowly instead of being dead within seconds of meeting the hounds. these so called antis are so far up there own backside they cant acept anyone elses opinion even on things that have nothing to do with them. spreading lies. violent nasty people as we can see. lets have a look at the kind of words they used to get there point across bloodthirsty toff, mindless moron, pervert, inbred, bear baiter, c0ck-fighter, goon, t1t, drunk, tw@t, nob, incest, @rsehole and 70s dj. yeh nice people these with very good arguments I THINK NOT. anyway its been said HUNTING CARRIES ON. nothing any of you can do about it thank god. big news that townies dont run the countryside after all!!! go snivel about it. happy new year and happy hunting!!

(I have to say I have no idea what a purple monkey dishwasher is but I wish the poster would come back and enlighten me).

twotonethomas wrote:
Not at all embarrassed, as Gavin Grant said,you can't put a price on justice.
So if if the RSPCA have to do the same again, I would support them both vocally and financially.
No one seems to mention that it costs £5000 per year to join the Heythrop. But having that kind of money to spend just to kill foxes, doesn't put you above the law.

ceebeelee wrote:
Ha ha ha ha! There's nothing like reading the comments on this website to cheer yourself up when you're feeling down! Have none of you got anything better to do with your time?

countrylove wrote:
HAHA listen to ur self!
""The annual subscription of £5000 comes from the Heythrop's own site.""
""Of course you can't find anything on the Heythrop site"" more BS from the antis then what a suprise. dont pass on the propaganda that ur fed unless u make sure its true first. lmfao busted!

twotonethomas wrote:

ceebeelee wrote:
Ha ha ha ha! There's nothing like reading the comments on this website to cheer yourself up when you're feeling down! Have none of you got anything better to do with your time?

What's up has Jeremy Kyle finished and the latest episode of some soap yet to start?

twotonethomas wrote:
There were no wonders to Thatcher, those viking immigrants did ruin York and I thought this was a friendly debate.

Don't believe me? Come out sabbing monitoring and see how unfriendly they get when they think that you might stop them tasting blood.

bloodaxe wrote:

working class tory wrote:
The fox hunting ban was a politically motivated 'class-based' act forced through parliament by the last government.

It was Labour discriminating against a minority; something they are supposed to be much against.

As usual they were chasing the popular vote.

You're a victim of false-consciousness.

twotonethomas wrote:
Do we have someone who can translate drunken inbred bumpkin into English please?