Repeal the Hunting (Ban) Act

The Act banning hunting originated out of gross prejudice, as several of the authors have subsequently admitted ("pay-back for the miners", "hate the toffs", "it's all about class" etc).

If hunting were the preserve of immigrants, say, Labour would have flocked to its defence.

This a law which has eroded the liberty of those who hunt, which a Government Inquiry confirmed had no purpose and which has seen several ordinary, law abiding citizens having to fight criminal charges (invariably successfully).

The police clearly have little interest in trying to enforce it as: it enjoys very little local support in areas primarily affected, the potential miscreants are the most law-abiding element in the locale and it is virtually impossible to enforce.

The Hunting Act should be among the first laws on any list for repeal.

Why is this idea important?

The Act banning hunting originated out of gross prejudice, as several of the authors have subsequently admitted ("pay-back for the miners", "hate the toffs", "it's all about class" etc).

If hunting were the preserve of immigrants, say, Labour would have flocked to its defence.

This a law which has eroded the liberty of those who hunt, which a Government Inquiry confirmed had no purpose and which has seen several ordinary, law abiding citizens having to fight criminal charges (invariably successfully).

The police clearly have little interest in trying to enforce it as: it enjoys very little local support in areas primarily affected, the potential miscreants are the most law-abiding element in the locale and it is virtually impossible to enforce.

The Hunting Act should be among the first laws on any list for repeal.

The Ban on Hunting was based on Prejudice not Fact

The ban on hunting came about because of ignorance and prejudice.  The anti faction had built up a tissue of half-facts and lies over many years and convinced many of the public, most of whom had never experienced a hunt.  Sterotypes of toffs – true maybe for the minority of rich hunts but nowhere near the truth for the majority of small local hunts – and the magnification of some unfortunate incidents, has created a very misleading view of hunting.  The hunting fraternity had not had the foresight to launch their own PR campaign until it was too late. Many of the people who hunt keep animals themselves, and to all of the people I have ever met out hunting, cruelty to animals would be abhorent.  It is ridiculous that prejudice has been allowed to over-ride the facts.  Please repeal this unfair law.

Why is this idea important?

The ban on hunting came about because of ignorance and prejudice.  The anti faction had built up a tissue of half-facts and lies over many years and convinced many of the public, most of whom had never experienced a hunt.  Sterotypes of toffs – true maybe for the minority of rich hunts but nowhere near the truth for the majority of small local hunts – and the magnification of some unfortunate incidents, has created a very misleading view of hunting.  The hunting fraternity had not had the foresight to launch their own PR campaign until it was too late. Many of the people who hunt keep animals themselves, and to all of the people I have ever met out hunting, cruelty to animals would be abhorent.  It is ridiculous that prejudice has been allowed to over-ride the facts.  Please repeal this unfair law.

Harsher penalties for cruelty to animals

There is a proven scientific correlation between those people who are cruel to animals and torture them, who elevate that level of violence to the people around them.

For example, swans are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and illegally taking, injuring or killing them, or interfering with their nests or eggs carries a maximum penalty of six months in prison and/or a £5,000 fine.

It's very rarely that the fine is imposed, as the perpetrators of the crime are unable to make such payments.  The prison sentance is light-touch, given the number of times that people get caught doing to the crime vs. the number of times they are suspected of doing a similar animal-related crime.  Given the escalation on to more violent crimes, a heavier sentance is required.

The RSPCA I believe also witness an increase in the level of violence from some members of society who are repeat offenders.

Why is this idea important?

There is a proven scientific correlation between those people who are cruel to animals and torture them, who elevate that level of violence to the people around them.

For example, swans are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and illegally taking, injuring or killing them, or interfering with their nests or eggs carries a maximum penalty of six months in prison and/or a £5,000 fine.

It's very rarely that the fine is imposed, as the perpetrators of the crime are unable to make such payments.  The prison sentance is light-touch, given the number of times that people get caught doing to the crime vs. the number of times they are suspected of doing a similar animal-related crime.  Given the escalation on to more violent crimes, a heavier sentance is required.

The RSPCA I believe also witness an increase in the level of violence from some members of society who are repeat offenders.

Abolish the fox hunting ban

Country people should continue to have the centuries old right to hunt.

A marvellous spectacle – part of our tradition – good tourist attraction – keeps vermin (foxes) down.

Why is this idea important?

Country people should continue to have the centuries old right to hunt.

A marvellous spectacle – part of our tradition – good tourist attraction – keeps vermin (foxes) down.

Repeal of the hunting Act 2004

To repeal the hunting act, a billing that was written to not to protect wildlife or help with conservation, but a bill that was written to attack what it saw as a society and a way of life

Why is this idea important?

To repeal the hunting act, a billing that was written to not to protect wildlife or help with conservation, but a bill that was written to attack what it saw as a society and a way of life

Repeal the Act Banning Hunting With Dogs

This Act has proved to be ill conceived and impossible to interpret. It is consuming Police and Court time unnecessarily, and creating more hostility than before the Act.

The Act was inmposed despite evidence provided by the body enquiring into it, and appears to be simply a misguided piece of class warfare.

Why is this idea important?

This Act has proved to be ill conceived and impossible to interpret. It is consuming Police and Court time unnecessarily, and creating more hostility than before the Act.

The Act was inmposed despite evidence provided by the body enquiring into it, and appears to be simply a misguided piece of class warfare.

Curb excessive RSPCA powers; rationalise animal protection

Repeal the Act that gave RSPCA its current powers to prosecute: it is a pressure group not a government enforcement agency. Reconsider requirements for domestic pet owners.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the Act that gave RSPCA its current powers to prosecute: it is a pressure group not a government enforcement agency. Reconsider requirements for domestic pet owners.

Repeal of the Hunting Act

The Act introduced to ban hunting with dogs should be repealed. It is a very poor piece of legislation which is difficult to enforce, difficult to police and, most importantly, it has done nothing to improve animal welfare – in fact,  in my experience, the reverse is true.

Why is this idea important?

The Act introduced to ban hunting with dogs should be repealed. It is a very poor piece of legislation which is difficult to enforce, difficult to police and, most importantly, it has done nothing to improve animal welfare – in fact,  in my experience, the reverse is true.

London Pigsty

'If you live in London you aren't allowed to keep a pigsty in front of your home'

This is a discrace forcing pigs to live in back gardens; or worse, on the streets.

Why is it that a fellow countryman in Blackpool can keep his or her pig any where on his or her property he or she likes and yet I am discrimanated against because I live in London?

Not good enough….

Why is this idea important?

'If you live in London you aren't allowed to keep a pigsty in front of your home'

This is a discrace forcing pigs to live in back gardens; or worse, on the streets.

Why is it that a fellow countryman in Blackpool can keep his or her pig any where on his or her property he or she likes and yet I am discrimanated against because I live in London?

Not good enough….

Repeal the Hunting ban

What was the point of commisioning the Burns Inquiry on hunting with dogs and then not bother to take any notice of what it said.

That is what the Labour party did which proved the ban had NOTHING to do with animal welfare.

Why is this idea important?

What was the point of commisioning the Burns Inquiry on hunting with dogs and then not bother to take any notice of what it said.

That is what the Labour party did which proved the ban had NOTHING to do with animal welfare.

The importance of the repeal of the Hunting Act 2004

My idea is that the Hunting Act 2004 must be repealed at the earliest opportunity.  There are many reasons to say this, but I feel particularly strongly about the following:-

  1. It is bad law and as such should not be allowed to continue in a free society
  2. There is no evidence that hunting with dogs is cruel
  3. At the end of the process the previous administration admitted that it had nothing to do with animal welfare but everything to do with class
  4. Hundreds of hours of parliamentary debate were taken over this subject but only tens of hours about the war in Iraq which made it a wicked, scandalous waste of time and money
  5. Minorities must be protected by law not attacked.
  6. The people who follow hunts should not be subjected to the unwanted attentions of so called hunt monitors.
  7. The police should not have their time wasted trying to uphold a law that is neither easy to interpret nor simple to enforce.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

My idea is that the Hunting Act 2004 must be repealed at the earliest opportunity.  There are many reasons to say this, but I feel particularly strongly about the following:-

  1. It is bad law and as such should not be allowed to continue in a free society
  2. There is no evidence that hunting with dogs is cruel
  3. At the end of the process the previous administration admitted that it had nothing to do with animal welfare but everything to do with class
  4. Hundreds of hours of parliamentary debate were taken over this subject but only tens of hours about the war in Iraq which made it a wicked, scandalous waste of time and money
  5. Minorities must be protected by law not attacked.
  6. The people who follow hunts should not be subjected to the unwanted attentions of so called hunt monitors.
  7. The police should not have their time wasted trying to uphold a law that is neither easy to interpret nor simple to enforce.

 

 

Repeal of the Hunting Act

Please give consideration to repealing the Hunting Act.  It is a badly drafted piece of legislation and it is based on  misconceptions and prejudice. 

I believe hunting with hounds is the best way to manage the fox population.  The ban on fox hunting has not improved the welfare of any fox – farmers now just use alternative means of controlling the population – shooting, snaring and poisoning.  None of these methods are kinder than hunting. 

Hunting will despatch an old or ill fox more effectively than any alternative method.  Shooting is arguably as effective but only if it is a straight clean kill, which is not always guaranteed. 

Fox hunting provides employment for many country people and a social network of support for farmers and many isolated country folk.

People who hunt have a deep love and respect for the countryside.  The independent Burns report stated that fox hunting was no more cruel than any other method of control and far less cruel than some alternative methods.  I believe two former members of the league against cruel sports resigned after extensive research changed their opinions on hunting.

The ban on hunting has served no-one.  Please can it be repealed. 

Why is this idea important?

Please give consideration to repealing the Hunting Act.  It is a badly drafted piece of legislation and it is based on  misconceptions and prejudice. 

I believe hunting with hounds is the best way to manage the fox population.  The ban on fox hunting has not improved the welfare of any fox – farmers now just use alternative means of controlling the population – shooting, snaring and poisoning.  None of these methods are kinder than hunting. 

Hunting will despatch an old or ill fox more effectively than any alternative method.  Shooting is arguably as effective but only if it is a straight clean kill, which is not always guaranteed. 

Fox hunting provides employment for many country people and a social network of support for farmers and many isolated country folk.

People who hunt have a deep love and respect for the countryside.  The independent Burns report stated that fox hunting was no more cruel than any other method of control and far less cruel than some alternative methods.  I believe two former members of the league against cruel sports resigned after extensive research changed their opinions on hunting.

The ban on hunting has served no-one.  Please can it be repealed. 

No repeal of hunting act

This web site is a covert way for the Countryside Alliance and the pro hunt lobby (and shamefully most Tory MPs are pro hunt) to get the Hunting Act repealed.  How are those who are against this to have a voice?  This web site does not give people a right to reply regarding suggestions to repeal laws thus giving blood sport ethusiasts a gift!!   Please remember 76% of the public remain AGAINST blood sports and no amout of trying to 'tidy up' the reality of blood sports by allowing hunting in some 'regulated' form.will wash.  It is immoral, unethical and  the ban needs to REMAIN and be strengethend.  Nick Clegg should listen to the majority not a minority of sadistic people!!

Why is this idea important?

This web site is a covert way for the Countryside Alliance and the pro hunt lobby (and shamefully most Tory MPs are pro hunt) to get the Hunting Act repealed.  How are those who are against this to have a voice?  This web site does not give people a right to reply regarding suggestions to repeal laws thus giving blood sport ethusiasts a gift!!   Please remember 76% of the public remain AGAINST blood sports and no amout of trying to 'tidy up' the reality of blood sports by allowing hunting in some 'regulated' form.will wash.  It is immoral, unethical and  the ban needs to REMAIN and be strengethend.  Nick Clegg should listen to the majority not a minority of sadistic people!!

A repeal of the hunting Act

The hunting Act should be repeled as it has proved to be unworkable, illiberel and a waste of Police time. It has given animal rights activists credence with the police as they aasume the position of monitors thinking that they are an extension of the Law, when they have publicly ststed that if tghere is a repeal they will revert to "sabbing" full time.

Let us hope that if and when the time comes for repeal, that this Government will not waste the hours on it that the former administration did and also take heed of the reports submitted on hunting especially that of Lord Burns.

Why is this idea important?

The hunting Act should be repeled as it has proved to be unworkable, illiberel and a waste of Police time. It has given animal rights activists credence with the police as they aasume the position of monitors thinking that they are an extension of the Law, when they have publicly ststed that if tghere is a repeal they will revert to "sabbing" full time.

Let us hope that if and when the time comes for repeal, that this Government will not waste the hours on it that the former administration did and also take heed of the reports submitted on hunting especially that of Lord Burns.

Ban the use of animals in circuses

  The circus is no place for animals
 

Circus animals are subjected to a routine of frequent and extended transport for many months of the year, with regular loading and unloading, training and performance, and housing in small, restricted enclosures. These factors are likely to be stressful to the animals and have significant negative impacts on their welfare. Such conditions would not be allowed even in zoos.

Numerous public polls indicate that around 80% of those members of the UK public questioned thought that the use of wild animals in circuses was not acceptable (2005 MORI poll (Animal Defenders International),  2006 ICM Omnibus poll (Born Free Foundation), 2010 Public Consultation (DEFRA).

Several countries, including Austria, Croatia, Costa Rica, Bolivia, Israel and Singapore, have banned the use of wild animals in circuses.  Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Portugal, India and Sweden have banned the use of certain wild animals in circuses. Since 1925, animals in circuses were legislated under the Performing Animals Act, which was predominantly concerned with licensing and public health issues. The Animal Welfare Act in England and Wales, and the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act, were an opportunity for the welfare of circus animals to be readdressed.

Why is this idea important?

  The circus is no place for animals
 

Circus animals are subjected to a routine of frequent and extended transport for many months of the year, with regular loading and unloading, training and performance, and housing in small, restricted enclosures. These factors are likely to be stressful to the animals and have significant negative impacts on their welfare. Such conditions would not be allowed even in zoos.

Numerous public polls indicate that around 80% of those members of the UK public questioned thought that the use of wild animals in circuses was not acceptable (2005 MORI poll (Animal Defenders International),  2006 ICM Omnibus poll (Born Free Foundation), 2010 Public Consultation (DEFRA).

Several countries, including Austria, Croatia, Costa Rica, Bolivia, Israel and Singapore, have banned the use of wild animals in circuses.  Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Portugal, India and Sweden have banned the use of certain wild animals in circuses. Since 1925, animals in circuses were legislated under the Performing Animals Act, which was predominantly concerned with licensing and public health issues. The Animal Welfare Act in England and Wales, and the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act, were an opportunity for the welfare of circus animals to be readdressed.

hunting act

lift the ban on hunting with dogs, it is unjust, it has'nt saved any foxes, it has caused the death of more foxes[ night shooting]it is a way to get at the upper classes, when there are more working class people take part, it is a past time for many and a way of life for many more that a few with a louder voice objected too

Why is this idea important?

lift the ban on hunting with dogs, it is unjust, it has'nt saved any foxes, it has caused the death of more foxes[ night shooting]it is a way to get at the upper classes, when there are more working class people take part, it is a past time for many and a way of life for many more that a few with a louder voice objected too