Please do NOT repeal fox hunting law!

I beg you please, NOT to repeal the law on fox hunting, and the other hunting laws that it also covers eg. hare coursing etc.  

I did not agree with many things that Labour did, as a strong Conservative supporter, but on the grounds of cruelty (as described by RSPCA & IFAW, both of which I support) believe this was one good thing they did.  

There are no grounds on which people should hunt for sport, in this day and age.  It is a cruel practice.  There are better ways to manage animal populations.  

Thank you.

Why is this idea important?

I beg you please, NOT to repeal the law on fox hunting, and the other hunting laws that it also covers eg. hare coursing etc.  

I did not agree with many things that Labour did, as a strong Conservative supporter, but on the grounds of cruelty (as described by RSPCA & IFAW, both of which I support) believe this was one good thing they did.  

There are no grounds on which people should hunt for sport, in this day and age.  It is a cruel practice.  There are better ways to manage animal populations.  

Thank you.

Stop wasting parliaments time trying to repeal animal cruelty laws

No one on here is saying that livestock should be treated badly, dog fighting laws should be repealed, the RSPCA should be abolished. So in principal we agree that part of being a human is to be compassionate to 'lesser creatures' as I keep seeing animals referred too. 

Yet we are suggesting that we take up constitutional time debating other ways of being cruel to animals as if it is some assault on our civil liberties.

If we agree that we should be humane – keep livestock in good conditions, not tortures our pets, not neglect our animals and not mistreat the family budgerigar then it is inconsistent to say that certain animals and practices are civil liberty issues.

They aren't.  

As a society we have already accepted  humane treatment for animals as a standard – if it isn't humane you can't do it – simple really!  

 

 

Why is this idea important?

No one on here is saying that livestock should be treated badly, dog fighting laws should be repealed, the RSPCA should be abolished. So in principal we agree that part of being a human is to be compassionate to 'lesser creatures' as I keep seeing animals referred too. 

Yet we are suggesting that we take up constitutional time debating other ways of being cruel to animals as if it is some assault on our civil liberties.

If we agree that we should be humane – keep livestock in good conditions, not tortures our pets, not neglect our animals and not mistreat the family budgerigar then it is inconsistent to say that certain animals and practices are civil liberty issues.

They aren't.  

As a society we have already accepted  humane treatment for animals as a standard – if it isn't humane you can't do it – simple really!  

 

 

Hunting with dogs and other ‘animal rights’ measures

The lawmakers should accept that humans are the pinnacle of the planet. We have rights because we have responsibilities, animals have neither. That is why all laws that are put in place for the benefit of animals should be scrapped. If the hunter wants to hunt he should, if the gypsy wants to engage in cock fighting he should and if the farmer wants to keep chickens in a battery cage he should. In Korea they skin cats and dogs alive and in China they farm bears to extract their bile. These people are truly free.

Why is this idea important?

The lawmakers should accept that humans are the pinnacle of the planet. We have rights because we have responsibilities, animals have neither. That is why all laws that are put in place for the benefit of animals should be scrapped. If the hunter wants to hunt he should, if the gypsy wants to engage in cock fighting he should and if the farmer wants to keep chickens in a battery cage he should. In Korea they skin cats and dogs alive and in China they farm bears to extract their bile. These people are truly free.

Knife laws are stupid and infringe on fishermen and hunters.

Yes i want to carry a hunting knife when i go hunting illegal or not yet if i carry a fixed blade or locking knife over 3 inches out of the house i am imediatelly criminalised i want these laws scrapped.

Why is this idea important?

Yes i want to carry a hunting knife when i go hunting illegal or not yet if i carry a fixed blade or locking knife over 3 inches out of the house i am imediatelly criminalised i want these laws scrapped.

Remove all the gun laws allow hunting and have the right to bear arms

Hunters who live in cities actually like to hunt but there are problems getting permission to shoot on land therefore lots of hunters in wales/england ignore the gun laws and roam around the countryside with guns because their civil freedoms are being restricted by the law.

Why is this idea important?

Hunters who live in cities actually like to hunt but there are problems getting permission to shoot on land therefore lots of hunters in wales/england ignore the gun laws and roam around the countryside with guns because their civil freedoms are being restricted by the law.

Repeal of the hunting ban

As a simple working class city person with very little spare money to purchase a horse and all the other necessary items required to go hunting, even if I wished to which I don't, but a strong belief in my right to spend my money in any way that  I like within reason and having read the comments posted here which  I have been persuaded by I can only say to all those that want to dictate to others how they spend their own hard earned money that they would do more good in the cities trying to persuade all those young thugs to give up their knives, guns etc and allow their neighbours to live in peace & not be afraid to go out of their homes without fear instead of chasing around the countryside hiding behind bushes ,trees etc trying to get photographs of people trying to do a job that is necessary to keep the balance of nature. Finally I would add that out of interest I have been to a few meets to see what happens, have been made very welcome and have yet to meet these 'toffs' some of you refer to. In fact I am left wondering if any of you that do all the shouting have ever taken the trouble to go to a 'meet' or just talk out of ignorance. IanD.

Why is this idea important?

As a simple working class city person with very little spare money to purchase a horse and all the other necessary items required to go hunting, even if I wished to which I don't, but a strong belief in my right to spend my money in any way that  I like within reason and having read the comments posted here which  I have been persuaded by I can only say to all those that want to dictate to others how they spend their own hard earned money that they would do more good in the cities trying to persuade all those young thugs to give up their knives, guns etc and allow their neighbours to live in peace & not be afraid to go out of their homes without fear instead of chasing around the countryside hiding behind bushes ,trees etc trying to get photographs of people trying to do a job that is necessary to keep the balance of nature. Finally I would add that out of interest I have been to a few meets to see what happens, have been made very welcome and have yet to meet these 'toffs' some of you refer to. In fact I am left wondering if any of you that do all the shouting have ever taken the trouble to go to a 'meet' or just talk out of ignorance. IanD.

Repeal the banning of hunting

The Hunting Act came into force on 18 February 2005 after an eight year battle that absorbed over 700 hours of Parliamentary time. The prejudice, misuse of science and abuse of parlimentary process that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of criticism and regret from politicians of all parties, the media and the public.

The Hunting Act is unique in that its effect are entirely negative. It diminishes respect for Parliament; it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts police attention from real crime; it brings no benefit to the environment; it is a blatant example of political prejudiice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to 'protect.'

It must be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

The Hunting Act came into force on 18 February 2005 after an eight year battle that absorbed over 700 hours of Parliamentary time. The prejudice, misuse of science and abuse of parlimentary process that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of criticism and regret from politicians of all parties, the media and the public.

The Hunting Act is unique in that its effect are entirely negative. It diminishes respect for Parliament; it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts police attention from real crime; it brings no benefit to the environment; it is a blatant example of political prejudiice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to 'protect.'

It must be repealed.

Repeal of the Hunting Act 2004

The Hunting Act came into force on 18 February 2005 after an eight year battle that absorbed over 700 hours of Parliamentary time. The prejudice, misuse of science and abuse of parlimentary process that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of criticism and regret from politicians of all parties, the media and the public.

The Hunting Act is unique in that its effect are entirely negative. It diminishes respect for Parliament; it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts police attention from real crime; it brings no benefit to the environment; it is a blatant example of political prejudiice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to 'protect.'

It must be repealed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ary time. The predudjice,misuse of science and abuse of parliamentary progress that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of critism and regret from polititions of all parties, the media and the public.

The hunting act is unique in that its effects are entirely negative. It deminishes respect for Parliament:it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts policeattention from real crime;it brings no bebefit to the environment; it is a blatentexample of political preducice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to protect.

Why is this idea important?

The Hunting Act came into force on 18 February 2005 after an eight year battle that absorbed over 700 hours of Parliamentary time. The prejudice, misuse of science and abuse of parlimentary process that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of criticism and regret from politicians of all parties, the media and the public.

The Hunting Act is unique in that its effect are entirely negative. It diminishes respect for Parliament; it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts police attention from real crime; it brings no benefit to the environment; it is a blatant example of political prejudiice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to 'protect.'

It must be repealed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ary time. The predudjice,misuse of science and abuse of parliamentary progress that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of critism and regret from polititions of all parties, the media and the public.

The hunting act is unique in that its effects are entirely negative. It deminishes respect for Parliament:it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts policeattention from real crime;it brings no bebefit to the environment; it is a blatentexample of political preducice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to protect.

Repeal of the Hunting Act 2004

The Hunting Act came into force on 18 February 2005 after an eight year battle that absorbed over 700 hours of Parliamentary time. The prejudice, misuse of science and abuse of parlimentary process that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of criticism and regret from politicians of all parties, the media and the public.

The Hunting Act is unique in that its effect are entirely negative. It diminishes respect for Parliament; it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts police attention from real crime; it brings no benefit to the environment; it is a blatant example of political prejudiice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to 'protect.'

It must be repealed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ary time. The predudjice,misuse of science and abuse of parliamentary progress that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of critism and regret from polititions of all parties, the media and the public.

The hunting act is unique in that its effects are entirely negative. It deminishes respect for Parliament:it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts policeattention from real crime;it brings no bebefit to the environment; it is a blatentexample of political preducice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to protect.

Why is this idea important?

The Hunting Act came into force on 18 February 2005 after an eight year battle that absorbed over 700 hours of Parliamentary time. The prejudice, misuse of science and abuse of parlimentary process that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of criticism and regret from politicians of all parties, the media and the public.

The Hunting Act is unique in that its effect are entirely negative. It diminishes respect for Parliament; it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts police attention from real crime; it brings no benefit to the environment; it is a blatant example of political prejudiice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to 'protect.'

It must be repealed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ary time. The predudjice,misuse of science and abuse of parliamentary progress that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of critism and regret from polititions of all parties, the media and the public.

The hunting act is unique in that its effects are entirely negative. It deminishes respect for Parliament:it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts policeattention from real crime;it brings no bebefit to the environment; it is a blatentexample of political preducice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to protect.

Repeal of the Hunting Act 2004

The Hunting Act came into force on 18 February 2005 after an eight year battle that absorbed over 700 hours of Parliamentary time. The prejudice, misuse of science and abuse of parlimentary process that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of criticism and regret from politicians of all parties, the media and the public.

The Hunting Act is unique in that its effect are entirely negative. It diminishes respect for Parliament; it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts police attention from real crime; it brings no benefit to the environment; it is a blatant example of political prejudiice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to 'protect.'

It must be repealed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ary time. The predudjice,misuse of science and abuse of parliamentary progress that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of critism and regret from polititions of all parties, the media and the public.

The hunting act is unique in that its effects are entirely negative. It deminishes respect for Parliament:it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts policeattention from real crime;it brings no bebefit to the environment; it is a blatentexample of political preducice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to protect.

Why is this idea important?

The Hunting Act came into force on 18 February 2005 after an eight year battle that absorbed over 700 hours of Parliamentary time. The prejudice, misuse of science and abuse of parlimentary process that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of criticism and regret from politicians of all parties, the media and the public.

The Hunting Act is unique in that its effect are entirely negative. It diminishes respect for Parliament; it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts police attention from real crime; it brings no benefit to the environment; it is a blatant example of political prejudiice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to 'protect.'

It must be repealed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ary time. The predudjice,misuse of science and abuse of parliamentary progress that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of critism and regret from polititions of all parties, the media and the public.

The hunting act is unique in that its effects are entirely negative. It deminishes respect for Parliament:it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts policeattention from real crime;it brings no bebefit to the environment; it is a blatentexample of political preducice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to protect.

End the ban on hunting with dogs

The hunted fox has a chance to escape. With the law as it is a bullet is the end. Foxes are vermin. Vermin like foxes have to be eradicated as they take animals higher up the food chain (lambs, piglets, chickens etc) which farmers are trying to produce for our consumption. If we hunted rats would people care? As recently demonstrated in Hackney with the attack on the twin girls by a fox, they are NOT like fluffy pet dogs but vicious predators who's numbers need to be controlled. Hunting with dogs is a tried, tested and succesful method of control.

Why is this idea important?

The hunted fox has a chance to escape. With the law as it is a bullet is the end. Foxes are vermin. Vermin like foxes have to be eradicated as they take animals higher up the food chain (lambs, piglets, chickens etc) which farmers are trying to produce for our consumption. If we hunted rats would people care? As recently demonstrated in Hackney with the attack on the twin girls by a fox, they are NOT like fluffy pet dogs but vicious predators who's numbers need to be controlled. Hunting with dogs is a tried, tested and succesful method of control.

Repeal of the Fur Farm Act

Repeal of the Fur Farming in the UK Act on the grounds:
1. It set a dangerous precedent in UK Law:
a Law was passed in ‘the interests of public morality’ – no legal precedent for such rubbish
2. It sends out a bad public message about a completely legitimate, ethical, Conservation friendly material. Fur is an infinitely renewable resource. The alternatives; made from petro chemicals are evidently as we see in the Gulf of Mexico are not eco friendly and are finite.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal of the Fur Farming in the UK Act on the grounds:
1. It set a dangerous precedent in UK Law:
a Law was passed in ‘the interests of public morality’ – no legal precedent for such rubbish
2. It sends out a bad public message about a completely legitimate, ethical, Conservation friendly material. Fur is an infinitely renewable resource. The alternatives; made from petro chemicals are evidently as we see in the Gulf of Mexico are not eco friendly and are finite.

repeal the hunting law

This law  is and has been wasting valuable police time and money. It is a complete waste when so many more important issues need to be dealt with and justify time and money spent on them.

Why is this idea important?

This law  is and has been wasting valuable police time and money. It is a complete waste when so many more important issues need to be dealt with and justify time and money spent on them.

The Hunting Act

Anyone who has witnessed wildlife that has been persecuted since the ban on hunting with dogs will want a repeal of this wildlife unfriendly act. The amount of animals which are now persecuted with a snare, poison and poor shooting practices is dreadful. Hunting with dogs is the most natural method to control vermin. Those people who wish to hunt should do so without interference from those who do not understand the countryside and its methods. Laws which have eroded civil liberties are wrong.

Why is this idea important?

Anyone who has witnessed wildlife that has been persecuted since the ban on hunting with dogs will want a repeal of this wildlife unfriendly act. The amount of animals which are now persecuted with a snare, poison and poor shooting practices is dreadful. Hunting with dogs is the most natural method to control vermin. Those people who wish to hunt should do so without interference from those who do not understand the countryside and its methods. Laws which have eroded civil liberties are wrong.

Repeal Hunting Law, Repeal 1997 Handgun ban

Hunting Law has proved unworkable and is completely biased in its intent. Has not achieved its aim of preventing "cruelty" to animals.

Handgun ban was a knee-jerk reaction to an unfortunate and preventable incident.  Its intent to take legally held firearms from law-abiding shooting sportspersons has achieved only to dramatically increase the number of illegal firearms in circulation and rising crime levels associated with their use. The ban has served only to prevent the legitimate shooting public from their "civil liberty" to participate in their chosen sport.

Why is this idea important?

Hunting Law has proved unworkable and is completely biased in its intent. Has not achieved its aim of preventing "cruelty" to animals.

Handgun ban was a knee-jerk reaction to an unfortunate and preventable incident.  Its intent to take legally held firearms from law-abiding shooting sportspersons has achieved only to dramatically increase the number of illegal firearms in circulation and rising crime levels associated with their use. The ban has served only to prevent the legitimate shooting public from their "civil liberty" to participate in their chosen sport.