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.

Keep and reinforce the hunt-ban

Hunters have built artifical fox-earths all over the country so that there`s a guaranteed supply of foxes to kill. That sweeps away the pest-control excuse and just leaves cruelty.

 

Despite the law hunting goes on much as before, and monitors who watch for illegalities are physically attacked. The hunters know they can get away with it because the police are never present. We need to close loopholes and command the police to enforce theAct.

Why is this idea important?

Hunters have built artifical fox-earths all over the country so that there`s a guaranteed supply of foxes to kill. That sweeps away the pest-control excuse and just leaves cruelty.

 

Despite the law hunting goes on much as before, and monitors who watch for illegalities are physically attacked. The hunters know they can get away with it because the police are never present. We need to close loopholes and command the police to enforce theAct.

Give Farmers Precedence Over Foxes

Repeal or change the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002
and the Hunting Act 2004.

Having lost 20 hens to foxes sofar this year (out of a small group producing 3 to 10 eggs per day), I met a fox chasing a cloud of flapping squaking hens in my garden last Sunday.

I had my dogs with me, but under current legislation am not allowed to let them “hunt” the fox.

What lunacy! The fox vanished into cover where there is no possibility of shooting, and has been back since.

The hens are not happy if they are shut in. I feel my rights to keep free range hens should take precedence over the rights granted to foxes by the previous government.

Please repeal or change this misguided legislation and untie my hands.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal or change the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002
and the Hunting Act 2004.

Having lost 20 hens to foxes sofar this year (out of a small group producing 3 to 10 eggs per day), I met a fox chasing a cloud of flapping squaking hens in my garden last Sunday.

I had my dogs with me, but under current legislation am not allowed to let them “hunt” the fox.

What lunacy! The fox vanished into cover where there is no possibility of shooting, and has been back since.

The hens are not happy if they are shut in. I feel my rights to keep free range hens should take precedence over the rights granted to foxes by the previous government.

Please repeal or change this misguided legislation and untie my hands.

Repeal the Hunting Act

The Hunting Act was aimed at Human Beings not animal welfare. Allowing two hounds to flush vermin to guns shows the prejudice in the Act. Why two hounds not twenty? Because Human Beings might must be stopped from the sport of hunting regardless of animal welfare.

Recently  a member of the public called the police because a pack of mink-hounds were being exercised on a river entirely legally (with landowner permission) . The accusation was made, without observation or any factual evidence, that the hounds were hunting otter. The complainant obviously did not know that it was otterhound packs themselves that were behind the banning of otter-hunting in 1977 because of a disastrous decline in numbers as a result of environmental pollution.

But what an enormous waste of a police-officer's time and and petrol. Surely our police have better things to do? Yet because of the Act they have to respond to a complainant's call however fatuous.

Why is this idea important?

The Hunting Act was aimed at Human Beings not animal welfare. Allowing two hounds to flush vermin to guns shows the prejudice in the Act. Why two hounds not twenty? Because Human Beings might must be stopped from the sport of hunting regardless of animal welfare.

Recently  a member of the public called the police because a pack of mink-hounds were being exercised on a river entirely legally (with landowner permission) . The accusation was made, without observation or any factual evidence, that the hounds were hunting otter. The complainant obviously did not know that it was otterhound packs themselves that were behind the banning of otter-hunting in 1977 because of a disastrous decline in numbers as a result of environmental pollution.

But what an enormous waste of a police-officer's time and and petrol. Surely our police have better things to do? Yet because of the Act they have to respond to a complainant's call however fatuous.

Repeal the Fox Hunting Ban – hunting with dogs

The repeal of the ban on fox hunting with hounds I believe to be important. It goes against centuries of traditional methods of pest control and is enormously difficult to police properly too.

Why is this idea important?

The repeal of the ban on fox hunting with hounds I believe to be important. It goes against centuries of traditional methods of pest control and is enormously difficult to police properly too.

Legalise Cannabis

The dutch system would work fine in the UK apart from that there the cannabis is still supplyed illegally. This is why I sugest full legalisation as it would remove the criminal element and create a fully taxable market.

 

Note/

Cannabis is less harmfull than alcohol and tobacco (two bigest killers in the uk, bigger than ALL illegal drugs combined) with 0 deaths in all its hystory of use. It has no overdose limit.

Also the link betwenn cannabis and schizophrenia is non existant. As cannabis use has rapidly increased, the cases of schizophreniahave remain the same (3%-4% of the population).

Why is this idea important?

The dutch system would work fine in the UK apart from that there the cannabis is still supplyed illegally. This is why I sugest full legalisation as it would remove the criminal element and create a fully taxable market.

 

Note/

Cannabis is less harmfull than alcohol and tobacco (two bigest killers in the uk, bigger than ALL illegal drugs combined) with 0 deaths in all its hystory of use. It has no overdose limit.

Also the link betwenn cannabis and schizophrenia is non existant. As cannabis use has rapidly increased, the cases of schizophreniahave remain the same (3%-4% of the population).

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 Hunting Act

Ideally, repeal the Hunting Act outright, and trust members of hunts and their supporting organisations to behave responsibly and humanely towards the animals they hunt.

If this is deemed too controversial, make hunting legal with certain restrictions, though I should add that these would probably be as impossible to enforce as the Hunting Act itself, and the majority of hunts and their members would be acting within them anyway.

Why is this idea important?

Ideally, repeal the Hunting Act outright, and trust members of hunts and their supporting organisations to behave responsibly and humanely towards the animals they hunt.

If this is deemed too controversial, make hunting legal with certain restrictions, though I should add that these would probably be as impossible to enforce as the Hunting Act itself, and the majority of hunts and their members would be acting within them anyway.

Scrap “Gay Rights”

Ah – that got your attention!

If you think you're going to read some sort of homophobic commentary here, you're completely wrong – nothing could be further from the truth! Let me explain….

Peter Tatchell is often described in the press as a prominent "gay rights campaigner." In fact, this is rather inaccurate. He sees himself more as a "human rights campaigner."

A "human rights campaigner" believes in everyone having the same basic rights regardless of their race, sex, sexual persuasion, religion or anything else. That's different from having specially-targeted laws for particular sections of society, such as gay people.

We have laws protecting people against prejudice on grounds of sex, race, religion, disability and sexual preference – but there are a million other forms of prejudice and we can't have laws for each of them individually!

Plus – it is discriminatory to have laws against some forms of prejudice, but not against others. Why should some people be protected against prejudice, but others not?

Why not just describe the "human rights" that apply to everyone equally?

Why is this idea important?

Ah – that got your attention!

If you think you're going to read some sort of homophobic commentary here, you're completely wrong – nothing could be further from the truth! Let me explain….

Peter Tatchell is often described in the press as a prominent "gay rights campaigner." In fact, this is rather inaccurate. He sees himself more as a "human rights campaigner."

A "human rights campaigner" believes in everyone having the same basic rights regardless of their race, sex, sexual persuasion, religion or anything else. That's different from having specially-targeted laws for particular sections of society, such as gay people.

We have laws protecting people against prejudice on grounds of sex, race, religion, disability and sexual preference – but there are a million other forms of prejudice and we can't have laws for each of them individually!

Plus – it is discriminatory to have laws against some forms of prejudice, but not against others. Why should some people be protected against prejudice, but others not?

Why not just describe the "human rights" that apply to everyone equally?

Pro or Anti Cannabis Leagalisation, All Should Watch, ESPECIALLY IF YOU’RE A POLITICIAN

I'm putting this link here as it represents an informed opinion on the subject and details at length the history of prohibition, it's effects economically and in society, it's medicinal values and other extremely informative matters relating to the question, "should we legalise cannabis?".

If you are anti legalisation, then this video will inform you of the other side of the coin while still respecting your opinions and whether you agree with the video or not, you'll end up better qualified to speak about the subject.

If you're pro legalisation then this video is a real eye opener and makes it much easier to understand the fight that you really have on your hands and how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Enjoy before it's moderated on!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#

Why is this idea important?

I'm putting this link here as it represents an informed opinion on the subject and details at length the history of prohibition, it's effects economically and in society, it's medicinal values and other extremely informative matters relating to the question, "should we legalise cannabis?".

If you are anti legalisation, then this video will inform you of the other side of the coin while still respecting your opinions and whether you agree with the video or not, you'll end up better qualified to speak about the subject.

If you're pro legalisation then this video is a real eye opener and makes it much easier to understand the fight that you really have on your hands and how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Enjoy before it's moderated on!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#

Repeal of the Hunting Act 2004

The above law is a bad law, unenforceable, wasting police time, an infringement of civil liberties and above all not making any difference to animal welfare.  Foxes are shot and wounded and numbers are increasing.  The newspapers have an incident nearly every day now of foxes savaging babies and children.  They are not cuddly pets they are vermin and those who understand and run the countryside should be left to control them in time honoured fashion in just the same way as rats and rabbits.

Why is this idea important?

The above law is a bad law, unenforceable, wasting police time, an infringement of civil liberties and above all not making any difference to animal welfare.  Foxes are shot and wounded and numbers are increasing.  The newspapers have an incident nearly every day now of foxes savaging babies and children.  They are not cuddly pets they are vermin and those who understand and run the countryside should be left to control them in time honoured fashion in just the same way as rats and rabbits.

Change the Police statement on arrest to remove prejudice

At present, when arrested, Police use a statement that includes the words "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence" (or very similar).

This is a prejudiced statement and should be altered in two respects (the amendments are underlined):

  1. The first part should be altered to read something like, "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly,  we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession"
  2. the latter part should be altered to state, "Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".

So, in summary, the full statement should read (and be supported by the requisite legislative instruments):

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly,  we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession. Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".

Why is this idea important?

At present, when arrested, Police use a statement that includes the words "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence" (or very similar).

This is a prejudiced statement and should be altered in two respects (the amendments are underlined):

  1. The first part should be altered to read something like, "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly,  we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession"
  2. the latter part should be altered to state, "Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".

So, in summary, the full statement should read (and be supported by the requisite legislative instruments):

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly,  we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession. Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".

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.

 

 

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!!

Fox Hunting Ban

The views of some people wanting to repeal the fox hunt ban and how this can be listed under civil liberties is Sick Sick Sick!!!  As it is the same as saying 'I should be allowed to beat my dog to death if I want to because of civil liberties', I presume they do beat their dogs if they want to under their 'civil liberties'.  On the one hand these sick people say hunting is pest control, on the other it is a sport and social occassion, so which is it?  A government which allows animal cruelty to be classed as civil liberties is an absolute shameful disgrace, sick and absurd, we are not in 1562 but 2010!  The government should think very carefully  before even entertaining this subject!!!

Why is this idea important?

The views of some people wanting to repeal the fox hunt ban and how this can be listed under civil liberties is Sick Sick Sick!!!  As it is the same as saying 'I should be allowed to beat my dog to death if I want to because of civil liberties', I presume they do beat their dogs if they want to under their 'civil liberties'.  On the one hand these sick people say hunting is pest control, on the other it is a sport and social occassion, so which is it?  A government which allows animal cruelty to be classed as civil liberties is an absolute shameful disgrace, sick and absurd, we are not in 1562 but 2010!  The government should think very carefully  before even entertaining this subject!!!

REPEAL THE HUNTING BAN

THE HUNT BAN SHOULD BE REPEALED ASAP. IT HAS INCREASED ANIMAL CRUELTY I.E. MORE SNARES USED TO CATCH FOXES AND MANY MORE BEING SHOT INDISCIMINATELY. WITH HUNTING WITH HOUNDS THERE IS AT LEAST A CHANCE FOR A FIT AND HEALTHY FOX TO GET AWAY

Why is this idea important?

THE HUNT BAN SHOULD BE REPEALED ASAP. IT HAS INCREASED ANIMAL CRUELTY I.E. MORE SNARES USED TO CATCH FOXES AND MANY MORE BEING SHOT INDISCIMINATELY. WITH HUNTING WITH HOUNDS THERE IS AT LEAST A CHANCE FOR A FIT AND HEALTHY FOX TO GET AWAY

Repeal the Hunting Act

The main reason it is necessary to repeal the Hunting Act is because it is detrimental to the welfare of the fox. Foxes must be controlled and it is my belief that hunting with hounds is the most humane and effective way of doing this.

Why is this idea important?

The main reason it is necessary to repeal the Hunting Act is because it is detrimental to the welfare of the fox. Foxes must be controlled and it is my belief that hunting with hounds is the most humane and effective way of doing this.

Repeal the Hunting Act

The Hunting Act 2004 should be repealed. The welfare of the fox population and the vitality of the countryside depends on it. It is the most humane form of fox control which is both selective and beneficial to the fox population. The law, morover, is badly written and non sensicle.

Why is this idea important?

The Hunting Act 2004 should be repealed. The welfare of the fox population and the vitality of the countryside depends on it. It is the most humane form of fox control which is both selective and beneficial to the fox population. The law, morover, is badly written and non sensicle.

Make it illegal to be fat

Quite a tender topic. Yet it is a widespread problem across UK, and other well off countries for that matter.

I think we should follows Japan's example, who made it illegal to be fat in 2005. Same thing should be done in UK before it's too late.

Being fat is becoming the norm, people no longer even know what "overweight" means. A lot of people have bad diet, either due to lack of education, laziness or simply lack of time. Spending millions of pounds of tax payers money on those adverts is simply a waste of money, bearing in mind it wont change anything, unless you actually make it compulsory to lose weight.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity UK – 23% whose BMI is Over 30. That is simply unacceptable. Some may argue that it's genetics, yes one or a few percent may be. But others have no excuse.

Why is this idea important?

Quite a tender topic. Yet it is a widespread problem across UK, and other well off countries for that matter.

I think we should follows Japan's example, who made it illegal to be fat in 2005. Same thing should be done in UK before it's too late.

Being fat is becoming the norm, people no longer even know what "overweight" means. A lot of people have bad diet, either due to lack of education, laziness or simply lack of time. Spending millions of pounds of tax payers money on those adverts is simply a waste of money, bearing in mind it wont change anything, unless you actually make it compulsory to lose weight.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity UK – 23% whose BMI is Over 30. That is simply unacceptable. Some may argue that it's genetics, yes one or a few percent may be. But others have no excuse.