Theresa May wants to bring back fox-hunting

[Cyclone]

Preventing animal cruelty is not illiberal then, and hunting in general was not banned.

Hunting in a deliberately cruel way was banned.

[redfox]

Of course it's not hunting for food in the modern era. It's a pleasurable pursuit that involves the great outdoors. In the Middle East for example hunting involves jumping into a modern 4x4 armed with a bird of prey and hitting the dunes to find hare.

 

 

 

Its not all that pleasurable to the fox now is it?

 

Anything wrong with a good walk ? What about riding horses without chasing a fox. You get to enjoy the great outdoors and not kill anything.

[Obelix]

Preventing animal cruelty is not illiberal then, and hunting in general was not banned.

Hunting in a deliberately cruel way was banned.

 

The Burns commission I think it was found no real difference in the standards of welfare regardless of how the fox was killed and hunted. You are still going to cause stress and anxiety if you flush it with hounds towards a gun or if you just set hounds on it. If you really want to hunt any animal with the minimum of stress you stalk it unawares and then put an expanding bullet into it.

 

The Left wanted it banned as a class war victory against the toffs as they saw it, and if they acknowledged that was the reason for it I'd think better of them.

 

Regardless of how we get here it's banned. Let's keep it that way.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2017 at 10:30 ----------

 

Its not all that pleasurable to the fox now is it?

 

Anything wrong with a good walk ? What about riding horses without chasing a fox. You get to enjoy the great outdoors and not kill anything.

 

I go "foxhunting". Still do. It's immense fun because the thrill is in the chase.

 

The "fox" of course is another rider in front with a sack of aniseed.... you don't need a real fox.

[Puggie]

Its not all that pleasurable to the fox now is it?

 

You can't make that moral argument when animals are bred to slaughter on an industrial scale.

[nowt2pctoday]

since the ban the population of foxes has increased both urban and country this is at least one way to reduce the numbers whilst creating jobs in the country.

foxes are vermin and destroy livestock and poultry usually without actually eating them.

the traditions of the countryside should be re-instated and i agree with bringing it back.

[max]

Look over there ====> Theresa May to allow a free vote on fox hunting

 

Don't look over there ====> Conservative election expenses prosecution decision due

[Hairyloon]

Look over there ====> Theresa May to allow a free vote on fox hunting

 

Don't look over there ====> Conservative election expenses prosecution decision due

 

I am entirely baffled as to why the other parties did not and have not made more of this.

Even if we accept their explanation that it was "administrative error", what does that tell us of their competence?

 

And while we are on the subject of administrative incompetence that we don't get to hear about, why is a two bit lefty rag the only place that is reporting a chunk of the NHS sold off for about a third of its value?

I don't hold it as a reliable source, but the references appear to check out.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Hairyloon

[L00b]

I am entirely baffled as to why the other parties did not and have not made more of this.

The real story is why the CPS is not pressing charges

 

EDIT - turns out it's because the CPS is copping out.

We have considered files of evidence from 14 police forces in respect of allegations relating to Conservative Party candidates’ expenditure during the 2015 General Election campaign.

 

We considered whether candidates and election agents working in constituencies that were visited by the Party’s ‘Battle Bus’ may have committed a criminal offence by not declaring related expenditure on their local returns. Instead, as the Electoral Commission found in its report, these costs were recorded as national expenditure by the Party.

 

We reviewed the files in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and have concluded the tests in the Code are not met and no criminal charges have been authorised.

 

Under the Representation of the People Act, every candidate and agent must sign a declaration on the expenses return that to the best of their knowledge and belief it is a complete and correct return as required by law. It is an offence to knowingly make a false declaration. In order to bring a charge, it must be proved that a suspect knew the return was inaccurate and acted dishonestly in signing the declaration. Although there is evidence to suggest the returns may have been inaccurate, there is insufficient evidence to prove to the criminal standard that any candidate or agent was dishonest.

 

The Act also makes it a technical offence for an election agent to fail to deliver a true return. By omitting any ‘Battle Bus’ costs, the returns may have been inaccurate. However, it is clear agents were told by Conservative Party headquarters that the costs were part of the national campaign and it would not be possible to prove any agent acted knowingly or dishonestly. Therefore we have concluded it is not in the public interest to charge anyone referred to us with this offence.

 

Our evaluation of the evidence is consistent with that of the Electoral Commission. While the role of the Commission is to regulate political finances and campaign spending, the role of the CPS is to consider whether any individual should face criminal charges, which is a different matter with different consideration and tests.

 

One file, from Kent Police, was only recently received by the CPS, and remains under consideration. No inference as to whether any criminal charge may or may not be authorised in relation to this file should be drawn from this fact and we will announce our decision as soon as possible once we have considered the evidence in this matter.

Shock "politicians are dishonest, but proving it is too much like hard work, so we won't bother getting started" outcome.

 

Colour me surprised. Not.

Edited May 10, 2017 by L00b

[max]

I am entirely baffled as to why the other parties did not and have not made more of this.

Even if we accept their explanation that it was "administrative error", what does that tell us of their competence?

 

The other parties have made more of this but unfortunately the press would rather report on more important matters such as whether or not Princess Diana was actually killed in the tunnel or in the hospital.

 

That, plus JC is a vegetarian shock horror, he's going to bring down pork futures if he keeps on.

[Hairyloon]

The real story is why the CPS is not pressing charges

The decision was still pending when I looked.

 

EDIT - turns out it's because the CPS is copping out. Oh well.

Have you more news on that news?