posted
1. Why were the protestors that stormed the Commons not shot? Security is a fucking joke.
2. When did the police stop beating up miners and crusties and blacks, and start brutalising toffs and their oiks? Did anyone else get that memo?
3. What do forites think? Me, I don't give a shit either way about foxhunting, fox hunters, foxes. I do despise farmers though, greedy susidised fucks. The dappybitch is a farmer's daughter actually. Sold his land to Barrat Homes or whoever, which is the way forward totally. Fucking farmers. Hate them. Oh, look, John Snow is talking to the poshest ever Met spokeswoman. I guess the police, bless them, are trying to get the country and their media (primarily Evening Standard) on side. But yeah, I'm neutral on this issue. Don't care.
quote:Originally posted by vikram: I do despise farmers though, greedy susidised fucks. The dappybitch is a farmer's daughter actually. Sold his land to Barrat Homes or whoever, which is the way forward totally. Fucking farmers.
Only know one farmer, the father of a friend. Understand he is subsidised to the tune of £80k for all the grain he produces. Not that they have much to show for the 15 hour days (apart from a humungous combine harvester that is). Probably one of the most decent, hard working people I have come across though - a real old-fashioned gentleman farmer.
Still I only know the one farmer... probably if I was better informed and met more of them I would also despise them as greedy subsidised fucks.
Posts: 67
| IP: Logged
posted
I am at this very moment in the South Holland district of Lincolnshire. A very fertile, very flat part of the world. People here stare into the sun too long. It's where I spent most of my youth.
Agriculture should be allowed to go to hell. I don't see why I should subsidise this sector and pay higher food prices, just to keep farmers in business. Agriculture constitutes under 1% of the economy. It receives more subsidy than the other 99% put together. The protectionism that the EU practises kills Africans. A major industry that Africa can compete in, they are not allowed to, contributing to chronic underdevelopment. And for what? To help featherbedded farmers! I'd rather my money went to Africa. The rest of the saved CAP cash can be used to manage rural Britain. Farming = Genocide. Don't ban fox hunting, ban farming!
quote:Originally posted by vikram: Oh, look, John Snow is talking to the poshest ever Met spokeswoman. I guess the police, bless them, are trying to get the country and their media (primarily Evening Standard) on side. But yeah, I'm neutral on this issue. Don't care.
You may be talking about a different Jon Snow conversation, but the woman that I think you mean (I don't recall seeing him talk to any others on C4 news) was Elinor Goodman, Channel 4's Political Editor.
-------------------- i wrote for luck - they sent me you Posts: 3505
| IP: Logged
posted
I bloody well know who Eleanor Goodman is, you patronising ****
No, just before that. Okay, maybe she wasn't that posh, but quite, certainly more than you would expect of the London police, or at least more than I would expect.
Posts: 5190
| IP: Logged
posted
For once, I'm generally agreeing with most of what you're saying here Vikram!! Generalisations not withstanding, it does seem that the level of subsidies received by the agricultural sector are way out of kilter with the total value of the assets on many farms.
Nor is Dux wrong when he raises his own anecdotal experience of thoroughly decent hard-working farmers, with very little to show for their efforts, huge capital investment and subsidy.
Either way, it points to something beng seriously amiss with the whole of Europe's (and the world's) agricultural policy. It would be good to see European Community Nations getting their individual and collective acts in order. As Vik says, this would make an enormous difference to the developing world.
Perhaps the end of subsidies would encourage some farmers to be less eager to climb into bed with the supermarkets, and consider more sales of produce directly to the public, though the cynic in me knows that if this was to happen, the consumer would not be paying less for the end product than if he'd shopped at Sainsbury's.
[ 15.09.2004, 17:25: Message edited by: StevieX ]
-------------------- i wrote for luck - they sent me you Posts: 3505
| IP: Logged
posted
btw I don't really hate farmers. and actually I felt sorry for the protestors. i like the country. i don't like police seemingly randomly bashing people over the head.
Posts: 5190
| IP: Logged
posted
those people getting bashed were hitting a fox's HOME with sticks last week! how would you like it if people with dogs came and beat at your door with sticks, and you were a fox?
posted
Okey dokes. I live in a very rural area. A lot of my friends are farmers and yes, there are the odd one or two farmers who have a lot of money and drive around in their brand new Freelanders braying at all those who dare get in their way, but on the whole, farmers are hard working genuine people. [At least they are around here]. It's a bloody hard life and it doesn't matter what the weather's like, or how ill you might feel, you just have to get on with it every day.
I tend to think as farmers more as custodians of the countryside [and yes, I am well aware that certain farming methods may be deemed not to be appropriate to this]. The land has to managed and cared for but the actual production of food doesn't pay enough for most people to do this without help. The cost of raising a sheep/cow/crop is nowhere near covered by the selling price. Without subsidies people would stop raising them altogether, come out of farming and the countryside would either be in a total shambles or completely covered in tarmac and Beazer homes. Subsidies are there for a reason but like most things there are loopholes that mean they can be abused by those who don't genuinely need them.
posted
You silly urbanites, we have to subsidise farming so the industry will survive. That way if there's a large scale war (or similar disruption to trade) we will have something to eat. A nation that lets its agriculture die is asking for trouble.
Posts: 1583
| IP: Logged
posted
as an urbanite, i similtaneously agree with everyone on this thread. as in, i think my pretending to have an opinion on what goes on in leicestershire is akin to farmer giles having an opinion on the privatisation of the tube. i know nothing of it, its so out of sight as to be completely out of mind, and. anyway, i think foxes are twats, they make sex loudly outside my bedroom at 4am and i cant put my rubbish out at a civilised time (ie overnight) because fucking renard the wily will rip the bags open and bestrew teabags and used sanitary requisites all over my doorstep. so yeah. foxhunting. stab em all and douse 'em in petrol, let gaia sort 'em out. i honestly couldnt give a tinkers wab.
-------------------- EXETER- movement of Jah people. Posts: 2841
| IP: Logged
posted
Personally I'm against a ban on Fox hunting, hare coarsing, etc. I think we should reserve the right to terrorise and kill those smaller and weaker than ourselves, particularly the dumb animals.
Despite the above sarcasm I am actually against a ban on fox hunting because, apart from the fact that I couldn't give a flying fuck about foxes, I think it makes hypotcrites of a nation that still allows both the factory farming of animals and animal testing.
As for farmers and grain subsidy I think there was a suggestion in that Guardian 2020 suppliment at the Weekend that surplus grain produced by Western countries could be used as 'virtual water' (something like 80% of a countries water use being on food crop production). Theoretically this would allow the transportaion of water (virtually, in the form of the surplus grain or whatever) for far lower costs than those of actually moving water/irrigating land in arid/water poor climates, and allowing what water resources those countries had to go towards having clean fresh water available for the use of their populations.
[ 16.09.2004, 04:49: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
-------------------- Some people stand in the darkness, afraid to step into the light... Posts: 3770
| IP: Logged
I think it's high time that we got a grip in this country on this whole issue.
Alongside fox-hunting, the re-legitimisation of a whole range of country pursuits is long overdue. Foxes are a pest when all is said and done, and even though most foxes in Britain today are descended from deliberately introduced European foxes (after hunting pretty much wiped out our own), it's not too late to correct the mistakes of the past.
Of course many people get dewey-eyed over some of our other wildlife - otters, badgers and the like - which I suppose could be explained, at least a little, by what I've always termed the Beatrix Potter Effect and the Tarka Effect. Badgers are a leading cause of a particularly unpleasant disease called bruscellosis, which affects cattle. Otters can devastate fish stocks in rivers, and far from their cutesy image, are aggressive little blighters - just ask Terry Nutkins!. Both of these creatures can have a dramatic impact upon the rural economy. By hunting down these animals, not only are important problems being tackled, but the 'social' side to these activities, as well as the activities themselves, is an important part of rural tradition.
It is, obviously, less easy to defend hare coarsing, as hares are not a significant pest, but traditions are important, are they not? That's before we even consider the massive potential economic benefits were full and unfettered hunting rights restored.
So, not only will I be (loudly) opposing any ban on fox hunting but will be trying to spread the truth about those country pursuits that have already been consigned to the history books by successive nannying governments.
[ 16.09.2004, 04:15: Message edited by: StevieX ]
-------------------- i wrote for luck - they sent me you Posts: 3505
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, Vikram, that's a little harsh but i get your point. The whole farming issues is pretty wrong but the foxhunting debate is a little bit of labour class war. I personally love the fact that you can save little foxes AND piss off toffs at the same time. What really irks me is conseravatism. These C***s are really pissed off about it; look just accept it's no longer acceptable and move on. Is your life REALLY any worse for not being able to fox? Just get on with your life... I mean reallyPosts: 15
| IP: Logged
quote: I think it makes hypotcrites of a nation that still allows both the factory farming of animals and animal testing.
Weeeell yes, but I think there is a difference between killing for 'fun', or making the necessary control of a pest 'fun', and the rigidly controlled use of animals in medical research. There is also an absurd gulf between what is permitted in factory farming as you mentioned, and the conditions under which lab animals are kept.
That said I am unable to see the issue of hunting as being of major importance in the world today, there are plenty bigger problems to worry about.
Posts: 2793
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by StevieX: Of course many people get dewey-eyed over some of our other wildlife - otters, badgers and the like - which I suppose could be explained, at least a little, by what I've always termed the Beatrix Potter Effect and the Tarka Effect. Badgers are a leading cause of a particularly unpleasant disease called bruscellosis, which affects cattle. Otters can devastate fish stocks in rivers, and far from their cutesy image, are aggressive little blighters - just ask Terry Nutkins!. Both of these creatures can have a dramatic impact upon the rural economy.
The argument that townsfolk think foxes, badgers and otters are cute, whereas country people know they're not, is redundant. Cows are repulsive creatures up close; their hide is covered in shit and they have flies crawling around their wet eyes. The same is true of some horses -- who can also be aggressive, and rather more dangerous than otters. Even farm cats, those kept for their hunting abilities rather than as furry companions, are not the kind of beast you would want to stroke.
Whether an animal is attractive or not -- and most animals on farms or in the wild are unfriendly and unappealing in real life; only domestic pets are tame, clean and cuddly -- is irrelevant. Surely a more important question is what ethical duties guide our behaviour towards these "lower" animals.
quote: the 'social' side to these activities, as well as the activities themselves, is an important part of rural tradition.
I don't think the "social" side cuts any ice. Many social activities are indefensible. If you defend hunting as a traditional get-together, you must also defend cock- and dog-fighting. Illegal bare-knuckle boxing is a social activity. Teenage delinquency is a social activity. Neo-Nazi meetings occur with a social network that I'm sure has a great deal of historical tradition behind it, enables friendships to thrive, involves drinking, dancing, singing and conversation, and gives the members a lot of pleasure.
quote: but traditions are important, are they not?
As this objection is so banal, I have no hesitation about countering with the equally banal and obvious point that slavery, voting rights confined to privileged men and public hangings are also traditional.
I think a society is entitled to judge whether some practices are no longer acceptable, whether or not they've been allowed to continue for centurues.
quote:successive nannying governments.
A government only becomes "nannying" when it makes illegal something you would rather was legal. When it acts to prohibit something you agree should be prohibited, like smoking on public transport, you would see it as right-headed and acting in the majority interest. The NHS is a product of "nanny" government thinking it knows what's right for the British people and trying to look after them. Warning against global warning is an act of "nanny" government: why do they have to lecture and try to tell us what they think's best for us? Why can't we go on doing what we want to the planet, it's our environment too.
quote:Originally posted by Kobra: Is your life REALLY any worse for not being able to fox? Just get on with your life... I mean really
For some people it is though - there's a whole cottage industry based around fox hunting, so for these people it's their livelihood. Whether you agree with it or not, to state that it's "no big deal" to the people involved, suggests that you haven't really grasped the issue involved, and only a fool would claim to know something about something he knows nothing about.
I think that's what pisses people off the most: when you have some guy just rolling in saying "Ban fox hunting!" without any real idea of what they're saying.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm sure people were mighty pissed off when they banned cock-fighting in pubs, bear-baiting, you know. "Oh, it's traditional. Those pit-bulls will become an extinct breed. What will happen to the bantam-breeders?" It's all bollocks. Fox hunting will stop. The people who make a living out of it will have to find something else to do.
posted
I am not convinced that the whole industry around fox-hunting -- the costumes, the hounds, the horses, the horns; the stabling, outfitting, catering that must go into preparing for such events -- is necessary for the controlling and containment of foxes.
I would think that anyone involved in producing the paraphenalia doesn't base their entire career around this single tradition -- but if it's really going to cripple some individuals, so be it I'm afraid. Closing down sweatshop labour would be a blow for the owners, too. Police raids on heroin suppliers are probably a real nuisance for a lot of people in that business chain.
If something's needlessly exploitative and on balance, reflects badly on us as a culture, I don't see why we should spend too long sympathising with people who get stung because of their involvement in it.
Couldn't anyone with savvy see a ban coming anyway, and perhaps branch out into something less specialised, less doomed as a specific industry?
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: I'm sure people were mighty pissed off when they banned cock-fighting in pubs, bear-baiting, you know. "Oh, it's traditional. Those pit-bulls will become an extinct breed. What will happen to the bantam-breeders?" It's all bollocks. Fox hunting will stop. The people who make a living out of it will have to find something else to do.
EDIT: To add that I can see I jumped in a bit late with the above. Still...
posted
Perhaps I should have been clearer about my definition of animal testing, as I'd suggest there is indeed a world of difference between medical and say, costmetics or tobacco testing on animals.
I agree with Stevie's assurtion about the place of fox hunting etc as rural traditions, although possibly not as pest control (there have to be more energy effective ways of culling foxes than charging around on horseback, innit), and as Barry points out there are plenty of other traditions we've been only too glad to get rid of.
I do think that people today are far too removed from life and death in the food chain though. Cities are full of people who are perfectly prepared to eat bits of dead animals if they're nicely presented to them on a supermarket shelf, but are so squeamish they can't even gut a fish.
Some people like to assurt that how we treat animals is an extension of how we treat people, to them I point out that Hitler was a vegetarian.
[ 16.09.2004, 05:16: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
-------------------- Some people stand in the darkness, afraid to step into the light... Posts: 3770
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: if it's really going to cripple some individuals, so be it I'm afraid. Closing down sweatshop labour would be a blow for the owners, too. Police raids on heroin suppliers are probably a real nuisance for a lot of people in that business chain.
Oh, yeah. It's not an argument for not banning it, but I think saying "It's hardly going to make a difference to you" when, it is is part of the reason people involved get fucked off. It becomes easy to perceieve the argument against fox hunting as ill-informed 'city-folk' rattling on about something they don't really grasp, and actually harms the argument against.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic