How the Tories will repeal the hunting ban

Steve.W

This is so important, forget the UK's massive debts concentrate on this.

Andre

Speaking as a trail layer for a local fox hunt can I say how much I welcome this determination to repeal the hateful act and re-address the issue of the erosion of our historic liberties.Moreover as another season approaches and I step up my running - puffing up hill and down dale - I have to do this on foot - can I say myself and fellow trail layer cannot keep this up much longer. I'm the Wogan side of fifty. It is not as if hounds pay much attention to the scent we use - although I was awakened one moonlit night to see three couple speaking outside my cottage - and recalled I had over scented the sock that fore noon. Cameron my not be everyone's ideal PM but if he sets me free to hunt properly once more in an England that espouses freedom rather than eschews it then he can have my vote.

David Ossitt

"concentrate on a whole host of civil liberties issues including ID cards. Hunting would merely be a section of it, with a free vote on the issue."

The true conservative way!

Excellent.

mac

The civil liberties pot pourri bill you describe could usefully include the scything of Labour's postal voting fix. An article today on pb.com describes the reality of the arrangement in several of the Tyneside constituencies which, coincidentally, have several Labour luminaries as MPs.

It rather puts the Glenrothes circumstances in perspective: "No prime minister, we can assure you that neither you nor the blessed Sarah will be embarrassed by visiting for staged photo-shoots er, er, to campaign, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean, sir?"

drakes drum

Very clever, very sneeky,
very open and honest!

If this is a mark of the way we are going to be governed, we may as well keep Brown.

People want honest politicians with backbone. People that will speak up for what they believe in.

IF they want Fox Hunting to be legalised. Have the courage of your convictions.

What else will they 'hide' from the people. I thoiught Cameron was for OPEN government.

It appears he is not!

Death or Tory

I think that would work nicely...

Dave B

Douglas Carswell has been asking for suggestions for a Great Repeal Bill.

http://www.talkcarswell.com/show.aspx?id=893

(I suggested making 3" lock knives legal. According to The Independent, that was the intent of the original 'folding knives' term.)

Chris

It's not a very minor issue, unless you have very, very Westminster village priorities. I've never hunted in my life, never intend to hunt and don't really like hunting, which, like many country people, I always found a bit of a nuisance. But the hunting ban goes to the centre of the authoritarian world view of the government we've had for the last twelve years. It's got to go. And getting rid of it is important.

Verity

Good grief!

Simon Stephenson

Might we also look forward to a repeal of the iniquitous smoking ban, brought in on the back of a knowingly concocted pack of lies?

Let's hope so.

There are probably another 100 pieces of spiteful state-enhancing pieces of legislation that the Tories could commit to repeal, thereby showing some belief in the freedom and primacy of the individual.

There's my vote and I suspect millions of others being witheld until we see some sign that the Tories aren't Big Statists, just like Labour, but with a different logo.

Frank

Why not clean out the Augean stables; pass a blanket bill to repeal all legislation enacted since 1997, followed immediately by reinstatement of those few sensible measures that labour inadvertently passed.

Madasafish

Who cares about foxes?

Smelly mangy noisy and make a mess. Use my garden as a toilet - the smell.

(and I live in the country).
Kill more by any means possible...

Jeremy

"Rather than a bill devoted exclusively to repealing the hunting ban, there would be one that would concentrate on a whole host of civil liberties issues including ID cards. Hunting would merely be a section of it, with a free vote on the issue."

Now that...is what I call an idea.

Whilst they're about it, can they lift the smoking ban too, please?

I would also like to point out that hunting has been a part of the social fabric of this island for more than two thousand years. The ban on foxhunting is an offense against British history, culture, society and tradition - and it is tradition which gives form, tone, character and identity to a nation. To repeal the ban on foxhunting is therefore no small nor insignificant matter. Rather, it should be done as a matter of duty - of duty to our past, to our forebears, to our culture, our history* and our traditions as a nation.

*The Duke of Wellington - who won no small victory at Waterloo - was an enthusiastic foxhunter.

Nicholas Heneghan

Let us hope that the ridiculous health-nazi act banning smoking in specific areas will make it onto the civil liberties bill.

Dave

Fox hunting is a vote loser for the Tories. They should ignore the hunting obsessives and concentrate on getting us out of the almighty economic and social mess that Labour have put this country in.

BigAl

Focus on the approx 80% deficit as proportion of GDP. Fox hunting and most other things are irrelevant.

CS

***Speaking as a trail layer for a local fox hunt***

Sorry, Andre, I misread that as trial lawyer. I didn't realise things were that bad for the hunts.

Bruce Finch

The Hunting ban was bad law, foisted on the Hunters by Tony Blair to get out of the trouble he was in over Iraq with his own party. Enforcement is a complete mess. Obviously it should be repealed.

HadEnough

Oh, grow up and be sensible, DD

You really want Brown?

Nick Berry

The Conservatives really ought to include the smoking ban in this bill. Of course they won't but it would seem a touch hypocritical to look over what is after all a glaring restriction on liberty.

Elf

The hunting ban is a stupid piece of legislation - regardless of its justification it is completely unenforceable.

But there are many more pressing issues and the Tories should steer well clear of appearing to pander to a fairly narrow interest group, whose votes are not at stake and whose image very easily becomes a class-war lightning rod.

Wax

It is striking how devious back room politics suddenly become acceptable when they favour ones own policies.

Open upfront debate is the only way to approach this issue.

Fergus Pickering

What on earth is the point of a debate? We all know the issues. We don't want to run them through AGAIN. This sounds very neat.

David Lindsay

The Tories think that are onto a winner with foxhunting, the pretend-banning of which New Labour did instead of redistributing wealth (in the right direction, I mean) and in order to cajole disgraceful MPs into voting for the Iraq War.

But there were majorities to ban it in the Major years. And its heartlands are Yorkshire, Wales, the Midlands, Devon and Cornwall, which return few or, in the Cornish case, no Tory MPs, and have now done so for three successive General Elections.

TrevorsDen

Huh?

Hunting is not in the least bit affected by this half baked ban - so why bother (and I'm sure they won't)

But clearly the Guardian is increasingly lost for ways to attack the conservatives

Verity

Drake's Drum - Agreed!

Dave B - I don't know who Douglas Carswell is, but he might want to include the insane, disastrous outlawing of the licensed ownership of firearms. (It was, of course, all about taking any control for their own safety away from the citizenry and increasing its dependence on a politicised police "force".) Although somehow I can't see Mr Preachy Liberal Paternalistic Cameron agreeing to this.

He only wants to make hunting with hounds legal again because someone told him the Countryside March got 500,000 attendees. I'm not saying that, as a politician, he shouldn't chase votes; but let's not pretend that it comes from conviction.

Nick

Even if it's covered by a separate free vote, doesn't this approach run the risk of losing support from LibDems and sensible Labour people for much more important civil liberties reforms? It's also bound to be seized upon by the BBC, Guardian, Mirror etc and given a disproportionate amount of unfavourable media coverage.
Hunting may be a totemic issue for some, and the legislation is daft, but it's completely irrelevant to the vast majority and has the potential to cause far more trouble than it's worth.

Verity

Nick Berry, yes, they should include the smoking ban but Cameron is as much about control as Blair, Brown and the Hormone Sisters. That's why we cannot expect him, in the unlikely event that he ever came to power, to restore the normal rights of the citizenry to keep licensed arms about their person.

Cameron knows best what's good for everyone (especially himself) and people should co-operate (aka "obey"). He's as bleakly authoritarian as Tony Blair and Jack Straw and Ed Balls and the whole caboose.

It's a foregone conclusion. My interest is in who's next.

Verity

Gosh, Troll Wax, a right little Talleyrand! Except Talleyrand, in equivalent French, would have put an apostrophe in ones.

It's the little things (les choses petites) that give credence to a post!

Verity

And the most critical issue is to repeal the personal arms law. Why would an entire citizenry wish to abdicate its right to protect itself? It is raving mad and the British were bullied by a hissy Blair who saw his opportunity after an illegal arms-holder in Dunblane caused a national tragedy. The opportunistic control-freak Blair wasn't far behind.

Dave would never abolish the law against private citizens owning licensed arms for their own protection.

Dave is far Left.

Herbert Thornton

Getting emotional about men in Hunting Pink riding horses and chasing foxes (whether you're for or against it) is, surely, a trivial matter, both for the reason Steve W. mentions and because there are other problems that completely overshadow it, especially the growing power and influence of Islam. Neither the Labour nor Tory Party care one whit about it - indeed it is becoming ever clearer that their leaders actually encourage it.

Surely it's time to recall the old adage of "any port in a storm" and vote for the only party determined to tackle this mortal danger before it is too late?

Richard

I might consider voting Conservative if they come up with some sort of mass repeal bill, along with proposals to sack all those who have delighted in enforcing all the repressive laws. Oh, and a guaranteed EU / Lisbon Treaty referendum. Sadly, it's pretty unlikely so I'll vote UKIP which will probably let Labour back in here (Labour majority 2000 odd and a combined UKIP, BNP vote of around the same)

Verity

Richard, I think your intuition is correct. Dave doesn't care about our ancient freedoms. He cares about not rocking the boat.

I think we are going to see a surge in votes for UKIP and the BNP - and deservedly so as no party is addressing the issues the electorate cares about.

The electorate. Oh, yeah ... those people who get in the way of our plans ...

Not the party leaders ambitious to get their polished shoes under the top table in the carpeted halls of Brussels.

David Cameron, whom I loathe, has never said a single word about being British. He has circumnavigated our beloved islands without a single reference to them.

Personally, I just want him to go away somewhere, but he's a little clenched-teeth limpet. He's going to stick with the programme until he's bested.

Dave B

@Verity
I think you have Mr Cameron completely wrong.

The quote below is from Peter Oborne:

"The Tory leader ... has been accused, especially by supporters, of being long on ambition, short on principles. This is almost the complete opposite of the case. I have read most of his speeches since he became leader and they are incredibly brave. Fundamentally, he has been calling for the British state as it currently stands to be dismantled, with power taken from central government and given back to local communities and institutions."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/04/david-cameron-conservatives-thatcher

Stephen

Could we not have a new "Bill of Rights" which gets rid of lot of nanny State things including a ban on PC speak as well as ID Cards and Hunting?

Elf

Herbert Thornton - "the growing power and influence of Islam"? That, in your view, is such an exceptionally serious problem,that it justifies a vote to the morally repulsive thugs of the BNP (I assume that is what you imply)?

Islam is not a problem, extremism and the distortion of Islam is. Perhaps, however, you are too blinkered to perceive that.

Sasquatch

The fox-hunting ban should be repealed if only for the fact that it was forced through, using the undemocratic Parliament Act - which should also be repealed.
Neither the gun ban nor the knife ban have had any impact on crime, other than than to make having a gun or knife some sort of badge of honour.
Criminals are criminals because the ignore the law - they don't care about gun or knife bans, it's just one more law to break, as far as they're concerned

EC

Perhaps any relaxation in the regulations could also include the hunting down of the misguided owa sentimental s'oles who feel compelled to feed urban foxes. Two nuisances removed for the price of one!

NuLab have shown us tha the best way to legalise something is to regulate it. eg. State sponsored snooping under RIPA.
So how about RUFFA? The Regulation of Urban and Feral Foxes Act?

As a legalised licenced activity hunting could be a money spinner for local authorities.

The DOGS! Dont' forget the damn dogs. TAX them! Dog licences should be reintroduced at a £100 per mutt per anum(sic) This revenue together with a 'pay as you go' tax of say 50p per tin of dog food could be used to clear the shit off the streets.

WOOF!

CATS! Grrrr. Don't get me started .....

Andre

The hunting ban goes to the heart of what is wrong with our democracy. It is wrong to outlaw a sport or past time just because you personally don't like it. If a minority enjoy something and it clearly poses no danger to other people then leave it alone. I do not insist people take up hunting (although I recommend it for losing weight and getting fit) Likewise I do not want a socialist proscribing what I regard as sport. Live and let live. Similarly I take no exception to the preparation of Halal meat, homosexuality, welsh nationalism, I may not like these phenomena but if they are important to those concerned let them get on with it in a free society where we tolerate diversity. Right, I am off for another training run through bog and brier.

echo34

Your fixation with cameron borders on obsession verity,
99% of your posts end up as personal attacks on the man.
You're starting to make me like him.

Too much..

ThomasT

There's no rush to repeal the fox hunting bill cos it hasn't made much difference and is rarely enforced. Their first acts should be to clear out the House of Lords and reinstate the hereditaries, who were cheaper and less corrupt, and dismantle Jack Straw's grandiloquent Palais de Justice.

Derek

There seems to be some disagreement as to whether Islam is or is not a problem to be addressed in the next general election. I suspect that it may not be a problem in Winchester but may be in Bradford; or vice versa if you happen to be a muslim.

Could the Spectator send a man up to a selection of these northern towns to report back for the education of the magazine's readers?

johnny come lately

On the question of immigration..Max Hastings in The Daily Mail puts it right.

"First the next British government must effectively limit immigration. Thereafter, we should follow the French in outlawing the most conspicuous manifestations of cultural separateness, notably the face veil in schools, in law courts and other publicly administered institutions, and at airport security.

Most important, we must rediscover a belief in ourselves, a sense not so much of British nationality as of British community, which others can see the merits of sharing. Parts of this country - its middle-class islands - are still wonderful places to inhabit. They are still definably old Britain.

Others, above all the inner cities, seem lost to civilisation. Everyone outside them, and especially our politicians, have abandoned them to unemployed families, feral children, unchecked crime and huge immigrant communities which may live in this country, but are tragically not of it.

Unless we can reclaim these huge areas, and their inhabitants, we shall become a divided society, no longer recognisably British, of which a host of young Mohammeds and Muhammeds will be the symbols.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1212368/Mohammed-popular-boys-England-So-shabby-effort-conceal-it.html#ixzz0QgiyD6YG

Nick

Verity claims to be a big fan of Daniel Hannan and yet says here that she has never heard of Douglas Carswell.

Douglas Carswell co-wrote "The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain" with Hannan.

I find Verity's anti-Cameron posts on this site increasingly tiresome. The fact that she has never heard of Douglas Carswell rather shows that her political opinions are based on ignorance.

Nicholas

Agreed. Repeal ALL the lefto-fascist laws in one big Bill of Freedom.

This could be turned around. Instead of a bill to repeal laws a bill to re-enact freedoms that makes any attempt to impose such laws in the future illegal and unconstitutional.

Yes, please, Dave, a Bill of Freedom.

Hysteria

Verity - do keep up - Carswell is Dan's mate - co author of The Plan.

Oscar India

Interesting the derision being wheeled out in comments here. It's like this issue didn't generate a march of 400,000+ people at all. Just goes to show that, under Labour, your opinion only matters if it's their opinion too. Iraq War anyone?

Tankus

If only parliament had spent as much time and effort on debating non dom blairs evidence for warmongering, as killing vermin.

David Ossitt

Frank.

"by reinstatement of those few sensible measures that labour inadvertently passed"

Frank please name three!

Will B

And another urgent change should be to the colour of bank notes. Its far too easy to mix up the £5 and £20 notes when they're both blue.

Simon Stephenson

Nick : 9.06am

"I find Verity's anti-Cameron posts on this site increasingly tiresome."

Then don't read them. Boom boom! Tiresome problem solved.

Or is it a bit more than this, Nick? Are you using the "tiresome", "boring", tag to try to discourage people from expressing views that you find distasteful rather than merely tiresome? If so, why not just say so? And tell us why you think these views are wrong?

Or is it that you just haven't got any real counter to those who assert that it is the arrogance and intolerance of the authoritarian centre that is destroying any prospect of purposeful politics in this country?

panflet

Great Repeal Bill! Britain would radically change overnight. Bring it on.

Rupert Boles

I agree with Nick. The repetitive nature of Verity's attacks is indeed tiresome and boring. The reiteration of the same opinion over and over again in the hope that someone will eventually agree with you is rarely stimulating.

Ian C

Verity

The Firearms Bill was a Major kneejerk.

As for Cameron, he is about to be proved as you (repeatedly)say - or otherwise. My bet is on otherwise. The conference season will reveal much.

Ben Elford

"This is so important, forget the UK's massive debts concentrate on this." (Steve W)

This sarcasm gives an example of a false choice. Just because the restoration of a wrecked economy must have priority, doesn't mean that nothing else is important.

The restoration of liberty is also vital. Putting the hunting-with-dogs legislation on the statute book (a nasty, vindictive antilibertarian piece of lawmaking) took Blair an inordinate amount of time. Repeal should be straightforward and quick.

JONNY

'Or is it that you just haven't got any real counter to those who assert that it is the arrogance and intolerance of the authoritarian centre that is destroying any prospect of purposeful politics in this country?'

Meaning exactly what?
I think I slightly prefer Verity's tiresome invective to Simon Stephenson's incomprehensible gobbledegook.

Tiberius

Simon S: I think the point about Verity's contributions is that they would fall foul of repetition rather than deviation if made on Just a Minute.

EC

Rupert Boles,

To quote Ed Boles, "So what!"

Verity

Rupert Boles, then, as Simon Stephenson said above, you are at liberty to scroll down at speed whenever you see my name. The Speccie does not wring a promise out of you to read every post attentively as a condition of visiting the site.

Thank you, Hysteria. I'd forgotten the name. And the book. I will buy a copy next time I pass through an American airport.

Johnny Come Lately - We should also dump the EHRA. What are they going to do? Send the French Air Force over to bomb us? But here is where Cameron would wriggle and squirm and equivocate, revealing his true Europhile pinko soul. Fox hunting, he can deal with, but the threat of "immmigration" - can't touch! In any event, every "asylum seeker" should be escorted to the airport or his and his multiple families' port of choice - after kindly donating samples of their DNA and retinal photographs and undergoing being microchipped.

Next, for legal immigrants, we should follow the French and offer financial incentives for buggering off. Again, the retinal photographs, DNA and microchipping would apply.

Thomas T - I have been saying for at least a year that we have to sluice out the detritus currently masquerading as legislators in the HoL and reinstate the hereditaries, who didn't regard their seats as a career. They usually only rolled up when there was a debate that interested them especially, or on whose subject they happened to have specialised knowledge. They were not, unlike the opportunistic dreck that's in there now, career politicians. They hd their lives and their own affairs to attend to. It was the closest thing to a disinterested political chamber in the world. Wrecked, of course - I hope not irretrievably - by socialist slime like Blair, Brown (Mandelson a lord, for God's sake!!!), Jack Straw et al.

Elf writes: "Islam is not a problem, extremism and the distortion of Islam is." No. Do a little reading. The philosophy of Islam itself is dangerous. This is not to say there are not some peaceful strains and some very nice Muslims, but it is a backward, violent and controlling belief system and is in urgent need of its Reformation.

Dave B, thanks for the quote from Peter Oborne. It is hard to know which side of the fence he is on. He writes that Dave has been "incredibly brave", urging that "power taken from central government and given back to local communities and institutions." I don't know what is "incredibly brave" about expressing this opinion. And may I point out, at the same time he wishes to cede power and our national sovereignty to a superstate we never had the opportunity to vote on, and whose apparachiks are unelected. May I also point out that he is evasive and shifty on the issue.

Verity

Ian C says, "The conference season will reveal much." No, it won't. The conference season is just a load of blether.

Hermione

Such a shrew.

Gary Hills

Cameron is a disgrace and those that support hunting have no concept of respect for democracy or any understanding to how horrific the suffering they seek to inflict on our wildlife is.

Labour will defend the hunting ban and rightly so. David Cameron by pursuing this issue with obsessions is showing the nasty Party is alive and well.

Its wrong to use the Norwich North by election as an indication of support for this issue. There were many issues that failed to sway Labour voters to go out.

Yet Cameron failed to win the seat with support. His vote was down by over 2000 on 95. So while Labour voters stayed indoors they were not endorsing the pro hunting candidate or David Cameron.

There is too much assumption Cameron will win, yet when it comes to this issue the vast bulk of the nation do care and are appalled at the bloodthirsty obsession of Cameron.

By his own actions he is showing how unfit he is to be PM. His vile love of animal cruelty is not decent and deservers no respect.

JONNY

New ICM survey reveals strong leaning (over 60%) towards Cameron among foxes eligible to vote.
Reason: they prefer to be decently hunted by gentlemen - always with a good chance of escaping. Rather than vilely gassed down their holes by Brown's corporation vermin exterminators.

Andre

Gary Hills is speaking drivel - the Labour Party only ever wanted to ban hunting as a gimmick to dish the toffs - seemingly not realising the majority of hunting folk are far more working class than the superannuated socialists in new labour. The principle is one of liberty - which you have clearly not understood. Cameron's teddy bear Tories seem to have embraced the idea of freedom and tolerance, rubbing along with each other no matter how awkward your neighbor may be or bizarre his idea of participatory sport on a winter's afternoon. Your post reveals a disturbed and negative mind set. But, hey, I forgive you.

Victor Southern

Gary Hills

What piffle! "those that support hunting have no concept of respect for democracy".

How on earth can you justify such a manic conclusion? It is the democratic right of people to support or oppose hunting, smoking, skateboarding or stamp collecting. Your astonishingly narrow-minded conclusions are the opposite of democracy.

For the record, I do not hunt nor have I ever hunted.

THX1138

You horrible spiteful lot Verity has stuck the boot into us few "lefties' on this blog like me , tirelessly and with great vim and vigour and this how you repay her by shouting her down and calling her "increasingly tiresome" "Verity - do keep up" and even "tiresome and boring" .

Whilst in fundamental disagreement with her on pretty much every subject you could possibly imagine apart from giving immigrants guns, I'm nevertheless supporting her right to doggedly express her opinion however "increasingly tiresome" and "tiresome and boring" they maybe.

Verity some good news for you, Dave might no be as bad as you think according to Prezza, Dan the Man with Plan and his side kick Douglas Carswell are actually writing the Tory Manifesto .

http://www.gofourth.co.uk/dans-the-man-with-the-plan

Well not really but Hilton is certainly stealing loads of it to go into it.

Simon Stephenson

JONNY : 1.54pm

I'm amazed by this. Even if you don't know the meaning of the words, it's very simple to use Google by typing in "define arrogance" or "define authoritarian", and then make sense of what has been written.

But just in case you can't do this, you could read it as:-

All 3 main parties have come together in the centre.

They all believe that individuals are secondary to authority (them), as opposed to the idea that the purpose of authority is to serve individuals.

Increasingly they refuse to entertain the idea that there is any other way for society to be organised. They belittle anyone who asserts otherwise.

They label anything not part of the consensus as "extremist", and have narrowed political debate to such an extent that we spend all our time trying to repair something that is rotten, rather than accepting that some of it needs to be ripped up and replaced.

If they are so sure of their case, why don't they argue it with those who disagree, rather than seeking to avoid the confrontation of ideas by attacking the people instead? Is it perhaps that they are far from sure of the correctness of their case, but are determined to prevail come what may?

Simon Stephenson

Andre : 7.46pm

Yes, there's no doubt that the hunting ban was an attempt by Labour to assert that they were the ones in power, and if there should be any doubt about it here's a piece of inconsequential legislation just to prove it.

But, in fact, it's derived from the same human frailty as that which causes people to engage in hunting. The drive to demonstrate power and superiority over someone else or something else. Just as the Labour left has a need to demonstrate their power over their political opponents, so the hunt supporters have a need to demonstrate their power over the fox. This is what hunting's about - not efficient past control, but a group of insecure humans finding the need week after week to get their fix from proving to themselves how much more accomplished humans are compared to the lesser animals. Sadism on horseback.

But the only way to advance humanity beyond the need to assert their power by killing things is to use reason to encourage them to give it up voluntarily. Trying to do this by force will move things backwards, not forwards.

Jeremy

Whilst we are on the subject of repealing bad Labour legislation, can we also include the Extradition Act 2003?

You will recall that it was passed through the House of Commons accompanied by repeated assurances that there would be full reciprocity from the Americans. This has not materialized.

A piece of legislation which enables the agents of the American government to forcibly remove British citizens from this country without having first presented any prima facie evidence against them is clearly iniquitous and open to the most flagrant of abuses.

In my view it should be repealed as a matter of some urgency by an incoming Conservative government.

Herbert Thornton

I have to ask myself whether Elf can have grasped how popular extremism is in the Muslim world (think for example of the crowds in Libya, joyously welcoming home one of the Lockerbie perpetrators as a hero); or have grasped the fact that even in Britain itself there are No Go areas where infidels are likely to be attacked; or ever considered the fundamental Muslim theology that justifies terror and rebellion by according more authority to the later, war-exhorting, writings of The Prophet than to the earlier ones; or the ease with which extremist clerics recruit from the Islamic community young men willing to be persuaded to become eager suicide bombers; or the immense amount of money that has to be spent to enable Britain's security services to try to identify and thwart terrorist plots; or indeed the fact that terrorism has actually taken place in Britain.

I ask myself moreover, whether Elf has ever considered the contents of the documentary film Fitna or even seen it. It is a frightening but at the same time scholarly production.

As for the BNP, if they really had the character that Elf ascribes to them in such mistakenly abusive language, the many decent British people who voted to elect two of their members to the European Parliament would not have done so.

It seems that Elf's intemperate reaction was caused by my citing the saying "any port in a storm" - but does Elf really believe that it is better to drown?

Verity

Simon Stephenson writes: "Yes, there's no doubt that the hunting ban was an attempt by Labour to assert that they were the ones in power" ... as was the ban on self-protection for British people - the right to own a registered pistol - and make them cowering, as y'all now are, beggars on "the state's" protection. Which no longer, as we know, exists.

A not-so-cunning plan that millions fell for because they didn't see the sheer malice emitting from Trojan Horse Tony Blair and his fat, chippy, greedy, Commie wife.

(I keep asking ... why are socialist/commie women so fat? OK, you've got Margaret Beckett, who gets some exercise from pulling a caravan, and the weird Patricia Hewitt ... but by and large, for females, like Harriet Hormone, Jackie Smith et al, this is a beefy tribe.)

Verity

I keep reading Andre's post of 7:21 on Sunday: "Speaking as a trail layer for a local fox hunt" as "speaking as a trial lawyer for a local fox hunt" ... , whose interest level elevates further when he adds that he may have "over-scented the sock".

Nothing recent on Coffee House can compare.

Andre

Verity - I am indeed really a trail layer, a setter of false scent, a subverter of the ban. I have never been a lawyer and after ten years of the labour party find the law confusing and disingenuous. I use a sock stuffed with rags dangled on a length of rope as the artificial carrier of scent. Simon Stephenson - let me explain the basic excitement of hunting. You're right it is not about vermin control but neither is it about trying to exert ones own power over that of the fox - who in any event is wiser, more cunning and usually much faster than we are. He knows the shape and feel of the land better. Central to hunting is the thrill of the chase. A fox or hare will take you through hedges and ditches, across rivers and through woods, up hill and down dale in a bid to throw you off the scent. This is what is so thrilling - you the hunter are not in control. We see parts of the countryside all but hidden from view. In a sanitized proscribed world it is great to be out on a winter's afternoon, a mist in the air and the sun setting in the west, not knowing where you'll end up. Still the fox trots on usually several 100 feet ahead of hounds. Foxhounds and beagle bark, speak, when they detect scent. Quite often the hunters, whether on horse back or like me loping along in a pair of trainers, are simply chasing after hounds. Fox hounds are not that bright and will check, lose the scent, pick up an earlier scent of a different fox, become distracted by a river or a flock of sheep. It is fascinating and thrilling. Happily the vast amount of foxes chased get away unscathed - I can't really regard them as vermin and wish them well. Hunting folk are animal lovers and treat the quarry the same way you people view a Sunday roast. To hunt is to realise we are subject to nature and a world we do not understand well, it is an exercise in humility. More over it is good to know we humans with all our frailty and short sightedness - are not always in control. Small wonder socialist can't stand the idea.

Nicholas

And what you so eloquently describe Andre was an English tradition for almost a thousand years until Tony Blair and the destructive New Labour horde appeared on the horizon with the cave-troll Brown in tow. They who knew better, who would bring about the "change" the embittered, spiteful, self-hating socialist-communist minority lusted for. They for whom the word "ban" is writ large, who can conceive nothing beyond regulation, legislation, coercion and enforcement to stamp out every dissent, every eccentricity, every act of individualism. every cultural heritage they disapprove of, to make our history a thing of shame, and to teach our young to be good communists, embracing the equality and singleness of thought that bleeds the soul and crushes the vibrant pumping heart of the truly diverse human being.

And as the hunt passes as tenants of the land, season to season, century to century, the foxes are still there. New Labour, impervious to their own mortality and the generations to follow, act as though they own the land and everyone in it, as though they control it for all time instead of just being its transient caretakers.

The hunt, as you write, an exercise in humility, a word that is not in New Labour's lexicon.

Simon Stephenson

Andre : 7.54am

Look, I don't get hot under the collar about this, because in the overall scheme of things there's thousands of subjects more important to resolve than whether or not fox-hunting is acceptable to society.

But I think the point I made still holds. For all the wonderful experiences people get out of fox-hunting, its premise is still that we humans, by virtue of our greater abilities, have a right to subject other creatures to indignities and painful deaths for no constructive purpose other than our own entertainment. Now you may believe that part of being human is the assumption that we have this right, but there are a significant number of people, not all of whom are chippy townies, who disagree with this. They would say that although our abilities give us the power to exploit other species, they also give us the power not to, and that the greater morality is with the latter.

Ian C

Simon Stephen. One word: FREEDOM.

Freedom not to be persecuted by a tyrannical majority, who because they can at a moment in time claim a majority, impose their will on others who were doing something that has to be done and having some fun doing it.

Freedom. That is what the fox hunting fight is and was always about. New Labour came in thinking that it was about toffs and revenge for the miners and lamely excused by 'animal welfare', when the latter is and was at the time of the legislation demonstrably not the case. The Labour proponents just wanted to curtail a benign to positive (control of foxes) freedom because an ignorant (self-proclaimed) majority disapproved.

I and probably a majority of others disapprove of celebrity culture, which very arguably does much more damage to humans than fox hunting does to foxes. But we leave those who practice it free to behave like idiots if they want to even though it is rotting our society at the core.

The 'there should be a law against it' brigade get far too much through by sheltering behind irrelevant claims of 'majority' in a democracy. Democracy does not mean freedom to tyrannise minorities, though many think it does.

Ian C

Verity

I think you must be related to Genghis Khan. Cameron needs a chance to prove himself and your innate prejudice will prevent you from forming a considered opinion.

I expect that this autumn he will lay out all you are baying for - as Thatcher did in Autumn 1978. If he does not he will be rightly criticiseable.

But read this from today's FT (yes the FT).

"The characterisation of David Cameron as a flimsier version of Tony Blair is becoming less convincing by the day. His supporters will tell you this is because his party is working out a distinctive philosophy of “progressive Conservatism”, in which policy mechanisms traditionally associated with the right are put to work in the service of social cohesion.

More sceptical observers treat this as a reheated version of New Labour’s “Third Way”. But even they must now admit that both politics and economics have moved on since 1997. The economic circumstances and fiscal choices that are available to Mr Cameron are quite simply different from those that were available to Mr Blair."

Simon Stephenson

Ian C

I totally agree with you about freedom, but because I believe that prohibition is wrong doesn't mean that I have to think that the activity itself is right, does it?

My philosophy is that we should try as far as possible to convince people to behave in a morally upright way that does justice to the honour of them being given life as a human being. To me, moral uprightness doesn't include persecuting and killing other creatures for entertainment, nor does it cover attempting to camouflage the motive by parading the activity as being primarily about pest control. Cruelty and deceit are two facets of the human character that should be discouraged, I feel.

But it's an abuse of power for one group of adults to seek to impose their morality on another group by force rather than persuasion.

Nicholas

Ian C - well written, sir.

JONNY

You have a problem Simon Stephenson.
In your long-winded way, you don't seem to be able to grasp that the kindest way with foxes is to keep hunting going.
Because a good many farmers will let them be to please their fox-hunting neighbours (as country folk do).
Otherwise we'll get yobbos with shotguns and municipal vermin exterminators plugging their holes with poison gas.
Illusions are nice to have, but it is hightime you grew out of them.

Ian C

Simon Stephenson

You appear to be claiming moral self-righteousness is the unequivocal privileged position of any 'current' majority. And for you to claim that foxhunting is 'persecuting and killing' for entertainment is to misunderstand foxhunting as completely as the New Labour politicians who used the animal welfare lobby because it provided them with the convenient excuse for other revenges and the opportunity for political trade-offs.

Which is precisely why the majority cannot be entrusted to claim 'democratic majority' as the basis for imposing their will on a minority in such an apparently unimportant matter as foxhunting - because in such matters that only effect a few the rest of mankind will, in all likelihood - as in this case - get it badly wrong. (I have never hunted in my life).

'Morally upright' claims, also, are the refuge of scoundrels who are claiming their views are superior to the views of others. To go down this road is to re-invent the bigoted and dangerous past of 'I know better than you, therefore you shall do as I say' that was the basis of lawmaking before we became a 'liberal' democracy.

For anyone to claim 'moral uprightness' over an activity that has been accepted for hundreds of years, and is a 'least worst' means of fox-culling, we risk becoming an illiberal democracy, because of the propensity for tyranny of majorities who must impose themeselves. Which is one of the main reasons for opposing this appalling government - because they have shown the exact same attitude to personal liberty, over many facets of life, that you are showing (misunderstanding and superior morality) over fox-hunting.

If you cannot see that, you are not a liberal - in the true sense of the word. It is a very tough one, but that is why the foxhunting 'thing' is much more important than it, at first sight, appears. It was a 'red-line' that must be 'un-crossed'.

Simon Stephenson

JONNY : 3.13pm

I don't quite understand your logic. If foxes are so minimal a problem to them that "a good many farmers will let them be to please their fox-hunting neighbours", why then if we stop fox-hunting would we "get yobbos with shotguns and municipal vermin exterminators plugging their holes with poison gas"

I mean, if the whole thing about foxes is that they are a serious problem to farmers, then the problem should be dealt with in an efficient and humane way. And no one claims hunting to be that. But if foxes really aren't that big a problem, and farmers aren't inconvenienced enough to deal with them efficiently, then hunting's not about agricultural efficiency, it's about killing creatures for fun.

It stretches credulity to suggest that the kindest thing that can happen to foxes is for us to continue to hunt them with hounds. If they are a problem, the kindest way to deal with it is professional extermination, and if they aren't that much of a problem then leave them alone.

But no, we have to make a jamboree out of it instead.

Simon Stephenson

Ian C : 4.04pm

"You appear to be claiming moral self-righteousness is the unequivocal privileged position of any 'current' majority"

No, I'm not. I'm saying that I personally believe that hunting satisfies a human desire that should be voluntarily suppressed. Where do I mention anything about majorities?

"And for you to claim that foxhunting is 'persecuting and killing' for entertainment is to misunderstand foxhunting"

Well what else is it, if it can't be justified as the most efficient and humane way to keep the fox population down?

"Which is precisely why the majority cannot be entrusted to claim 'democratic majority' as the basis for imposing their will on a minority in such an apparently unimportant matter as foxhunting"

I agree completely. But I thought that's what I said in my posts. But being anti-prohibition doesn't mean that I have to be pro-hunting, does it?

"'Morally upright' claims, also, are the refuge of scoundrels who are claiming their views are superior to the views of others. To go down this road is to re-invent the bigoted and dangerous past of 'I know better than you, therefore you shall do as I say'"

Of course I believe my view to be superior to the views of some others. That's why I choose to hold my views, not theirs. But I seek to change their behaviour by persuading them to change their views, their attitudes, not by forcing them to do as I say.

" ... an activity that has been accepted for hundreds of years, and is a 'least worst' means of fox-culling"

Look, if you can show me that the popular support for fox-hunting is merely an off-shoot of what is the most efficient and practicable way to deal with a genuine contemporary problem with foxes, then I'll say just get on with it. But you know that this isn't the case. You know that fox-hunting is an anachronism that is no longer necessary as a practical input to food production, and that the two chief reasons why it continues are (1) as an entertainment for people brought up to regard other creatures as expendable in the pursuit of human interest, however widely the definition of this may be drawn, and (2) because there's a bunch of chippy authoritarian townies who are trying to tell country folk what they can and can't do, and this must be resisted whatever it involves.

M. Hayworth

Yes, we should repeal all of the politically correct and health and safety 'nonsense' legislation from the past decade - but on the issue of foxhunting, I agree entirely with Simon.

If the Tories think they can hide a repeal of the hunting act by placing it in with a load of other legislation that people actually want to see repealed, they are kidding themselves. Anti-hunting groups (who cross all political parties) are mobilizing across the country in readiness for this latest Tory trickery. We will do everything we can to make sure these thugs will never be able to torment another animal in the name of 'sport'.

M. Hayworth
Campaign for Decency

Linda

FACT: 75% of the electorate still support the hunting ban!

FACT: The law on hunting is not failing - 68 people have already been prosecuted under the Hunting Act, with other cases pending. It is a law, like any other, which is being enforced!

FACT: David Cameron is obviously totally unfit to govern as he has a personality disorder - anyone who backs a bunch of inherent cowards who think its fun to torment and kill wild animals, obviously has a very nasty sadistic streak. He should seek counselling!

Carol

We are supposed to live in a civilised society and yet hardly anyone, I haven't scrolled down all the replies, has mentioned the cruelty involved in hunting with dogs. I don't agree we have to continue such an activity just because it's a British tradition, "sport" or against our civil liberties.

Gary Hills

Well said Carol...Unlike the endless streem of exscuses by most above. The issue has always been about animal cruelty. It is not about power, it is not about class and It's not about revenge. Above all its no gimmick.

The hunting ban was always about the animals. For those who refused to see that. Well they are not in touch with the reality of the issue.

Animal cruelty is wrong and there are no exscuses for it. The ban was right and its wanted by the majority of the country. Its hear to stay...

Blue Fox

Opinion polls demonstrate that two thirds of Conservative supporters are against fox hunting. That amounts to over 11 million Conservatives. Only a minority want to repeal the Hunting Act. The majority of this country want fox hunting to remain an illegal activity. www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com

J. Jordan

for gawds sake not banning something because it is part of our history is the daftist of reasons. Lets bring back cock fighting then and any other thing that was once part of our great history. Our forbearers are dead so they realy don't care!

As for the smoking ban, well I work in a pub and long may the ban remain.