Fox Hunting

[Uhu]

Tally Ho!

wonder what cowboy Bush makes of Tony banning hunting?

I don't remember asking for sympathy.

I have never committed a violent act (though have had them committed against me). I don't need to justify my choices to you. I am proud of the things I have done in the name of animal rights.

You can call me stupid if you like, just as I can call you selfish and ignorant. There's not a single thing I am ashamed of, and the likes of you are not going to change that. I'm not afraid to stand up for what I believe in, and I'm not going to apologise for that.

Well you may stand up for what you believe in - but the people of your ilk who have attacked the people I know have done it anonymously - I mean that's really brave isn't and they're so proud of what they've done they don't want anyone to know who they are. I hope you or any of your children never get diabetes or something - cos you'll have to refuse the treatment won't you?

This thread has gone off message methinks. The point is people object to the so called higher intelligent mammals deliberately dressing up, chasing and butchering a lower order specimen in the name of sport. In fact, hunting of foxes has not been banned, only the use of dogs. Hence why don't the hunting fraternity learn to adapt and stop whinging? The hunting ban has been enforced in Scotland for a couple of years and the mass unemployment, wholescale depression of hunters, countryside falling to ruin as predicted by the Countryside Alliance has not materialised. Overstating their case comes to mind.

The eradication of pests like ants, spiders blah, blah, blah is normally in response to health and safety issues when they threaten to over-run premises. Heaven help us if we are plagued by rats again that led to the bubonic plague.

Animal rights activists are entitled to their views but I don't understand how they can protest against violence towards animals by committing violent acts (physical, emotional or pyschological) against humans? As for the anti-vivisection lobby, they would have more respect if they did not keep distorting facts and terrorising employees who genuinely want to help the wider population.

Don't do spiders - The most ENORMOUS monster appeared in my kitchen last night. Thank Goodness dh isn't afraid to pick them up, although I couldn't near him afterwards
I left this thread on Monday and the inevitable happened unfortunately
Hey Aloha, if your reading this. I love the way you always make sense

JoolsToo - are you in N Chesh? 2 of my friends received letters 'notifying' them that a paedophile lived in their road. Luckily they had the sense to consult the police. Turns out it was animal rights activists. Not only did they attack the people they named (rightly or wrongly) they also caused a lot of upset in the households who received the letters, both of whom had young children. Can't see how that is going to advance anyones cause.

Berries - geography spot on! The families have been traumatised - as you say - its the whole family who suffer - children included!

stupidgirl just read your post from 16 Sept at 10.14 pm
"It has been proven that people who hurt animals are more likely to go on to hurting people. Many murderers and torturers have 'practised' on animals before progressing to humans." - what's your excuse then?

AND from later the same night

"Addmittedly I buy leather shoes for the kids, but only because I can't afford £80 per child every 4 months for non leather ones... " so your principals go out the window when money's involved then?

Joolstoo. In any kind of organisation there are those who take things further than the majority are comfortable with. Look at football - most football supporters are peaceful but are given a bad name by the hooligans. It's the same in most sectors of society.

I stated that I have never committed a violent act, and would never do so (although perhaps you and me draw the line in different places). I said that I could understand the frustration that leads to people committed such acts as the ones you have mentioned, that doesn't mean I condone them. Animal rights protestors also get very bad press, most of which is unfair and untrue.

As for principles going out of the window when money is involved, no, that is not the case at all. I have lived on benefits for the past 6 years, and we are now on a very low income. So what am I to do? Let my children go barefoot? When it comes to spending £80 on a pair of shoes which will be worn for 3 months, or feeding my children, the children come first. You'd be the first to criticise me if I neglected my children. Certain principles have had to be compromised, that doesn't mean the conviction behind them is any less strong.

Stupidgirl - let's agree to disagree but one last point - I would never expect ANYONE to make their children go without and would certainly hope that a principle would take the back seat - but there you have it - there are millions of people out there who are alive because of animal testing who would otherwise be dead - parents (as you are)who have kids that would have suffered unbearably, or would have died, are now grateful, thanks to the work of scientists. These kids are now happy and healthy and long may it be so.