Are you boycotting Lush?

[MookySpinge]

I am, but wondered what the rest of you think of their decision to support Hunt Sabs - feel it is on a par with any other terrorist group personally. Should probably do a link but iPhone is behaving badly at the moment.

hmmmm

Like I said before - I agree to differ with people who do not support hunting.

I believe that this thread was originally about whether or not to continue shopping with Lush given their apparent support of hunt sabs.

I appreciate that everyone has a view on hunting and on the behaviour of sabs - I know I certainly have very strong opinions. However, the pro vs anti argument has and will run for ages. Those in favour and against will argue until blue in the mouth!

But ... as I said before I am extremely shallow (somtimes ) and will probably continue to buy some items from Lush and will continue to visit National Trust properties and buy bird food from an RSPB approved seller.

I wonder how many sabs eat meat and dairy products, wear leather etc etc........

I also still stick by my original posting about the antisocial behaviour of sabs towards my family. Totally unacceptable!

dawnybabe i get you now

we have to step in and play god???

Colditz I was kind of agreeing with you. Forty horses, forty riders and forty dogs after one fox is a bit inefficient. One man with a rifle is quick and efficient, not to mention a clean kill. Foxes are still classed as vermin whatever you might think about it.

Hunting is just an excuse to roar around the countryside and have a good time. It is a shame if anything is killed or hurt by the dogs but I think most people do it for the ride, not the chance of some gory kill. Most riders turn up long after anything has been caught and dispatched anyway so they certainly don't go for the thrill of the kill. More people hunt now than before the ban came into force.

Dawnybabe - I agree with you - our local hunts rarely (if ever) catch a fox - before or after the hunting with dogs restrictions. 99% of the participants go for the ride - not the kill!

We control foxes on our farm using stalkers (inc my DH) as they are a pest - 18 chickens and about 30 chicks killed in the last 2 months in broad daylight! and 2 lambs taken earlier this year again in broad daylight. We have too many foxes where we live - hunting pre or post the hunting with dogs law would not control the sheer numbers that we have.

Shooting with a rifle is a clean and humane way to dispatch.

dispatch

it's a life

To answer OP, I will definitely boycott them.

I find it abhorent that they are willing to support an organisation that uses vile language and intimidating behaviour at the very least, to stop people hunting legally.

gawd elp us

not sure of your point GoppingOtter???.....

Nor me.

Where has my last post gone? About shooting?

"By luckyblackcat Sun 18-Oct-09 17:20:10

But do sabs target clean boot hunting/drag hunting?"

Um, they did today!! C & p from an equine forum

"You would think that anyone who was a hunting 'anti' would do their research first!

Daughter went out with the Bloodhounds this afternoon and came across some people filming them. She's been out with the 'bloodies' several times in the past but was the first time she's seen this. She was told that they often get folk doing this now, for monitoring purposes and also, yelling at them to 'stop hunting'! Don't the 'antis' realise that Bloodhounds hunt the clean boot? As it was a training hack (the b'hounds equivalent of autumn hunting) and not even following a line, the mastership were wearing their blouson jackets with the name of the pack in large letters on the back, so there was no doubt as to who they were!"

Oh yes - sabs frequently target drag hunting where I live with the totally intrusive tactics (if you can call it that)that I've mentioned in an earlier post - swearing, spraying our vehicles, urinating on our vehicles, swearing agressively at younger hunt members ( my dd was called an upper class bitch cunt recently) and in your face videoing, even of hunt followers. Our local hunt respects the law, but still has to put up with the above.

Yes, "terrorism" is an emotive word, but so is the phrase "ripping a harmless furry creature to death". You could argue both are accurate or inflamatory (or both at the same time!) depending on your point of view.

(I've been trying to find a definition of terrorism, but it seems to be something no one can agree on. Most sites include some variation on "the use or threatened use of force or violence to coerce or intimidate" - the biggest question marks seem to be on whether it has to be for political or idealogical goals or either, and whether it has to have a political target.)

If hunts are breaking the law that should be dealt with through the appropriate channels - but that does NOT include individuals and organisations deciding to take the law into their own hands. We go down that road and we get to anarchy. I'll happily admit that our current politcal system has many flaws and could do with a complete review - but vigilante justice isn't the way to do it for me.

did anyone else hear on the Today programme this morning about Parliament hours spent on fox hunting -v- hours spent on Iraq?

our priorities must be more screwed than I thought

Lush is grim regardless of their hunt policies.

I have no experience of hunt sabs as I hunted in Ireland.

I would imagine that there are good and bad hunt sabs as there are good and bad in the hunt.

It seems gimmicy to me to support hunt sabs now so many years on from when they did their best work but I suppose that's the point.
Throw in your support after all the hard work and more unpleasant skirminshes are over and a lot of the more heated opinions have died down gone away.

Seems a bit after the fact to me is all and doesn't make up for the grim smell

tangle - only one of those emotive phrases is in dispute here

Yes Otter, the "ripping apart" thing is misleading, inaccurate and inflamitory, but an underground organisation using intimidation, threats and actual acts of violence is a form of Terrorism.

I think the problem Hunt Sabs have is that a minority of them do things that the majority wouldn't approve of [cause harm, issue threats]
and that gives all of them a bad name. But a minority of hunters are violent and abusive too, and no one seems to find that a problem. I do find it offensive to people who really have lived with the consequences of terrorism to use such an overblown term for a group of people shouting rude words at another group of people who are chasing a small animal to its death.

Put into youtube

"Fox ripped apart by houndss"

And you will indeed see a fox being ripped apart by hounds.

It is an emotive term but that does not make it a false statement.

yes, but it is already dead as soon as the first hound bites it

That's not a fact, cazboldy, it's an assumption. It may be a fair assumption, but it doesn't make it a fact.

greenmonkies guess who aint laughing?

They replied to my email telling me I was boycotting them.

The upshot:

"Lush is proud to be associated with the Hunt Saboteurs Association who show the tenacity and bravery to uphold a law that our own police force and government seem reluctant to enforce, despite strong and continued support for the ban from the British public."

Presumably they will also be funding the National Vigilante Association, which have 'the tenacity and bravery to uphold a law that our own police force and government seem reluctant to enforce'

Morons.