Supporters of the savage sport of "use the dogs to rip apart foxes" have come to London to demonstrate over the banning of their "fun".

Unfortunately these hooligans aren't able to demonstrate peacefully so the police have cracked a few skulls! Go home you scum!

I'd set the dogs on them!

Never been part of a Fox hunt. Is that what happens? Dosen't seem like much sport chasing dogs chasing a fox anyway.

Now they've invaded the floor of the House of Commons as the MP's are debating the ban.

On the radio hunt supporters are calling for a Civil War. Well we've already fought that one - and WE won it. I'm up for another one!

I am absolutely seething!!!

"If MPs back a ban, the Bill is due to pass through all of its House of Commons stages on Wednesday.

The little-used Parliament Act will be used to override peers opposition to a ban, which could be deferred to 2006.

Hare coursing would be banned three months after the Bill is passed.


Pro-hunt supporters began gathering early on Wednesday for a mass protest organised by the Countryside Alliance outside Parliament.

Scotland Yard arrested two women at 0600 BST on suspicion of obstructing the highway after nine vehicles, believed to be horse boxes, were abandoned in Parliament Square.

Hundreds of police, including a number in riot gear, are on duty to stop protesters spilling out of the square. There have been scuffles between police and some protesters, with some missiles thrown.

Many of the protesters were wearing T-shirts picturing Tony Blair with devil horns and "I'll keep hunting" slogans.

'Not the end'

James Edwards, 20, from Exmoor, told BBC News Online: "We are trying to get through to the MPs not to let their personal feelings get in the way of the real decisions they should be making.

"They should think about the long-term effects."

Warwickshire hunt follower Robert Pugh, 56, said the peaceful protest was aimed at preventing a ban but hunting would continue in any case.

"This might be a tough time for us but hunting will not finish," he said.

Ministers are proposing a motion to delay enforcement of any ban until the end of July or beginning of August 2006 after backbench pressure.

Even if it is backed by MPs, the two year delay cannot be forced through against Lords' wishes, which would leave the government with the choice of an immediate ban or no ban at all.

Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael said it would be "perverse" for the Lords and hunting supporters to oppose a delay.

He told BBC News 24: "We want to give a bit of space for common sense for people to back off, to look at re-homing of the dogs they have at the moment for hunting purposes, to look at changing to drag hunting, to other business activities."

And the prime minister's spokesman said Mr Blair believed that, after seven years trying to find a way to resolve the issue and find a middle way, he recognised that had not succeeded and it was time to live up to two manifesto commitments to give MPs a free vote on the issue.

Some critics say the delay is to avoid pro-hunt protests in the build-up to the election expected next spring.

The minister said the election gave opponents of a ban the chance to register their protest at the ballot box rather than on the streets.

MPs spent two-and-half hours debating the procedure, which is now going to votes before they start discussing the ban itself.

No date has been given for a Lords debate, but this is expected to take place in October.

The pro-hunting Countryside Alliance says it makes no difference if there was a delay before the Bill's implementation and plans to mount a legal challenge if the ban is approved using the Parliament Act.

The chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, Douglas Batchelor, said that the return of the bill to the Commons was "the high point of our 80-year campaign",

He said he "simply cannot see any good reason" for a delay on implementation of a ban.

At prime minister's questions, Tory leader Michael Howard said Tony Blair was sending a message that hunting was his priority at a time when crime was up, taxes were rising and the MRSA superbug was a major problem in British hospitals.

Mr Blair did not mention hunting but said he was proud of Labour's record on crime, law and order, education and health"

[ 09-15-2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

I thought Blair was trying to get tough on enviornmental issues for his immage. This seems it would appeal to the same folks.

But, Nightwing, a large number of environmentalists are also hunters. This is a devisive issue for environmentalists.

Fox hunting will be banned. It's been on the cards for years.

I'm so glad it's going to get banned. It's not just bad for the fox. The damage to the horses is immense, so many get hurt.

I cannot believe that a country like Britain, so long a world leader in animal rights, is so divided on this issue!


LOL at the "set the dogs on 'em" Donut [img]smile.gif[/img]

Leave it to the 'greenies' to want to change something as traditional as 'The Hunt'.

Um. Yes. Ok. Sounds good.
Did you have a point?

[img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] @ Hierophant :D

I agree with General Nosaj, this has been a long time coming. It's not as if it serves a practical purpose, like hunting for meat. Foxhunting is a bit more "civilized" than bear-baiting, which is why it's lasted for so long.

There has to be a better way to exercise hounds, horses and self.

If this was a bunch of screaming socialists, commies, and anarchists who were tearing up down town London to protest Capitalism, would you support setting the dogs on them Donut?

[ 09-18-2004, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Khazadman Risen ]

I'm sure he'd set the foxes on those types. ;)

FWIW, I'm also glad this is in the works.

Read what you just posted again, very carefully. That question doesn't make much sense when you think about it, does it ?

Yeah! I heard they were the ones that stopped the tradition of sending children up chimneys, and that great old tradition of "The Slave Trade"

And I ain't a greenie either!

Obviously! What a remarkably stupid question even for you to ask!

The dogs comment was chosen for a reason. You obviously don't get it!

What about dogs riding horses, hunting men?

That fits nicely with the whole new Save A Horse, Ride A Cowboy campaign.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Maybe if the Hunters were allowed to have guns, they wouldn't need the dogs to tear the foxes up?

[img]smile.gif[/img] ok, it was a joke..I'll leave now.
</font>

Thing with a dog is, that if it kills a child by accident you can have it put down.

Thing with a dog is, that if it kills a child by accident you can have it put down. </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Of the literally dozens of guns I have owned in my life time..I can honestly say, not one ever had to be put down for killing a child [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hmm for that matter neither has any of my dogs...</font>

[ 09-24-2004, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

So you are against cruelty to animals, but you have no problem with police brutality?

What is wrong with being 'posh'? If somebody titled a post 'get out of my city you proletarian bastards' or 'get out of my city you dreadful common little oiks' you would complain. Why do you think prejudice against the upper classes is ok?

Many a true word spoken in jest. They are allowed to have guns!!

But shooting a fox humanely to reduce their numbers isn't as much fun as chasing them to exhaustion, letting the dogs rip them apart and then cutting the ears off and rubbing the blood on the faces of the children.

I'm in favour of shooting them.

The hunters of the foxes? ;)

[ 09-24-2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

The hunters of the foxes? ;) </font>[/QUOTE]The Spurs. ;)

Seems to be little more than class warfare for its own sake...

D1 certainly gets the last word on this. Game, set, match.

Englerders are allowed to have guns for sport you silly geese.

[ 09-28-2004, 04:27 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

D1 certainly gets the last word on this. Game, set, match.

Englerders are allowed to have guns for sport you silly geese. </font>[/QUOTE]What the **** is an Englerder? some sort of antelope?

What the **** is an Englerder? some sort of antelope? </font>[/QUOTE]Damn right. Hunters have it too easy. They should arm all the foxes, antelope and englerders.

An Engerder is a native species of Brittttian Lanesra ;)

What the **** is an Englerder? some sort of antelope? </font>[/QUOTE]Damn right. Hunters have it too easy. They should arm all the foxes, antelope and englerders. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, at least here in the good ole U S of A we have the right to Arm Bears.

Anyone can get a gun if they show good reason that they need one. Killing people doesn't count.

Farmers use guns for pest control.

Burglars don't count as pests?

Funny that you can have them to hunt rats and other pests, but not to defend against intruders.

You folk have too much faith in your police in their little fast cars and their billy clubs. I simply prefer to take the safety of my family into mine own hands. Is that so wrong?

You got a gun - the burglar gets a gun. Your family is less safe. I prefer a baseball bat.

You keep a gun - your child gets to play with it.

You keep a gun - your child gets to take it to school to use it on his friends.

You keep a gun - one day your child is depressed. So he gets your gun.

I'm not sure how guns keep your family safer.

In 1997 there were 57 gun related murders in the UK. There were 316 reported burglaries which involved guns.

My fault, my fault, and my fault. If I can't keep my gun secure and my kid in line, then natural selection just may rule me out. But, don't punish my neighbors for my stupidity by taking away their freedoms.

Didn't a ban on weapons encourage the development of at least some of the martial arts?

[ 10-01-2004, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Sure, after years of intensive training, a martial artist may have the skill to kill a few people, in an intense hand-to-hand-fight, during which they could be outnumbered and disabled by people in the vicinity. An amateur with a firearm can kill lots of people, very quickly, with ease.

'Freedom' arguments don't wash with me. There's no such thing as freedom. Hell, the ideology of revolution is itself a mentally-skewing dogmatism. For all of the chest-banging and constitution-quoting and founding-fathers invoking that I've seen going on at IW, who among any of us bourgeois computer geeks would actually have the stones to incite and/or pursue an open rebellion against a so-called 'tyranny'? None. I betcha.

We have computer games to dull our fighting instincts and fulfill our adrenaline cravings for us. Let's stick to those shall we? You can save and reload when things inevitably fly out of your control. Nice and safe.

You're not free, and you don't want to be, whoever you are.

[ 10-01-2004, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Well, if we were going to do it, we would be smart to not announce it in writing online, since it *is* illegal to advocate open rebellion.

Which is another freedom we've given up along the way.

from a population of 60 million that has a history of violence (war or soccer take your pick) and similar victim figures to Australia with 20 million people (and most of them are villians shooting each other) yet of course gun ownership down here is so wide spread.


the right to arm bears indeed! (LOL)