The Blairs and those pesky neighbours

Could news that the Blairs are house hunting again have any connection to a certain lack of affinity with their Connaught Square neighbours pictured here?

Not only is Connaught square smack in the middle of London's most Arab of neighbourhoods, whose occupants are likely to have a pretty jaundiced view of Tony's efforts on their behalf, but it seems that they have ignored a string of invitations from the Connaught Square Squirrel Hunt to attend its meets. Joint Master Duncan Macpherson is perplexed

"The Blairs would enjoy the exercise, companionship and honest exchange of views"

he says.

However, the invitation does NOT extend to the annual Hunt Ball at Banqueting House.
In Duncan's words:

"The Blairs would certainly add a degree of tawdry glamour to the occasion, but the Security Service would have to background check our guests and I'd be disappointed if half of them didn't have something to hide. Also, the presence of so many loaded guns in the hands of non-country folk would make people a bit twitchy."

- Quite so.

So what of their reported viewing of a certain Buckinghamshire Country Pile as a prospective alternative home?

Oh dear. It seems there is just no escape from pesky neighbour problems. Winslow Hall has a long established tradition of hosting the Bicester and Whaddon Chase Hunt Boxing Day meet. Having the Blairs as neighbours may be just about bearable - maybe. But another dose of sanctimonious Blairite tradition trampling over what is one of the local 'events of the year' ???

Hmmm.

Peter Tatchell and 9/11

I'm not a big fan of Peter Tatchell. Over the years, whilst acknowledging its overall validity, his 'in-your-face' style of protest about 'gay-rights' had me mildly bemused. However, it was when he started to demand that hunting be outlawed (ie that a fundamental aspect of my life be made illegal) whilst similarly demanding all manner legal safeguards, freedoms, special treatment etc for his own minority, that I was forced to conclude that he was just another hypocrite, blinded by his own particular brand of prejudice.

Having said all that, his readiness to put himself at risk for his beliefs (as when he got a beating whilst trying to 'arrest' Robert Mugabe in Brussels back in 2001 for example) remains impressive. Similarly with his latest piece on 'Comment is Free' about 9/11. He risks being branded a tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy nutter - which is exactly the thrust of many of the comments on the piece.

Anyway; here's my take on the matter:

The principal issue raised in his piece has nothing whatever to do with wacky conspiracy theories and everything to do with reasonable demands for a thorough, open and properly funded inquiry - free from the partisan pressure of 'The official Narrative' - into the biggest terrorist attack in history. That is EXACTLY what the authors of the existing inquiry report say did NOT happen - and it's not much to ask. To those who say 'it's obvious what happened, move on' etc etc (usually accompanied by outraged ridiculing insults), I say it is very far from obvious. It is no exaggeration to say that 9/11 has changed the course of history. 'Cui Bono?' should therefore dictate a major strand of any such inquiry. After all, from readily available public information, it's not much of a stretch to postulate that key figures in the US Administration had, at the very least, both the motive and the means to make the success of such an attack more likely.

'Perish the thought' is the standard response, but that's exactly the problem. The thought that one's own government could be complicit in such an event is so scary and abhorrent that it is immediately discounted out-of-hand. The net result is that 'Kill the messenger' is applied to anyone who raises the issue - in spades - as is amply demonstrated in the article's comments.

Those with 'both motive and means' know that such a reaction can be relied upon absolutely.

After all we're not called 'The Sheeple' for nothing you know.

A Microcosm of Old England

Phil Arthers. 1941 - 2006. An appreciation

Phil Arthers was the very model of a solid, quiet, kind, down-to-earth English Gentleman. I have just returned from his funeral at St Wystan's Church, Repton, Derbyshire. It was a deeply moving event attended by over a thousand of the people whose lives he touched. As someone who feels privilaged to have known him and to have counted him a friend, here are a few of my own thoughts on his passing.

Three times a week for 18 successive seasons until December 2005 Phil Arthers led the mounted field of the Meynell & South Staffordshire hounds across some of the finest and most testing hunting country in the world. On 22nd December 2005 in the shadow of The Walk on the Weaver Hills, he took a nasty fall which was expected to end the season for him. In the event it was to be his final dismount. In late spring, with supposed injuries from the fall stubbornly refusing to improve, he was diagnosed with an advanced cancer of the spine. He passed away on 21st July.

I returned to hunting about 10 years ago and late in life, as both therapy and antidote to medical advice following cranial base surgery which was supposed to leave me unable to ride. It was then that I first met Phil and his wife Jenny. Under his guidance I became proficient and Phil gave me the best 5 years hunting of my life. As a Field master he was legendary. In over 200 outings with him in charge of what were often large and potentially unruly fields, I heard him raise his voice perhaps 5 times. Without exception such events were directed at his own people and the result of actions or ommissions by followers which risked compromising the interests of the farmers over whose land we were riding - failure to report damage or close a gate, that sort of thing. It was never a spontaneous outburst. He would always wait until the next draw, gather the field around him then let rip - and when he did you soon learned to listen. His absolute authority came from his otherwise mild manner together with an encylopedaic knowledge of his country and his unsurpassed horsemanship. It was accepted by Prince and Pauper alike - and I mean that quite literally. There were a number of times when he was subjected to foul mouthed abuse by saboteurs; he NEVER responded in kind. A polite smile and turning the other cheek were his way of dealing with such things.

Which brings me to the community of souls that were present at Phil's funeral. They ranged, as in his life, from Prince to Pauper. They were, and are, a microcosm of the life of Old England. All with connections to hunting and predominantly from rural farming families. The terrier men of the Meynell were his pall-bearers; the undertaker, one of his mounted followers.

As I looked around that congregation I could not help but reflect on the chasm that exists between its core values and those of our party of government; a chasm illustrated by the mean-spirited, self-righteous ignorance of the campaign against hunting, culminating in the Pontius Pilate-like behaviour of the Prime Minister over the passing of the Hunting Act; The crass, unfeeling incompetence of government handling of the Foot and Mouth outbreak ; its uncaring botch-up over single farm payments and it's indifference to farming in general . The community present at St Wystan's today has ample reason to feel bitter, disillusioned and angry with what passes for democracy in Britain today but, for the most part it doesn't. It is stoical. It remains a real, if weary, community with deep roots in its native soil. It will continue to defend its culture, heritage, beliefs and way of life against a movement which, having none of those things itself, seeks only to destroy them.

The real tragedy at the heart of a polarised, insecure, touchy-feely, shallow, self-satisfied 'Cool New Britania' is that, if there was anyone at Phil's funeral who had voted Labour in the past, not a single one appears likely to do so again.

Labour Intolerants at it again

The sanctimonious intolerant wing of the Labour Party is seeking self-destruction again. They are indignant! They are Angry! They are outraged!

At what?

Why, one of their own MP's - Kate Hoey - being Chairman of the Countryside Alliance, that's what. What's more their poll indicates that they believe being a Labour politician is incompatible with Countryside Alliance activism. Not unlike the extremist Colonel Blimp hang-em, Flog-em brigade of the Tory Party. Except that outraged authoritarian intolerance seems to be not only the majority mindset of the Labour Party these days, but also to infect it's younger members the most. Two CLP's are 'So alarmed', they are calling on the Party Whips (do they know the etymology of that word I wonder?) to take 'decisive action' (unspecified naturally, but decisive)

They are blissfully unaware that the previous CA chairman, John Jackson, is a lifetime member of the Labour Party and Fabian Society, and that the CA President since 1998 is a Labour Peer - elevated by Neil Kinnock no less - Baroness Anne Mallalieu. Also that another Labour Peer and former Labour MP Lin Golding is a member of the CA Board. In fairness there are some solid dissenting views on the thread too but, naturally enough, they stand accused of being closet Torys where possible.

Read the whole thread here on LabourHome

All the usual tired, discredited shibboleths trotted out - yet again: toffs, privilage, insulting caricatures of hunting, 'what about the miners?' etc. etc. - plus a few. Even one complaint about feeling intimidated by the CA demo at the 2004 Labour Party Conference - ahhhhh. (he ought to consider just who was doing the attacking and who the defending). That was also the conference where, for the second year in succession the CA stand in the secure area of the conference was vandalised and the staff manning it subjected to a constant stream of foul-mouthed abuse from those ernest, sour-faced, mostly youthful, delegate/activist types.

They are quite right to be worried about the 'Vote-OK' campaign though. There's no doubt that it has learned a lot and, come the next election, will put far more committed activists on the streets in marginal seats where the incumbent declares him/herself to be unsympathetic to repeal or drastic amendment of the farce that is the present Hunting Act.

Rather hope the outraged intolerant brigade get their way though - It'll be another PR gift for hunting.

Tags: Hunting, Kate Hoey, Hunting with Hounds, Fox Hunting, Countryside Alliance

Guardian 'animal rights' blindness.

The Guardian newspaper has an 'ethical living section' where readers are asked to nominate individuals living ‘good lives’ who are ‘the people making a difference.’ Today the section features a woman called Kate Fowler who is described as an ‘animal rights campaigner’. She’s profiled here.

The impression conveyed is of a 'butter-wouldn't-melt-in-her-mouth' gentle individual living a selfless, ethical life. BUT IT IS PURE BULLSHIT! In fact Kate is a fairly typical example of the those on the nastier fringes of the animal rights movement. A stident, 'living-on-the-edge' extremist to whom animals 'matter', but people don't.

What the feature conspiculously fails to mention is her involvement in some of the most violent actions ever mounted against hunts in the South East of England and reported in - you've guessed it - the Guardian.

In fact she is a long-standing hunt saboteur. That's her pictured 'sabbing' in the South East back in 1996. She was also one of 23 people arrested during a violent attack on the Old Surrey Burstow & West Kent Hunt Kennels at Felbridge, Surrey in September 2000 - Guardian report here.

About three weeks ago, a colleague of mine nominated Laurie Pycroft the 16yr old Oxford youth who inspired medical researchers to stand up to animal rights terror, but for some reason he has never been featured. If developing life-saving medicines and fighting bullying and intimidation at no small risk to your own safety isn’t moral/ethical, I don’t know what is! But the Guardianistas, it seems, prefer people like our Kate.

So, if you would like to nominate someone or suggest that the Guardian’s sympathies are misplaced, they can be contacted here .

Tags: Hunting, Hunting with Hounds, Fox Hunting, Animal Rights, Animal Rights Terrorism, Kate Fowler

Ann Widdecombe on Hunting

Iain Dale invited readers of his blog to suggest questions for him to put to Ann Widdecombe for one of his podcasts. I suggested 'why is she so wilfully blind about hunting with hounds?' Knowing her abrupt, judgemental and rather arrogant manner, and with hindsight I ought perhaps to have suggested she give her judgement about the quality of the Hunting Act 2004 which she consistently supported; or whether she would revise her view were it to be clearly demonstrated that a ban was in fact detrimental to the welfare of the wild rural fox (both actually rhetorical Q's), but no matter. Here is her reply:

"I am not wilfully blind; this is a very arrogant man [that's me ed] who obviously believes that anyone who disagrees with him must be wilfully blind; I have weighed up the evidence; brought my experience to bear (it may interest him to know that both my parents hunted) and I have come to a view which is different to his"

Wow! - where to begin?

For anyone who knows me there's no need to comment on the 'very arrogant man' bit (Deeply hurt, bitter, angry, cynical and disillusioned with what passes for due political process and constitutional safeguards - yes, but arrogant?) other than to say that she, of all people is hardly in a position to make accusations of arrogance against anyone.

She has weighed up the evidence? - Her public utterances on the subject, both in parliament and elsewhere, make it crystal clear that she has done no such thing. She entered the debate as a committed anti and, as she admitted to Iain in the question immediately preceding mine, she cannot recall an instance of having changed her mind about anything in the light of new evidence - quite so; sounds just like Widders doen't it? If she HAD weighed up the evidence produced by Lord Burns in his Inquiry report (95% of the 5,000 submissions to which were opposed to a ban), she would agree with Lord Burns that, in animal welfare terms a ban on hunting is at best marginal and at worst detrimental to the welfare of the wild rural fox population, not to mention the communities involved. That leaves 'morality' which, as usual with Ms Widdecombe, is no doubt the nub of the matter. She thinks it is immoral and is intent on forcing her own 'morality' on others. She really ought to be a bit more circumspect about what she thinks goes on in the heads of other people (specifically hunting people) because it reveals a great deal about what goes on in her own head - In spite of her conversion to Rome, Authoritarian-Puritan sums it up nicely.

She has brought her experience to bear? She claims her parents hunted. Well, quite simply, I don't believe her and I challenge her to name the hunt(s) concerned. Subscriber records going back over 200 years are scrupulously maintained by all the 250 or so hunts in the UK. If they really were subscribers it is traceable. If they were not, then they were simply playing at it - probably for the social cachet that wannabe social climbers used to believe (some still do!) attached to hunting. She has NEVER engaged with the other side of the debate. She has received numerous invitations to visit hunt kennels, meets, puppy shows etc. and, to my knowledge, has never once accepted. Clearly hunting people (her sainted parents excepted of course) are simply too odious to have any truck with eh? - a bit like being asked to meet openly gay people 30-50 years ago - they are/were simply BEYOND THE PALE.

She has come to a view which is different to mine? I would have no problem whatsoever with that; except that she has done (and continues to do) a lot more than come to a view. 'Live-and-let-live' is clearly an alien concept to Widders as is the meaning of the word 'tolerance'. Everything is black and white. If she is opposed to something then something MUST be done about it. In the case of hunting she has provided high profile campaign support for criminal legislation on a matter which does not even register on the priorities of 99% of the population but which is far more important to those she seeks to criminalise than, for example football is to an ardent football fan. In doing so she has consistently refused to engage with those same people.

On the anniversary of the farce that is now the Hunting Act, she went on record with - I paraphrase -

"people riding out in red coats with hounds are clearly hunting and
should be prosecuted"

which does rather beg the question "would it be OK if (aka the 'saboteurs' that continue to plague hunts) they rode out in Combat fatigues and balaclavas carrying baseball bats?". Is that the standard of evidence she thinks will secure a conviction? - evidently so. Or does she think police should spend time gathering the evidence that the act really DOES require? Would that be a good use of police time? or might catching terrorists (including the animal rights/grave desecrating/hunt saboteur kind pandered to in this legislation) carry a slightly higher priority?

For information there has still not been a single prosecution (let alone conviction) of a hunt in spite of there having been over 5,000 meets involving over 1/2 million people attendances since the Act became law. However, far more foxes have been killed; far more wounded; and few if any of the wounded have been located and dispatched quickly by hounds as used to be the case - because to do so would put hunts at serious risk of prosecution. It's simply a ridiculous dogs dinner of an act, inspired by pure prejudice, bought and paid for with £1.25 million donated to Labour coffers by the animal rights movement, and delivered though a combination of malice, class war revenge and political expediency or, in the case of Ann Widdecombe and one or two others, puritanical outrage.

It is clear that she is as ignorant of the detail of the legislation she so diligently supported, as she is of both hunting people and hunting itself.

Tags: Ann Widdecombe, Hunting, Animal Rights, Hunting with Hounds, Animal rights terrorism, Fox Hunting

Animal rights activists admit attack on grandmother

From The Daily Mail:

Three animal rights activists launched a terrifying attack on a family, including a 75-year-old grandmother, for having a pro-hunting sticker on their car, a court heard yesterday. Heather Nicholson, Natasha Avery and Daniel Wadham jumped out of their car while stuck in a traffic jam to spit, scream abuse and bang on the windows of their victims. At one stage they hit a 75-year-old grandmother and tried to open the car doors to drag her 21-year-old grandson into the street. It was only the intervention of outraged members of the public that halted the attack. Avery and Nicholson, both 38, are founding members of the controversial group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) which has instigated the hate campaign against companies involved in animal testing. ......

... Mrs A tried to lock all her doors, but was unable to, and Nicholson launched another hate-filled rant screaming: 'F+++ing perverts, f+++ing scum.' Mrs A was 'in tears and shaking' as Avery shouted similar obscene abuse at the passenger window. Mrs Nicholson then reached in the passenger door to pull Mrs A's son out of the car by his legs - but he kicked to stop her. When the 75-year-old put her left arm out to help her grandson Nicholson hit her arm and Nicholson and Wadham spat in the 21-year-old's face and on the passenger door. Other motorists came to the rescue of the family with one driver shouting to the extremists: 'If you want to start, start on me,' before police arrived to arrest all three

Further confirmation that the animal rights terrorists His Toniness is now so keen to denounce are one and the same as those he spent 8 years pandering to over his hunting legislation farce.

This is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour that hunting people have had to put up with for a decade and more now - inflamed by a government that now professes outrage when it is directed at activities they have no choice but to support. Three of the four people convicted of desecrating the grave of a grandmother over the Newchurch Guinea pig farm protests had form as hunt saboteurs. These people are not animal lovers; they are people haters.

Tags: Hunting, Hunting with Hounds, Animal rights, Animal rights terrorism, Fox Hunting

Sleep-walking to Police State Britain

Remember these scenes in Parliament Square on 15th September 2004 during the 3rd reading of the Hunting Act? I do too. I was present throughout and the experience turned my view of the police on it's head. From traditional friendly defenders and protectors of the public, they became the armed, bone-headed enforcers of an oppressive State.

Simplistic sounding I know. All I can say is that, when you have been on the receiving end of that kind of 'enforcement', then listened to the 'official' version of what is SUPPOSED to have happened (all very plausible to the public who always want to give the police the benefit of any doubt), your view of the police and the State can never be quite the same again.

I have been forcefully reminded of all this a number of times over the past 12 months, from the Charles de Menenez and Forest Gate shootings at one end of the scale to the detention and prosecution on 18th June of Steven Jago under the "Serious Organised Crime & Police Act" for - get this; it is taken from an article in today's Independant and 100% accurate:

...carrying a placard in Whitehall bearing the George Orwell quote: "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." In his possession, he had several copies of an article in the American magazine Vanity Fair headlined "Blair's Big Brother Legacy". The police told Mr Jago this was 'politically motivated' material, and suggested it was evidence of his desire to break the law.

Please read that article. It is real eye-opener. It provides alarming insight into just how, on the back of whipped up outrage and fear, through the 'Respect agenda', 'fighting crime', increasing 'security' and the 'war on terror' the State is undermining what little there is left of our so called 'free society'

Chris Smith's 'Cri du Coeur'

Chris (Now Baron of Finsbury, no less) Smith - formerly minister for culture media and sport. Remember him?

Josie Appleton interviews him in Spiked about his new book 'Suicide of the West'. She describes it as 'Smith's cri du coeur for fundamental enlightenment values'. I read it with increasing irritation and contempt. She dubs the book "a timely intervention". If the stuff quoted is any guide, 'self-serving tosh' would be more like it - as in:

"We are now at a fork in the road. One way lies cynicism and despair, the other is rediscovering a belief in the things that we hold dear."

or

"I joined the Labour Party because I thought that it was the best vehicle for social change, for making people’s lives better"

Oh really? how very touching and original. "Furthering my own political agenda and forcing my own [suspect] morality on others" is a reasonable translation from the Orwellian doublespeak of those two little gems I'd say.

As a member of a recently persecuted minority group, Chris Smith might have been expected to have some insight into what it feels like to be demonised and marginalised prior to being legislated against. Apparantly not. This is the man who voted consistently for the most extreme options on hunting with hounds, including support for the original 'Foster Bill'. Over 700 hours of parliamentary time squandered on a spiteful tribal measure introduced for precisely the kind political expediency he claims to abhor. With his full support, it finally resulted in a total legislative ban farce.

The man is a regulating/banning/social engineering control freak of the kind now sadly typical of much of left wing UK politics. He (they) wouldn't recognise genuine enlightenment values if he fell over them.

If the West really IS committing suicide, then it is Smith and his kind that are the immediate proximate cause.

Tags: Chris Smith, Hunting, Hunting with Hounds, Fox Hunting, Animal Rights

Lammy to the slaughter as minister attones for rural slur

From the Sunday Times Atticus column:

"Culture minister David Lammy will be enjoying plenty of fine country fare next month: namely, several large slices of humble pie. Lammy is off on a tour of the countryside to atone for an ill-advised speech at the Labour conference last year in which he referred to rural folk as “inbred”.

Luckily for Lammy, his remarks to the Fabian Society were overshadowed by the eviction of 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang from the conference hall. But they did not escape the attention of the Countryside Alliance. After an angry exchange of letters, Lammy has apologised “unreservedly” and has agreed to slip into his government-issue green wellies for an instructive tour."

What he actually said was that all members of the Countryside Alliance looked alike, as a result of inbreeding. (I wonder what would happen to anyone saying something similar about - coloured people say?) The remarks were made at a Fabian Society fringe meeting. He clearly didn't realise that CA Chairman John Jackson, a lifelong member of the Fabian Society was in attendance. And of course he was only parroting the routine insults of many Labour delegates (commonly known as ingratiating yourself). For the second year running they had vandalised the CA stand in the conference exhibition area and hurled routine foul-mouthed abuse at those manning the stand.

His notoriety increased again recently with his "ICONS of England" initiative.

With any luck he'll learn a little about real breeding during his forthcoming tour - especially if he can steel himself to visit a - a -a horror-of-horrors! - a HUNT KENNELS; but I suppose that would be asking just toooo much,

Tags: Hunting, Hunting with Hounds, Fox Hunting, Animal Rights, Animal Rights terrorism

Resist the tobacco (Hunting?) Taliban - Rod Liddle again

Following my earlier piece about Rod's 'plain English' suggestions for the Hunting Act, his latest in The Sunday Times is another good illustration of how it came about and where it is heading.

It's actually about the latest demands of the anti-smoking crusaders, with his usual scathing insights into the mindset of most single-issue pressure groups - those self-appointed, self-righteous arbiters of others peoples' behaviour - but, substitute the acronym 'LACS' (League Against Cruel Sports - or RSPCA or IFAW - or in fact the entire 'Animal Rights' movement) for 'ASH' (Action Against Smoking) and you wouldn't notice the difference. as in:

..... the sort of people who populate LACS (ASH) simply cannot stop themselves; they will agitate for more and more legislation because that is the only reason for their existence. In the case of LACS(ASH), what began as a noble campaign to prevent gratuitous cruelty (prevent smokers from inflicting their habit upon everyone else) has turned into a far more intensive campaign to perpetuate their own salaries. In the meantime this repulsively pious lobby issues forth ever more spiteful and immoral injunctions [Ed - and let's not forget the thuggish, balaclava'd grave desecrating activities of its footsoldiers]. There is within some people a deep-seated need to victimise those they consider racially, socially, sexually or ideologically aberrant. Hunters (Smokers) are a convenient and politically correct target for those who wish to take out their inchoate anger but are sharp enough to realise that, these days, you can’t vent it on Jews or homosexuals [Spot on Rod - see HERE for pictoral examples].

We are all addicted to something and our acquired habits are only rarely (as is the case with hunting) socially beneficial. But it is part of what makes us human. When LACS (ASH) has got rid of the hunters (smokers) [Ed: or rather THINK it has], who will it turn its guns on next?

Guns?? - Freudian slip there. Shooters, that's precisely who.

Tags: Rod Liddle, Hunting, Hunting with Hounds, Fox Hunting, Nanny State

Rod Liddle redeems himself

Back in October 2002 Rod Liddle lost his job as editor of the BBC R4 Today program over a Guardian article he wrote about the Countryside Alliance 'Liberty & Livelihood' march. At the time several hundred thousand of us felt not a little put upon by pompous, demonising politicians and Rod's piece was like a red rag to a bull. In our eyes it confirmed 'BBC bias' and reinforced the bigoted self-righteousness of the MP's clamouring for a hunting ban.

Looking back at the article it does now seem rather tame considering the furore it caused. I guess that's because we have since become accustomed to the acerbic wit in his regular Spectator column. In fact I don't mind admitting that his column has become one of my 'must reads'. In spite of the insult felt back then I can see that his take on pretty well any controversial issue is consistent - and usually tells an uncompfortable and on-the-button home truth or two.

If I'm honest, that was arguably the case with the offending Guardian article too. It was just that the steriotypical caricatures it drew - though severely dated - were, and remain, the principle supporting motivation for the Hunting Act 2004 and to that extent he assisted the gross injustice of its passing into law.

However, his latest Spectator piece does go some way to redeeming him. Not exactly a 'mea-culpa' but nonetheless laser accurate and aimed at the really deserving ones this time. It concerns the latest wheeze of our Constitutional Affairs Minister, Harriet Harmen wanting laws to be drafted in something called 'Plain English'. In that spirit he suggests a revised 'plain English' wording for the Hunting Act 2004 as follows:

‘It is against the law to take pleasure from killing foxes. You can shoot them or club them or kick them to death, or hang them up by their ears until they die of starvation. You can even get dogs to savage them, so long as it is not part of an agreeable social ritual which brings together rich, right-wing landowners and the forelock-tugging lickspittle rural morass of peasants and impecunious villagers. Wearing stupid clothes and parping on horns and so on. Also, you toffs, stop harassing mink, deer and hares. We’ll get back to you later on badgers. All that being said, there will be no attempt whatsoever to enforce this legislation.’

Sums up both the spirit and real intent of the Act rather well doesn't it?

Nice one Rod. I like it.

Tags: Rod Liddle, Hunting, Hunting with Hounds, Fox Hunting

An Act of singular ingenuity

Further to the National Trust piece I posted on 27th May, subsequently reported in most of the National Dailies, Bruce Anderson has a piece on the Hunting Act in the Times today <Here>. Tongue firmly in cheek, he shows that Tiny Blurr and his backbench class-war warriors have demonstrated it is not possible to ban hunting; that the whole 7 year process, involving over 700 hours of parliamentary time, has revived what was otherwise a slowly dying pursuit (pardon the pun); that the public now support hunting; that the measure, allegedly based on principle and evidence was not; and that, far from 'standing the test of time', it is likely to be the first piece of Blair era legislation to be consigned to the scrap heap.

Hunting - an ICON of England

A few months ago the Department of Culture media and Sport launched an 'Icons of England' website to find out more about what people regarded as quintessentially English <Here>. To their accute embarassment, Foxhunting was not only nominated but received the highest number of votes. A small minority of the comments were from the usual 'animal-rights' suspects, so what is the DCM&S doing about it?

Why they have decided to include foxhunting in their 'Icons of England' results, but have renamed it "Foxhunting and the Ban". Talk about changing the rules after the fact. It is crystal clear that the hand of a deeply embarrassed New Labour minister is behind it.

Just hours before the expiry of a FOI request by the Countryside Alliance, The DCM&S has justified the decision with the words: “Images of hunt saboteurs and scuffles with the police spring to mind alongside hunting as an icon of England". The CA response:

“Foxhunting is an icon of England, an activity inextricably linked to the English countryside. Public opinion opposes the Hunting Act, which has been shown up as a worthless law which merely allowed Labour backbenchers 700 hours to express their prejudice and bigotry.

Foxhunting was nominated as an icon; the ban was not; and while laughable, it is extremely concerning that the DCM&S suggests that thugs in balaclavas fighting with the police is an icon of Englishness. The DCMS has succumbed to political pressure, and in doing so, is promoting precisely the sort of animal rights extremism which the rest of the country is at pains to avoid.

There has never been a picture of a hunt saboteur on a beer mat, and there never will be.”

Quite.

Tags: Hunting, Hunting with Hounds, Fox Hunting, New Labour Spin, Animal Rights

Good for Kate Hoey - Again.

Nice to see Kate pitching in on what the hunting community has been saying for years.

Tony Blair's new found anger and indignation at the terrorist activities of the animal rights movement are a bit late in the day - not to say the height of hypocrisy (so what else is new?). Hunting people have been on the receiving end of 'animal rights' terrorism for years. Two of the people recently sentenced to long prison terms for grave desecration to 'save' guinea pigs cut their teeth as hunt saboteurs. Grave desecration has long been an acceptable form of 'activism' for these people, which should tell you all you need to know about them: The graves of both John Peel ( d'ya ken John Peel ) in Cumbria and the 7th Duke of Beaufort were both desecrated by hunt 'protesters' subsequently involved in the 'Guinea pig farm protests' .

Tony Blair pandered to them when it suited him - and when there was money on offer (£1.25 million in Labour Party donations up to the 1997 election). Now, when he senses public outrage he changes sides. The man is a charlatan

Tags: Hunting, Hunting with Hounds, Fox Hunting, Sleaze, Animal Rights, Animal Rights terrorism

A Staggering U-turn on Hunting

The National Trust are giving serious consideration to allowing stag hunting on their Exmoor land again. Six years after banning it on the Holnicote Estate (against the express wishes of the Late Sir Richard Ackland who donated the property) and 18 months after the Hunting Act, the NT Board of Trustees are to consider the matter shortly.

The change of heart has been prompted by the self-evident fact that, without the use of a trained pack of scent hounds, it is impossible to find and dispatch sick and wounded animals and that the suffering thus caused far outweighs any suffering allegedly caused by doing things in the way that nature has always done them - selective predation of the weak, wounded and sick.

Predictably enough anti-hunting organisations are outraged (when were they ever NOT outraged? They are paid to be outraged; it is their natural condition to be outraged; they thrive on being outraged). They would clearly prefer all such wounded animals (and there are many from RTA's and shooting) be left to extended slow deaths from gangrene and starvation. Heaven forbit that 'toffs on horses' should derive satisfaction from providing a no-cost welfare service and managing the healthiest Red deer herd in the world in the manner which most closly approximates to natural predation.

News links <Here> and <Here>

Tags: Hunting, Hunting with Hounds, Fox Hunting, Animal Rights

Reinstate Roger Helmer

About three of years ago attended an RSPCA AGM. The platform, together with attending delegates were dominated by the sort of self-righteous animal-rights mindset that hunting and other country sports people have become depressingly familiar with over the years.

One of the motions accepted for debate involved re-homing retired racing greyhounds. The last speaker to be selected was Roger Helmer MEP for East Leicestershire (the organisers clearly had no idea what he was about to say). To many sighs, oooh's, ahhh's, nods of approval and the odd ripple of applause, Roger described just how lovable and worthy such animals are as household pets. He then concluded by saying - and I paraphrase as accurately as I can remember it:

"I should know; over the past 20 years I have taken on 5 retired racing greyhounds; without exception they have been contented rewarding animals to care for; and every year they come with me to Altcar - to fulfill their potential in the Waterloo Cup, doing just as nature intended".

Those of us from the hunting community had no idea it was coming and neither did anyone else; There were a few seconds of hushed, disbelieving shock; then the place erupted. It was a moment to savour. Hundreds of earnest, sour-faced, puritanical, do-gooders provoked to outrage (and we all know just how comical an outraged puritan is to behold!) - it was hilarious! Presentation and timing were masterful. It made my day and I'll never forget it.

Anyone who applauds such fearless honesty and independence of spirit in elected representatives will be outraged to learn that Roger has had the Conservative whip withdrawn (note the word whip - just a small example of how hunting-with-hounds permeates the language) for being too enthusiastic in challenging and rooting out corruption at Brussels. He was required by his party to back off, in another example of that "shhhh keep-your-head - down; don't-rock-the-boat" approach to life that has played such a large part in assisting the enemies of country sports. But Roger is not the sort to keep his head down; if he spots an injustice he tackles it and the stuffed shirts can lump it. We need more like him.

A campaign to have Roger reinstated is underway and I urge you to support it. The website is <Here> Email <Here>