Actually Her Majesty the Queen decides the law, and don't you forget it.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Blair is trying to go outside of the democratic process by invoking the Parliament act to bypass the upper house.. I'm assuming that when you talk about democracy you mean the entire parliamentary process rather than what is the most publicly supported position.because presumably the arguments about manifesto commitments and public support could be applied to not imposing tuition fees.

Believing that the "laws of the land should not apply to them " could be applied with more evidence to the likes of:

- John Precott (assaulted someone, no charges brought)
- Jack Straw ( His driver was caught speeding, no charges brought)
Peter Mandleson (Lied on his mortgage application, no charges brought.)
- Kim Howells (Admitted trying to mislead a murder investigation! no charges brought)

Hi, Stephen

You say "My side has lost the argument and the vote." My prediction is that Tony Blair, having won the vote and the immediate battle, will be undone by this issue. He will win the next election, but two years down the line the lawlessness of the bloody-minded and impotence of the police in enforcing this Act will be the last straw and will break his premiership. It's the little things that bring political careers to grief, and this ban has all the right ingredients.

I don't buy this manifesto argument. Of course it's just a feeling but I can't quite bring myself to believe that the ban fox hunting manifesto pledge actually figured in the voters decision making process to any significant extent or, indeed, at all.

If labours manifesto didn't mention fox hunting and, instead, mentioned the abolition of dog breeding by private citizens they would still have won the election and they would still be wrong to abolish dog breeding.

Now, if someone wants to go ahead and accuse me of comparing dog breeding to fox hunting please go ahead; people are most excellent at missing the point.

Blair will use the Commons hunt protest as his Reichstag fire.

We are slipping, at an accelerated pace, towards totalitarianism. Your fine points about Labour manifestos will be so much hot air in a not-very=short-time.

Still, at least Tony managed to get his crony Bragg to use his "secret" personal tragedy to gain a bit of sympathy and sell a few copies of his book. What a loathsome person.

"Parliament decides the law"

Would that be both Houses? Or just the pig-ignorant lower one?

"The much-trumpeted countryside way of life is in large measure subsidised by the rest of us - the city dwellers about whom the Countryside Alliance speaks so contemptuously."

I see your point about farm subsidies but other than that you are completely wrong. You may remember a report not so long ago saying that us country folk pay considerably more council tax for considerably less services?
Presumably, in the big cities your councils don't incorporate any countryside but where I live it incorporates all manner of small villages and large towns so I think it is fair to say I feel somewhat cheated by the way townies sponge off of us.

Stephen - your analysis is simply not correct.

The Government came to power with a manifesto commitment to allow Parliament the opportunity to resolve the issue of fox hunting; so no mention of the Government forcing a bill through, not just the Commons, no mention of a ban and no mention of any species other than foxes.

It then announced that it would decide the issue on the basis of evidence and principle and as such commissioned the Burns Report and held the Portcullis House Hearings.

Neither Burns or Portcullis House found that there was any evidence of cruelty, rather both expressed surprise at the lack of evidence on the point.

So far so good. It was what we expected. The issue was resolved.

But now we have a Bill which amounts to an absolute ban on all hunting, which no proponent even tries to support on the basis of evidence and which the Government is forcing through the Lords.

We have not lost any argument and we are not claiming any privilege. We just want the Government to comply with the manifesto on which it was elected. Its failure to do so has led directly to what happened earlier this week.

.

Stephen, what a load of irrelevant garbage. This law deserves to be resisted because it is a crude, highly authoritarian attempt to criminalise an eccentric but harmless minority whom the inverted snobs of Labour politics hate and despise. It is worse than Section 28 and comes from the same stable of prejudice as Jew-baiting. It also illustrates the machiavellian cynicism of your Boy's Own Hero, Blair. The animal welfare arguments for banning fox hunting are utterly bogus: see Anatole Kaletsky's thoughtful piece in the "Times" earlier this week.

So what if Labour's manifesto backed a hunting ban? So what if the town subsidises the country? Only someone who is deeply illiberal can argue that this justifies riding roughshod over people's civil liberties.

As for Labour's landslide mandate, they won a lot less than 50% of the vote in two elections which First Past The Post then distorted into a a ludicrously exaggerated majority in Parliament.

I trust that those that make comparisons with "totalitarianism" have had sufficient experience of, say, Nazism or Stalinism, to make such hyperbolic assertions. Or are they just being downright crude and offensive?

I, personally, think that Fox hunting is wrong, not because of any particular commitments to "animal rights" but in that I find the **ritualistic** killing of animals offensive and out of place in a civilised society.

I don't, however, think that a ban is appropriate - yet I do think that the most fundamental question here is that of the ability of an elected parliament to come good on its manifesto commitments and not be twarted by unelected, vested interests (by which I mean the land-owning class predominating in the Lords).

BTW - I am unconvinced that those who complain of the destruction of the democratic process are entirely sincere. My local MP (for Hexham) has spent numerous debates on fox-hunting reading from the telephone directory in order to exceed time granted for parliamentary debate.

Mahagonny - I accept that many find hunting offensive, but that is an argument against putting it on the national curriculum, not for banning it.

Moreover, contrary to what you imply, the Government has no manifesto commitment to ban hunting. The manifesto said the Government would allow Parliament to reach a conclusion on foxhunting. So both houses, not just the elected one; a conclusion not a ban - which as we are seeing will just shift the resentment from the antis to the pro-hunters; and only foxes, not coursing or deer hunting.

There was also something about deciding the issue on the basis of principle and evidence, but that seems to have gone out of the window too

So, let me get this straight: you think that because a majority of people think fox hunting is bad, and that its putative banning was a manifesto commitment, it should be banned? Wow. I'm glad I'm not a) gay and b) living in England any more. That's not a straw man argument, by the way. Other shooting sports and angling will be next on the hit-list. After that, who the hell knows?

The gay analogy does not work - we could make a convincing case that expressing ones sexuality has the staus of a human right and is inviolable. The "right" to ritually kill foxes? - someone call Amnesty international!!!

Mahagonny- The gay analogy works in so far as the state should not ban something unless it causes significant harm. There is nothing to suggest that gayness causes any significant harm and nor is there anything to suggest hunting does.

Am completely disgusted at the view that many people have of these innocent fox hunting protestors. The labour government has failed the countryside and its people; raising taxes, foot and mouth crisis. It is time that Tony Blair stopped used the fox hunting ban as bait for his back benchers and thought about the real people effected by this ban. We have been taught to grow up ashamed of our history. Quite frankly, I think that our history of fox hunting should never be forgotten and a ban would do just that. For hunting goes back for centuries and ancestors would be ashamed to see the way in which people are again destroying the culture of Britain and replacing it with immigration that is changing Britain everyday.

Chloe - Actually I'm quite keen on immigration too, they are not incompatible. Live and let live. Life is too short to waste time telling other people they cant do stuff.

Mr Price (above ) argues "There was also something about deciding the issue on the basis of principle and evidence, but that seems to have gone out of the window too"

This is the same Christopher Price who praises George Bush and the invasion of Iraq, particulary on the blog of Sandra Gidley MP, see

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/wilbarber/109948252366202485/

He was outed as a lawyer (for The Countryside Alliance) on the above site. Christopher, do you think your statement above re "principle and evidence" contradicts your hunting views when put in the context of the reasons for war?

We're watching you too.

seher scuirts missy orgasm x@x seeherscuirt hot squirts x@x seherscuirts adult squirters x@x tugjop teenie mpeg x@x tuggjabs ethnic thumbnails x@x tugjob hotteen masturbation x@x hardcore latwe niunie seks x@x hentai latwe niunie seks x@x hotel latwe niunie seks x@x polskie wytryski akty x@x polskie laski wytryski akty x@x gorace polki wytryski akty x@x latwe niunie galeryjki porno x@x cudowne niunie galeryjki porno x@x mokre kicie galeryjki porno x@x seks majtki fotosy x@x porno majtki fotosy x@x erotyka majtki fotosy x@x seks majtki fotosy x@x porno majtki fotosy x@x erotyka majtki fotosy x@x

BAN FOX HUNTING 4-EVA!!!!!!