“Game Keeper

I wonder if you would like to be attacked by a raft, or flock ...etc of ducks? (there are other names for a group of ducks, depending on if they are on water, in flight and type of duck etc)

Or better still, chased by a skulk, leash or troop of foxes, (take your pick of names, but there are more) untill you can run no more and then torn to bits?

Killing for fun is NOT sport, it's murder.”

“"Sport"? No. It goes way,way beyond that.I (to my utter humilfication) watched a hare being trapped by a bunch of dogs. Result? One dead hare. Further result. Never,ever again.”

“I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

You have constantly ignored my questions (such as the dog/fox conundrum), used logic in a meaningless way (such as your 'any legislation the Nazis introduced must have been wrong because they were the Nazis' nonsense) and completely failed to address the basic point which is that you kill to satisfy your own perverse need to kill. I have refuted all your arguments one after the other and you have been unable to respond, but you are now making the absurd accusation that I have not been confronting you on an intellectual level.

By the way, let's have a look at these videos of the antis abusing people. Not one anywhere on the internet. Or are they all on Betamax?
I could immediately link to several videos of hunt followers behaving like trained thugs. From which it is fairly safe to deduce that they are indeed trained thugs.

All these conservation statistics are fine - but if its okay I'll join an organisation like the RSPB which conserves nature for nature's sake and not because you and your friends will have more of it to hunt.”

“Ah Steven, the acrid vitrol begins again.

Your confusing 2 different functions. Hunting of foxes is to simply to manage the species for the good of the countryside. If you would like to know what happens when a subordinate predator species is left unchecked I suggest you look at the urban fox population. Be it for food or management both functions are equally valid.
The pro hunt movement do own cameras and I can assure you that there is an awful lot of footage of these hooligans bringing violence and intimidation to men, woman and children. It¿s there, your just choosing not to see it because it does not fit in with your ideology. If nothing else the anti hunt footage has time and again been thrown out of court because of creative ¿editing¿. A good editor can make any footage show anything. I would respectfully suggest that you check your facts before making statements which are blatantly and fundamentally untrue. Your statement that ¿it is quite obvious to any neutral that the hunt and its followers are essentially trained thugs¿ is possibly one of the most laughable statements you have made to date.

My reference to your ¿god¿ complex is simple enough. You hold a belief and in your mind you (and by extension that belief) are supreme. Therefore anyone who should dare to question that belief must be put down via insults, crass statements and absurd claims. You refrain from engaging in intelligent discussion because your issue is not with the argument itself and you have demonstrated a total lack of understanding in that regard. I have time and again made the point that my issue is not with the fact that hold different opinions to me but to fact that denounce those who disagree with you with an air of authority when to be quite frank you have none whatsoever.

Your statements about farming and rural sports again do nothing but demonstrate your total lack of understanding. Live quarry shooting in the UK contributes 70,000 full-time jobs and is worth £1.6 billion to the UK economy. Two million hectares of land are actively managed for conservation as a result of shooting with £250 million a year being spent on conservation. Those who shoot contribute 2.7 million work days on conservation - the equivalent of 12,000 full-time jobs. The industry is thriving and with the number of firearms application on the rise, more and more people are turning to the sport.
I would be very interested for you cite your source regarding dog attacks on humans and livestock. I have never seen or heard such figures and would be interest to read them.
If you don¿t know who Thomas Aquinas or Thomas of Aquin as he is also known, is then please have the humility to say so. He was a 13th century Italian priest who wrote extensively on the principles of natural law.
Your arguments are devoid of any substance and are to be frank quite childish.”

“'Hunting puts food on the table'. Except when you're hunting foxes, of course.

'The images of violence that have been put on YouTube have been posted by the 'anti' movement.'

The 'pro' movement obviously don't own any cameras, then. You'd think it was in their interest to film all these hooligan 'antis' abusing them, but they haven't managed to film a single moment of it. Strange - you'd almost start to think they were telling the most blatant lies for propaganda purposes. This is important, as it is a theme you keep referring back to - it is quite obvious to any neutral that the hunt and its followers are essentially trained thugs. The images prove it.

I find it hilarious that you keep referring to myself and Clarence as having god-complexes when you are the one who stocks his part of the world with creatures simply for the fun of going out and destroying them again. Sounds like you have your own little Old Testament going on there.

Farming and shooting certainly have moulded the countryside around here. That is why we are the only largely rural county in Britain with virtually no rural tourism. If you want to look at massive, chemically-drenched fields devoid of life, followed by a brief stretch of gamebird crops full of terrified pheasants that have just just been released out of a cage so someone can shoot them, I'd recommend Lincolnshire's countryside. Strangely nobody seems to want to come. Which suits you fine, of course, since there are less people to keep an eye on you amd your kind.

So tell me - what is the difference between me shooting your dog through the head for fun, and you fox hunting? Dogs cause many more injuries to livestock and humans than foxes do, and the two species are very closely related. Perhaps - and I don't know what St Thomas Aquinas, as it should be spelled, would say on the subject - you are just unable to see your own blatant double standard.

As for 'normal' people enjoying sport, no normal person kills an animal for fun, and it would only be a sport if the birds could shoot back.”

“Clarence,
You are indeed correct. We digress to a subject which could doubtless fill many more pages. I respect your opinion and am glad that we live in a society where we can both hold differing views.

I shall indeed enjoy my weekend (although I doubt very much you would appreciate the way in which I shall do it) and I sincerely hope that you enjoy yours.

Until we meet again....”

“How many democracies in the world have an UNELECTED body that can have a major say in how the country is run? Personally I find that anything but democratic. Maybe a fairer way would be an entirely elected body, but using PR instead of first past the post?

Anyway, we have divulged. You are obviously an intelligent person, we just have very different views. My OPINION is that hunting for pleasure is wrong, you think differently. Such is life. Enjoy your weekend (as long as you don't go out killing animals!).”

“Sadly typographical errors are a fact of life. As the intent of the statement was correctly conveyed I am not too concerned. If the worst you can do is pick up on a spelling mistake then I sit here a happy and contented man.

And yes I am opposed to any abuse of power whatever the cause. Failure to pass through both houses calls into question the validity of the legislation irrespective of the motivation. I would suggest you read St. Thomas Aqunias¿s writings on the subject, most insightful. I do however worry if you think that changing the upper house to an elected house will allow the Commons to ride roughshod over the principles that the parliamentary system is designed to protect. The majority of the Lords are now nominated political peers and yet still the hunting Act failed to make it through. Does that not tell you something? A peer¿s duty is to ensure that the laws of this country are not oppressive to minority. A duty which I am happy to see they continue to follow.”

“So you studied law but can't spell calm?

Is it more democratic to allow an unelected House of Lords to kibosh a law that is the will of the people? As far as I'm concerned the sooner the Lords is abolished the better. Thank God for the Parliament Act.

One question, were you against the use of the Parliament Act when it was used to push through the War Crimes Act in 1991?”

“Fortunately for those of us who enjoy a spot of hunting, the legislation has more holes than a colander and hunting continues pretty much in its original form! Hunting, like shooting is seeing more people enjoying the sport.

Now I don¿t really want to get into the democracy argument as I fear that it might be slightly weighted in my favour (having read law at University and written many trifling papers of the jurisprudence of the hunting and shooting issues) but we have a system of checks and balances in place which are designed to ensure the majority do not oppress the minority. Any Act of Parliament that requires the use of the Parliament Act to enter the statute books flies in face of this convention and there cannot be viewed as being part of the democratic process.”