No Hunting with dogs vote

[Born Hunter 17,622]

8 minutes ago, Caravan Monster said:

I see it more as an example of an interest group (antis) finding common ground with politicians and manipulating the legislative system to the fullest extent (and beyond imo) of the bounds of the constitution. A bad thing regardless of the interest group. There wasn't much representing the will of the people going on, only those with skin in the game had genuine interest in the matter, anything else was a knee jerk reaction for the media or 'surveys'. I have no love for the aristocracy, but the alternative of a house of commons with fewer constraints on its law making is a worrying prospect, they create far too many pointless and stupid laws as it is.

You don't think that the majority of the electorate support a ban? I think it's very much representative. I also think it's a failing of democracy but still democratic. The uneducated and emotive will of the people may be democracy but it lacks its virtue.

My point really is that we can't go on about democracy but choose to support the Lords (a fairly undemocratic house) when it suits us.

The only constraints the commons should need is the electorate. Otherwise we might as well go back to absolute monarchy.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Born Hunter

[riohog 5,621]

the looneys are runing the asylum ,

[DIDO.1 20,813]

41 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

You don't think that the majority of the electorate support a ban? I think it's very much representative. I also think it's a failing of democracy but still democratic. The uneducated and emotive will of the people may be democracy but it lacks its virtue.

My point really is that we can't go on about democracy but choose to support the Lords (a fairly undemocratic house) when it suits us.

The only constraints the commons should need is the electorate. Otherwise we might as well go back to absolute monarchy.

I'd be happy with an absolute monarch to be fair. I reckon Charlie boy would suit us. Didn't stand for his ex smashing a carpet salesman, likes his fieldsports etc. 

[Born Hunter 17,622]

8 minutes ago, DIDO.1 said:

I'd be happy with an absolute monarch to be fair. I reckon Charlie boy would suit us. Didn't stand for his ex smashing a carpet salesman, likes his fieldsports etc. 

I'd most probably find myself part of a rebel force in such a situation. 

[Caravan Monster 323]

1 hour ago, Born Hunter said:

You don't think that the majority of the electorate support a ban? I think it's very much representative. I also think it's a failing of democracy but still democratic. The uneducated and emotive will of the people may be democracy but it lacks its virtue.

My point really is that we can't go on about democracy but choose to support the Lords (a fairly undemocratic house) when it suits us.

The only constraints the commons should need is the electorate. Otherwise we might as well go back to absolute monarchy.

Democracy is a too simple way to describe the UK system of government. It is a mix of constitutional monarchy and sort of representative democracy skewed by the party system. As far as I can understand it, the antis have a class warfare thing about mounted packs, but the very large majority of the electorate don't give a flying about hunting with dogs and become very much for killing wildlife the moment deer get in the veg garden or squirrel gets in the roof. Our system of government is a very long way from perfect and has been corrupted in many ways by those seeking power over the millennia, but it is a better and more sophisticated tool than direct democracy "tyranny of the majority", which only works when a clear yes/no answer is needed, as in membership of the eu. The hunting with dogs bill was introduced to parliament under dubious circumstances (donations to political parties and mps' personal political convictions) and became law in an unconstitutional and highly unusual way (parliament act), which is why it should be reviewed. Whether or not the political will to do something about this abuse of the legislative system will ever come about is another matter....

[ChrisJones 7,973]

4 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

You don't think that the majority of the electorate support a ban?

Yes and no. Yes as a soundbite, no in the sense that they spent more time debating hunting than the war in Iraq. If you stuck a microphone under Joe Soap's nose you'd hear something about toffs on horseback but the average fella couldn't give a flying f*ck beyond that as they had absolutely no concept of what it was/is/will be.

[mackem 23,690]

On ‎07‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 07:57, Meece said:

  Mainly in the north east.

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/armed-police-to-patrol-countryside-around-whitburn-over-fears-of-increase-in-lamping-1-8944218

[Born Hunter 17,622]

11 hours ago, Caravan Monster said:

Democracy is a too simple way to describe the UK system of government. It is a mix of constitutional monarchy and sort of representative democracy skewed by the party system. As far as I can understand it, the antis have a class warfare thing about mounted packs, but the very large majority of the electorate don't give a flying about hunting with dogs and become very much for killing wildlife the moment deer get in the veg garden or squirrel gets in the roof. Our system of government is a very long way from perfect and has been corrupted in many ways by those seeking power over the millennia, but it is a better and more sophisticated tool than direct democracy "tyranny of the majority", which only works when a clear yes/no answer is needed, as in membership of the eu. The hunting with dogs bill was introduced to parliament under dubious circumstances (donations to political parties and mps' personal political convictions) and became law in an unconstitutional and highly unusual way (parliament act), which is why it should be reviewed. Whether or not the political will to do something about this abuse of the legislative system will ever come about is another matter....

I'm not arguing for direct democracy, simply that 'we' can't argue for democracy by backing an institution that is very much removed from democracy. The Lords only exists to stop the common man from destroying the upper classes through their overwhelming democratic mass. Incidentally, I support a bicameral legislature, but not with an un-elected house.

You keep saying it was unconstitutional but I'd insist you are wrong on that. If it indeed was the case, the Supreme Court (previously the Lords) would judge it so. Our constitution changed and the government of the time used that. Un-traditional but still constitutional.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Born Hunter

[Born Hunter 17,622]

9 hours ago, ChrisJones said:

Yes and no. Yes as a soundbite, no in the sense that they spent more time debating hunting than the war in Iraq. If you stuck a microphone under Joe Soap's nose you'd hear something about toffs on horseback but the average fella couldn't give a flying f*ck beyond that as they had absolutely no concept of what it was/is/will be.

I've had the discussion many times Chris, I completely understand that and touched on how I feel about it in a previous post. When democracy is driven by ignorance and emotion it's inherent virtue is lost..... but it is still democracy. As such I'm a big proponent of people removing themselves from the system and ballot when they do not feel equipped in knowledge and/or experience to have a meaningful opinion and so affect our politics in a positive way. But who decides that? We, the 'victims' of this ignorance and tyranny say so, but then we would, just like every loosing side. Fact of the matter is that in a democracy you can't expect the entire electorate to be so educated on every issue, so we appoint representatives, those representatives made their decision. Given all that I'd say it was broadly representative. I'd also say that if we dragged every legal voter out for a season of hunting to educate them in what we do and held a referendum we'd fast be wishing we hadn't.

Maybe I'm wrong. I just can't get on board with the "it's undemocratic" argument on this.

[WILF 44,195]

The glitch in the machine of what you are saying BH is that the main difference between the uneducated and unwashed and their better educated elected representatives is that one isn’t getting to sit down and have dinner and a paid holiday courtesy of the Morgan Stanley’s of this world.

The Jacob Rees Moggs of this world are like hens teeth, the overwhelming majority of MPs are not worth a wank.

 

[Born Hunter 17,622]

5 minutes ago, WILF said:

The glitch in the machine of what you are saying BH is that the main difference between the uneducated and unwashed and their better educated elected representatives is that one isn’t getting to sit down and have dinner and a paid holiday courtesy of the Morgan Stanley’s of this world.

The Jacob Rees Moggs of this world are like hens teeth, the overwhelming majority of MPs are not worth a wank.

 

Although my "educated" comment does of course apply to our representatives in Parliament, in fact it should be taken as granted that they are educated on political issues, it was aimed more at the electorate. The electorate must be educated on what they are voting for, protesting about and signing petitions about! Ultimately it is the electorate that controls the whole job! An educated electorate can end corrupt politicians, cleanse the bureaucracy, stop laws that threaten liberty, right injustice etc etc. An electorate that can't see further than a headline, who are only pushed into activism through emotional outrage and who don't have the foresight to see how having a say without having at least an education, and at best real experience, of the issue is detrimental to democracy. It throws away the true power of democracy by pissing all over it's virtue and core principles. It makes for an electorate that have free will in name only. Some clever fella called it inverted totalitarianism.

In a perfect liberal representative democracy the uneducated majority would have stepped forward with an overwhelming voice and power and said "No! This legislation is wrong. To make an otherwise law abiding minority criminals over a disagreement on liberty threatens the foundations of democracy. Until this issue is so big as to be at the fore of the minds of the majority it should not be brought before Parliament.".

[THE STIFFMEISTER 14,553]

3 hours ago, mackem said:

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/armed-police-to-patrol-countryside-around-whitburn-over-fears-of-increase-in-lamping-1-8944218

Utterly disgusting , tying up vital assets like that 

remember, they cannot just shoot you , be on your toes ASAP 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

4 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

I've had the discussion many times Chris, I completely understand that and touched on how I feel about it in a previous post. When democracy is driven by ignorance and emotion it's inherent virtue is lost..... but it is still democracy. As such I'm a big proponent of people removing themselves from the system and ballot when they do not feel equipped in knowledge and/or experience to have a meaningful opinion and so affect our politics in a positive way. But who decides that? We, the 'victims' of this ignorance and tyranny say so, but then we would, just like every loosing side. Fact of the matter is that in a democracy you can't expect the entire electorate to be so educated on every issue, so we appoint representatives, those representatives made their decision. Given all that I'd say it was broadly representative. I'd also say that if we dragged every legal voter out for a season of hunting to educate them in what we do and held a referendum we'd fast be wishing we hadn't.

Maybe I'm wrong. I just can't get on board with the "it's undemocratic" argument on this.

I agree with you. Democracy is far from a perfect system as it requires the education and participation that you've clearly pointed out. We all know that the levels of intelligence, education, and participation are on a scale so massive you simply couldn't publish it and you have every variance within.

The ban was democratic as it went through the house according to the procedure. I only believe that was allowed because of public ignorance. Not necessarily because the public supported a ban on hunting but because the average bloke is so distracted that they never questioned the amount of time spent wasted on the debate over much more pressing issues. Again we're back to public sector accountability and again I urge the people to accept what it is rather than urging them to tinker with the legislation that could close the loopholes.

3 hours ago, WILF said:

The glitch in the machine of what you are saying BH is that the main difference between the uneducated and unwashed and their better educated elected representatives is that one isn’t getting to sit down and have dinner and a paid holiday courtesy of the Morgan Stanley’s of this world.

The Jacob Rees Moggs of this world are like hens teeth, the overwhelming majority of MPs are not worth a wank.

1

We still get the government we deserve. If the uneducated and unwashed aren't going to participate more than once a decade then we reap the fruits of what's been sown.

3 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

Although my "educated" comment does of course apply to our representatives in Parliament, in fact it should be taken as granted that they are educated on political issues, it was aimed more at the electorate. The electorate must be educated on what they are voting for, protesting about and signing petitions about! Ultimately it is the electorate that controls the whole job! An educated electorate can end corrupt politicians, cleanse the bureaucracy, stop laws that threaten liberty, right injustice etc etc. An electorate that can't see further than a headline, who are only pushed into activism through emotional outrage and who don't have the foresight to see how having a say without having at least an education, and at best real experience, of the issue is detrimental to democracy. It throws away the true power of democracy by pissing all over it's virtue and core principles. It makes for an electorate that have free will in name only. Some clever fella called it inverted totalitarianism.

In a perfect liberal representative democracy the uneducated majority would have stepped forward with an overwhelming voice and power and said "No! This legislation is wrong. To make an otherwise law abiding minority criminals over a disagreement on liberty threatens the foundations of democracy. Until this issue is so big as to be at the fore of the minds of the majority it should not be brought before Parliament.".

6

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

 

[Meece 1,957]

6 hours ago, mackem said:

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/armed-police-to-patrol-countryside-around-whitburn-over-fears-of-increase-in-lamping-1-8944218

Another woolly headed load of nonsense reporting. This article insinuates that lamping is illegal and everyone who does it is a criminal and doing damage. Ringing up plod nd telling him that you 're out on patrol is  waste of time and a phone call. (A). Because the plod that you eventually get to speak to has no knowledge what you as talking about and the information goes straight out the other ear.  (B) if a bright spark do gooder rings plod up, plod has no idea what it is all about and ignores your phone call and alerts a patrol. (C) the plod in the car has no idea about night shooting and takes the message and declares a major incident. They then go In justification of their existance mode and then they go into cowboy knob mode and get all officious.

If this happens to you do not break off what you are doing to go and get made to get and lay face down down in the mud and lay down your gun . if you do not have your cert with you and the written, They might conficate your gun and ammunition and hold it until you can prove that the paperwork matches. You will probably have to take a day off work to go and get your stuff that's been thrown about in their vehicles and stores from the furthest corner of the county. You have been warned!!! Just go black and drive away from them to another area. They might start  shouting and flashing  the blue light but just ignore all that nonsense. If your questioned as to why you ignored them, you tell them that what you are doing is lawful, you have got written or own the land and that you either didn't see them or understand that their actions related to what you are doing. Thry soon get fed up with getting their feet muddy. Recently a local farmer told me that he had hare coursers out on his land and had called plod. Plod came racing down like the Sweeny and tried to arrest him!!. He is a real gentleman and in his best public school voice informed them that they had just passed the culprits going up the opposite way and that it would be appreciated if they could step their act up abit and that the matter would be refered to higher authorities. It must be difficult being a plod. Your damed if you do and damned if you dont.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Meece

[Greyman 25,164]

3 hours ago, THE STIFFMEISTER said:

Utterly disgusting , tying up vital assets like that 

remember, they cannot just shoot you , be on your toes ASAP 

They are all the same mate gun or no gun, they won't get there shoes dirty, they will use the fact a lamper could have a gun to justify there sledge hammer approach but truth is they will still just sit in a nice warm car driving round looking for a transit in a lay bye and it's loads cheaper to leak a bullshit story to the press than actually put feet on the ground, so don't panic and carry on lamping