Repeal the Hunting Act 2004

#1
I know we have had a couple of petitions about Road taxing on before but I haven't seen anything to date for a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004.

It is an act which I think is a complete waste of time and an unnecessary assault on those of us who live in the realities of the countryside rather than reading about the "horrors" we get up to, written by a red top journo with no clue.

To that end, click on the below and go for it. It only takes a minute. +20000 signatures so far.

Sign up here
 
#2
in_the_cheapseats said:
I know we have had a couple of petitions about Road taxing on before but I haven't seen anything to date for a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004.

It is an act which I think is a complete waste of time and an unnecessary assault on those of us who live in the realities of the countryside rather than reading about the "horrors" we get up to, written in a red top journo with no clue.

To that end, click on the below and go for it. It only takes a minute. +20000 signatures so far.

Sign up here


20,000??

We had 487,000 on the streets in London physically there (the highest attendance at a political rally since WWII at that point) and the b@stards still didn't take any notice!

What makes you think that they will this time?

Good try though.
 
#3
Gremlin said:
in_the_cheapseats said:
I know we have had a couple of petitions about Road taxing on before but I haven't seen anything to date for a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004.

It is an act which I think is a complete waste of time and an unnecessary assault on those of us who live in the realities of the countryside rather than reading about the "horrors" we get up to, written in a red top journo with no clue.

To that end, click on the below and go for it. It only takes a minute. +20000 signatures so far.

Sign up here


20,000??

We had 487,000 on the streets in London physically there (the highest attendance at a political rally since WWII at that point) and the b@stards
still didn't take any notice!

What makes you think that they will this time?

Good try though.
Accepted but this has, I think, until Nov to collect signatures. Worth a go if for no other reason to justify its repeal in the next parliament.
 
#6
geo7863 said:
So just explain why hunting should be allowed?
Because some silly old men and women like to dress up and look gay whilst riding horses and watching their dogs rip drugged up foxes to pieces. Oh such sportsmanship I must say..............
 
#7
geo7863 said:
So just explain why hunting should be allowed?
The simplest answer. Because it's bad law that's almost impossible for the Police to enforce without far more money being made available. Never pass laws that people wouldn't obey and the Police can't enforce.
 
#8
Kitmarlowe said:
geo7863 said:
So just explain why hunting should be allowed?
The simplest answer. Because it's bad law that's almost impossible for the Police to enforce without far more money being made available. Never pass laws that people wouldn't obey and the Police can't enforce.
Isn't the whole point that nobody is above the law and should obey it whether they agree or not. This is supposed to be a civillised society we live in.
 
#10
Well - I'm against hunting, its not efficient pest control....

and on the basis that they are still going on, I would be inclined to think this law should be repelled, why not have hunts, but a licensing system with fee's - keeps the total number down to a politically acceptable number, but doesnt ban them.

Sorted!

ratcatcher
 
#11
jest265 said:
Kitmarlowe said:
geo7863 said:
So just explain why hunting should be allowed?
The simplest answer. Because it's bad law that's almost impossible for the Police to enforce without far more money being made available. Never pass laws that people wouldn't obey and the Police can't enforce.
Isn't the whole point that nobody is above the law and should obey it whether they agree or not. This is supposed to be a civillised society we live in.
Let's be honest. The Police police us with our consent, coupled with our fear of the consequences if we break the law. Should we decide not to do as we're told, what are the Police going to do? Arrest everybody? Why do you think some town centres are more like war zones on a Friday night? Because an increasing number in the population have decided that they wouldn't obey the laws already in place.

Passing Bad law that is difficult to enforce and difficult to prosecute just weakens the Police in the eyes of those being policed. Mobile phones in cars are an example, or speeding, or racism.
 
#12
Isn't the whole point that nobody is above the law and should obey it whether they agree or not. This is supposed to be a civillised society we live in.
Which is why you are being invited to sign a petition to legally challange a law that many consider impossible to police. It's difficult to police because UK policing relies on consent (or used to?), and also, clever as the police are, they haven't figured a way out yet to have a chat with the hounds to get their side of the story govnor.
 
#13
sanchauk said:
Isn't the whole point that nobody is above the law and should obey it whether they agree or not. This is supposed to be a civillised society we live in.
Which is why you are being invited to sign a petition to legally challange a law that many consider impossible to police. It's difficult to police because UK policing relies on consent (or used to?), and also, clever as the police are, they haven't figured a way out yet to have a chat with the hounds to get their side of the story govnor.
Rofl, Rofl!!
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#14
Talking to my hunting cousins, attendance at the local pack has rocketed since the 'ban' and they're now getting more people in the field than they know what to do with: they're also killing more foxes, 'by accident' of course. In principle, the ban should be repealed because it's a silly and largely unenforceable law: in practice, it isn't making any difference.
 
#15
sanchauk said:
Isn't the whole point that nobody is above the law and should obey it whether they agree or not. This is supposed to be a civillised society we live in.
Which is why you are being invited to sign a petition to legally challange a law that many consider impossible to police. It's difficult to police because UK policing relies on consent (or used to?), and also, clever as the police are, they haven't figured a way out yet to have a chat with the hounds to get their side of the story govnor.
since when? No I'm afraid you cannot arrest me Mr Occifer, I do not consent to it.

That has to be one of the funniest statements I have read on arrse.

That my dear is called anarchy!
 
#16
jest265 said:
sanchauk said:
Isn't the whole point that nobody is above the law and should obey it whether they agree or not. This is supposed to be a civillised society we live in.
Which is why you are being invited to sign a petition to legally challange a law that many consider impossible to police. It's difficult to police because UK policing relies on consent (or used to?), and also, clever as the police are, they haven't figured a way out yet to have a chat with the hounds to get their side of the story govnor.
since when? No I'm afraid you cannot arrest me Mr Occifer, I do not consent to it.

That has to be one of the funniest statements I have read on arrse.

That my dear is called anarchy!
It's called resisting arrest when one person does it. What if 400,000 people decided that those silly men in their silly hats weren't going to stop them walking in to the Houses of Parliment..?
 
#17
We know that to be able to police by consent - a central principle of policing in Scotland - we must secure the confidence and active co-operation of all communities.
Law at Work independent Review into Policing and Race Relations in Scotland
“Policy to Pavement – The Next Steps” Conference
Scottish Police College, 25th September 2006
Well, "my dear," it seems the coppers agree with me.
 
#18
sanchauk said:
We know that to be able to police by consent - a central principle of policing in Scotland - we must secure the confidence and active co-operation of all communities.
Law at Work independent Review into Policing and Race Relations in Scotland
“Policy to Pavement – The Next Steps” Conference
Scottish Police College, 25th September 2006
Well, "my dear," it seems the coppers agree with me.
I think that they do not mean they will require the consent of people to arrest them or allow them to do their job. It will more than likely mean that they are trying to instill public confidence in them and gain trust.

Policing by actual consent would be all out anarchy.

Did you read the report or just google policing by consent?
 
#19
I'm not even going to bother discussing it with you. Policing by consent is a cornstone principle. You are simply turning it into a game of semantics.
 
#20
So it's repeal the hunting ban because it isnt effective, isnt that like saying rape should be legal 'cos there's still plenty of rapists out there, and enough of those go on to re-offend again and again!!

Semantics I know but there is still a comparison, if foxes are a problem for farmers, then shoot them quick, clean, efficient (if the shooter is a good enough shot obviously).. but as a sport for horsebacked winkers in 'pink'........ nope not for me guv...all this bollox about foxes feel no pain..they enjoy it etc etc.. is all just a cover for ..we enjoy it it's a social thing gets us out into the countryside on our fine horses.....now substitute the fox for a kiddy fiddler, rapsit or member of parliament and please do...show me where I sign!!
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top