Topic: | Re:Cameron Bringing in Foxhunting By Back Door | |
Posted by: | Dan Murphy | |
Date/Time: | 09/07/15 12:34:00 |
James O'Brien just had an hour on LBC discussing fox hunting. He was trying to clarify exactly why the anti-hunt people are against it. Aside from the usual emotional callers who simply refused to answer the straight question ("you're just trying to wind me up James, I'm not falling for that"), the only common reason given was that it was wrong for fox hunters to enjoy their hunting. Everyone agreed that foxes are pests and do a lot of damage. Everyone (well, most) agreed that they needed to be controlled, whether that was shooting or gassing or whatever. It was just the actual fox hunting they objected to. None of them could explain why being killed by dogs was "bad" and being shot or gassed was "good". James posed the conundrum of the marksman or the gasser "enjoying his work" as they killed foxes. Was that also bad? IF it was simply the element of enjoyment which made fox hunting bad, why did this not apply to other methods of control? After an hour, we got no closer to really understanding what the fundamental objection is. None of the arguments stood up to scrutiny, and when pressed on this, the anti-hunting callers just floundered and changed the subject. |