Bluefish2009's Forum Posts | Swinging Heaven

Join the most popular community of UK swingers now

Bluefish2009

Over 90 days ago

Straight Male, 59

•

Straight Female, 49

UK

Profile Follows

Meets Parties Stories

Forum

21 Jan 2013

"The following morning, the RSPCA released the graphic picture of the slaughtered sheep via its website, claiming it laid bare the casual cruelty of an animal export industry that ought to be banned."
This is the kind of thing I dislike, the graffic pictures were of there making and then they attempt to use them to further there cause

21 Jan 2013

The charity that kills animals strikes again, I wonder if they are currently courting controversy. I am not a fan of the RSPCA as many here will be aware, but the more I read the more I dislake
RSPCA shoot dead more than 40 sheep in a grisly dockside massacre
But one fact about the photograph of these bloody carcasses might surprise animal lovers --- and even some of Ramsgate's animal rights protestors. Almost every single one of the sheep was shot dead by an employee of Grant's own RSPCA.
The episode will certainly have given RSPCA donors food for thought. After all, the charity recently decided to shed 90 of its 1,100 employees, allegedly to save money.
While the RSPCA now spends around a year prosecuting headline-making court cases, many of its day-to-day operations are woefully underfunded. Its Preston branch, which costs £600 a day to run, claims to be weeks from bankruptcy.
Figures uncovered last week revealed that the RSPCA rehoused 10,000 fewer animals in 2011 than it did in 2009, and that it now kills 44 per cent of the animals it supposedly rescues --- which amounts to a shocking 53,000 animals a year. Of that number, 3,400 are destroyed for 'non-medical reasons', such as lack of space in underfunded catteries.
These grim statistics coincide with falling membership figures. A decade ago, the RSPCA had about 35,000 members, whereas today the charity has just 25,000. (The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, by contrast, boasts one million).
Meanwhile, the Charities Commission has declared it the third most complained-about charity in Britain, behind the Jehovah's Witnesses and a non-profit organisation called The HFSH Charitable Trust, devoted to faith healers.
Against this backdrop, the events of September 12 offer an interesting snapshot of Gavin Grant's modern RSPCA.

21 Jan 2013

Quote by anais
No idea who or what Speidi is :?
I used to watch BB when it first started - purely as it was a social experiment which was a great idea at the time - I feel it ran its course many years ago now. Gave up watching it when it hit the 4th year.

Same as above :thumbup:

21 Jan 2013

Firstly, welcome to the forum :welcome:
I like Dorset, but then I would lol

lol

Places like clublibertine in Bournmouth or a visit to Studland beach perhaps

21 Jan 2013

The politicians have reported the RSPCA to the Charity Commission for breaching a "duty of prudence" that governs their actions.
The group, which includes Simon Hart, the Conservative MP, Kate Hoey, the Labour MP, Mark Williams, the Liberal Democrat MP, and Baroness Mallalieu, told the watchdog that they had "concerns about the motivation for bringing this prosecution".

RSPCA summoned to meet head of charity watchdog after controversial David Cameron hunt prosecution
The group, which included Lord Heseltine and Tory MP Simon Hart, reported the RSPCA's 18 trustees to the Commission for breaching a "duty of prudence" which governs the actions of all charity trustees under charity legislation.
They told the watchdog that they had "concerns about the motivation for bringing this prosecution" and questioned why the RSPCA engaged three barristers as well as firm of specialist insurance solicitors when it had its own in-house legal team.
In a reply to the letter sent on Tuesday this week, Mr Shawcross said: "Given the concerns raised by the judge, by yourselves and by others, we are seeking an early meeting with the RSPCA to discuss their approach to prosecutions in general and to this case in particular."

The RSPCA has been told by the charity watchdog that any decision to prosecute hunts must be a “reasonable and effective use of the charity's resources".

Seams I was not the only person with concerns over the RSPCA motives

21 Jan 2013

Bring back the likes of Kentswinger777 plus those who we lost around a similar time and put back the CA and things may get back on track wink

wink

23 Dec 2012

Our favourite Tv chef holidayed with his family in our area as a child
He has know made his home in the area and put together a great team

23 Dec 2012

Quote by HimandHer
I called the RSPCA today and said, "I've just found a suitcase in the woods containing a fox and four cubs."
"That's terrible," she replied. "Are they moving?"
"I'm not sure, to be honest," I said, "But that would explain the suitcase..."

:laughabove::laughabove::laughabove:

23 Dec 2012

I guess it depends on your perspective. My perspective was from a young man in rural Dorset. When I left school and started work we were subjected to Arther screaming day in and day out on the news, Tv, radio, and papers, inciting anger and violence. Those pictures are still very vivid.
On the other hand we had Margret Thatcher who stood up to him and his thugs, and through her unbending attitude eventually brought him down
As for our current financial state, this was caused by the banks, and the lack of regulation by consecutive governments
He will have to find the annual rent of 34K from some where else

21 Dec 2012

Quote by flower411
errrrr i think the country is in a mess and cannot cope due to flood gates being opened by a certain labour party ..... as always .....and the next government is left to pick up the pieces !!!! as like errrrrrrrrrrrrrr now !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She sold off all the assets this country owned except of course the gold ...she left that for that economic genius Gordon Brown to sell rolleyes

rolleyes

Good old Gorden, I had fogotten all about him, Im sure he got a good price for it though wink

wink

21 Dec 2012

Quote by funswing92
She led the country against scargil and against the argies . A modern day Churchill, she should be made a Saint

:thumbup:

21 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
And Blue as I said at the start of this thread, whilst your intentions was to discuss the money the RSPCA had spent on gaining a conviction, you knew full well it would end up the same way as it always does, you on one side of the debate thinking killing foxes is just, and the rest of argue against this killing and your excuses about acting within the law are laughable.

You old synic you wink

wink

21 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
So Mr. Scargit has lost the right to have his home paid for for life.

Seems a strange thing for the NUM to do to such a huge figure within their union. At his height he was one of the most powerful men in the UK, and held the country to ransom on many occasions, and had so much power that the NUM brought down a Conservative Government.
I wonder if any Socialists will be willing to put Mr Scargit up for a few months? Strangely I would presume that the people who worshiped him in the past, will now want to distance themselves from a man who helped to decimate their industry because of his fight and hatred of Mrs Thatcher during many disputes.
What do others think if anything?

Some thing along these lines

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
There is a simple solution
1: Do an internet search
2: Travel to said office
3: Take bottle
3: Fill bottle with petrol
4: stuff rag into neck of bottle
5: Light rag
6: throw into reception
7: repeat steps 1 to 6 until desired effect is achieved
These steps are most effective when acompanied by a large angry mob

Very funny Blue. Did Mr Staggers really say that about poor Arthur? wink

wink

No, regarding google I belive, but works well for me here, could even be from an 80s scargill handbook of some kind dunno

dunno

21 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
So Mr. Scargit has lost the right to have his home paid for for life.

Seems a strange thing for the NUM to do to such a huge figure within their union. At his height he was one of the most powerful men in the UK, and held the country to ransom on many occasions, and had so much power that the NUM brought down a Conservative Government.
I wonder if any Socialists will be willing to put Mr Scargit up for a few months? Strangely I would presume that the people who worshiped him in the past, will now want to distance themselves from a man who helped to decimate their industry because of his fight and hatred of Mrs Thatcher during many disputes.
What do others think if anything?

Some thing along these lines

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
There is a simple solution
1: Do an internet search
2: Travel to said office
3: Take bottle
3: Fill bottle with petrol
4: stuff rag into neck of bottle
5: Light rag
6: throw into reception
7: repeat steps 1 to 6 until desired effect is achieved
These steps are most effective when acompanied by a large angry mob

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
It doesn't matter whether its a local hunt or one a hundred miles away. If you have such trouble understanding the difference between writing about future events and what has already occurred in the past maybe you should seek help from a local educational establishment.

I will look them up :thumbup:

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
You are carfull to miss this bit here every time I notice, where ben mentioned other hunts, why would that be?

Quote by Ben_Minx
What makes me very angry is the way some sections of society feel they can ignore the law. Boxing day,the local hunts will allegedly following a scented trail. They will probably pick up the scent of a fox and kill it as they often do.

On the contrary Blue, I have already mentioned that it is speculation about what may happen on a future date. Then again it may not.
Have quick look at Bens post again:

Quote by Ben_Minx
Yet, this is exactly what the hunt were prosecuted for.

This is not a prediction of the future that may or may not happen. It a fact written in the past tense that cannot be changed.
I have no idea where you are going with this one, ben Metioned "the local hunt" i simply responed

21 Dec 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Snaring, indiscriminate, may catch fox, badger, cat, or any other animal passing by. A very slow miserable death I would imagine, some chewing there own legs of to ex-scape, and all perfectly legal. You may fool your self into thinking the haunting act is about cruelty but if it was this and many other activity's would have been looked at.

Blue, moving onto other methods of control of the fox population assumes that fox control is a necessary evil in the first place, doesn't it? You know my opinion on this I've stated it many times over. Where is the evidence that control of a self-regulating population is necessary at all? There are good arguments to be made suggesting it's not even required so long as stock is effectively protected and / or loss to predation is factored into production costs as it is with game birds. It may even be counter-productive in the long run so no need to try and distract us with pictures of snared foxes etc to play on our horror of it. You are introducing emotion into a rational argument in doing that, something you often accuse the anti-hunting lobby of doing themselves. You can't have it both ways Blue.
As you well know I was responding with like.
But to answer you question, what I was saying was and still is, if the hunting act was put in place to prevent creulty to foxes it is failing badly, and very slanted at only on section of fox control

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
Blue, if the Act were rigorously enforced there would be a prosecution after most hunts. My experience is that a fox scent is followed as often now as it was before the Act, when there is no obvious surveillance. Of course the hounds should be trained to follow the artificial trail but here we are 8 years on and it hasn't happened.
Now you are either less involved in fox hunting than you make out or your are being deliberately disingenuous.
In either event, bored as I am with the frequent pro hunting threads, I feel obliged to challenge the misinformation.

From the sound of things you may well have more experience than me Ben, I do not go fox hunting. I go once a year to the the boxing day gathering to see them off and place some money in there kitty, that is the full extent of my involvement with hunting
As I said before, if you are aware of such law breaking you should inform the proper authorities

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
Yet, this is exactly what the hunt were prosecuted for.

For dissagreeing with ben?

Quote by Bluefish2009
No, for disagreeing with the law and having the arrogance to presume that nobody will care.

If you know of these law breakers I advise you inform the proper authority's, or is this here say?
As for me,
I disagree with the law, but do not condone the breaking of it :thumbup:
It's not hear say Blue, you were good enough to even post the links for us!
Ah, but we can not presume that they are all breaking the law
Ben isn't the one bringing other hunts into this, the previous quote from you is speculation, much like your own earlier in the thread.
Whereas it is a fact as Ben says 'this is exactly what the hunt were prosecuted for'
You are carfull to miss this bit here every time I notice, where ben mentioned other hunts, why would that be?

Quote by Ben_Minx
People hunt foxes with horses and hounds because it is fun.
All of the rest is just smoke n mirrors.
I chuckle every time I read the ridiculous arguments in favour of fox hunting but I have a terrible habit of challenging misinformation.
What makes me very angry is the way some sections of society feel they can ignore the law. Boxing day, the local hunts will allegedly following a scented trail. They will probably pick up the scent of a fox and kill it as they often do.
Let us hope this case will make them think twice although I doubt it. Perhaps with enough prosecutions folk will start to behave responsibly or it may be necessary to ban scented trails too.

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
People hunt foxes with horses and hounds because it is fun.
All of the rest is just smoke n mirrors.
I chuckle every time I read the ridiculous arguments in favour of fox hunting but I have a terrible habit of challenging misinformation.
What makes me very angry is the way some sections of society feel they can ignore the law. Boxing day, the local hunts will allegedly following a scented trail. They will probably pick up the scent of a fox and kill it as they often do.
Let us hope this case will make them think twice although I doubt it. Perhaps with enough prosecutions folk will start to behave responsibly or it may be necessary to ban scented trails too.

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
Yet, this is exactly what the hunt were prosecuted for.

Quote by Bluefish2009
Ah, but we can not presume that they are all breaking the law

Why bring other hunts into it? Ben is clearly referring to the one you posted about.
This was two indaviduals and they have been delt with by the law

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
1) I posted the thread not about fox hunting, but the morality of what the RSPC had spent there money on, little point in watching the video, the judge did that and made his judgement on them, the link was to a newspaper report that just happened to have an video embedded.

So it was a one off :thumbup:

Quote by Bluefish2009
2) To disagree with a law is very different than breaking it.

Quite right, and those that break the Law should be prosecuted.

Quote by Bluefish2009
3)Sorry, I must have miss-read this as "Are there other exemption", my apology's;

Accepted

smile

Quote by Bluefish2009
3) The flushing of foxes to gun packs is being used in areas, how legal that is, is not for me to say but a judge. Terriers may also be used to flush foxes from below ground to be shot but only to protect game birds that are being preserved to be shot.

Flushing is completely irrelevant to this debate, stop throwing up smoke screens.

Quote by Bluefish2009
4) Stag hunting, blah blah.

Another irrelevant smoke screen.

Quote by Bluefish2009
5) As I said it would not be the Huntsman who shot any animal

Perhaps I'm not using the right terminology; As far as I'm concerned a person hunting an animal is a huntsman. So if it's not one of the people hunting the animal who shoots it who does?
You may feel flushing to be irrelevant, but as terriers can legally flush foxes to the gun for the protection of game birds, for me it is not irrelevant.
Hunting dear with hounds falls under the same law so not irrelevant at all, as does hair coursing, and mink hunting, all relevant.
As for the shooting, it vary form hunt to hunt, some may have a marksman within there employment, some may subcontract one

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
Yet, this is exactly what the hunt were prosecuted for.

For dissagreeing with ben?

Quote by Bluefish2009
No, for disagreeing with the law and having the arrogance to presume that nobody will care.

If you know of these law breakers I advise you inform the proper authority's, or is this here say?
As for me,
I disagree with the law, but do not condone the breaking of it :thumbup:
It's not hear say Blue, you were good enough to even post the links for us!
Ah, but we can not presume that they are all breaking the law

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
No, for disagreeing with the law and having the arrogance to presume that nobody will care.

If you know of these law breakers I advise you inform the proper authority's, or is this here say?
As for me,
I disagree with the law, but do not condone the breaking of it :thumbup:

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
Yet, this is exactly what the hunt were prosecuted for.

For dissagreeing with ben?

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
People hunt foxes with horses and hounds because it is fun.
All of the rest is just smoke n mirrors.
I chuckle every time I read the ridiculous arguments in favour of fox hunting but I have a terrible habit of challenging misinformation.
What makes me very angry is the way some sections of society feel they can ignore the law. Boxing day, the local hunts will allegedly following a scented trail. They will probably pick up the scent of a fox and kill it as they often do.
Let us hope this case will make them think twice although I doubt it. Perhaps with enough prosecutions folk will start to behave responsibly or it may be necessary to ban scented trails too.

I believe you have been misinformed on all levels here Ben

21 Dec 2012

Lot of questions there Trevaunance, I will try to answer as best I can
1) I posted the thread not about fox hunting, but the morality of what the RSPC had spent there money on, little point in watching the video, the judge did that and made his judgement on them, the link was to a newspaper report that just happened to have an video embedded.
2) To disagree with a law is very different than breaking it
3)Sorry, I must have miss-read this as "Are there other exemption", my apology's;

Quote by Trevaunance
There are other exemptions from the ban;

3) The flushing of foxes to gun packs is being used in areas, how legal that is, is not for me to say but a judge. Terriers may also be used to flush foxes from below ground to be shot but only to protect game birds that are being preserved to be shot.
4) Stag hunting; Although staghunting, as it was practised, was banned by the the Hunting Act 2004, the D.S.S.H, with the support of the farmers and landowners of the moor have continued to meet 3 times a week during the season to manage the deer on their behalf, monitoring the numbers, distribution and health of the herd and operating within the restrictions imposed by the act. The hunt has also continued to provide a very efficient 24hrs casualty service to locate any sick and injured deer.
5) As I said it would not be the Huntsman who shot any animal

21 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
Blue showing those ' other ' pictures is of course deeply upsetting to an animal lover like myself. The common denominator in all of this? Mankind, and what a horrid species we are most of the time.
Mankind will surely destroy itself at some point in the future, as sure as this planet is being destroyed. I genuinely would rather buy another dog than to have another friend. The worst animal on this planet is the most intelligent and yet they are the worst species here on planet Earth by a million miles.

firstly my intention was not to upset, but to enlighten. sorry if that was the result.
I will not dissagree with any of what you right above star, the thing I was try to say is that the hunting act was notheing to do with animal welfare, it does nothing for foxes welfare at all, only leave those with the job of pest control less options for a humane way of control.
An iteresting snippet bellow;
Hunting with hounds was much reduced during World War 2, with the result that
shooting increased and with it an inevitable increase in wounding. In the late 1940s, the
abolition of hunting was on the newly-elected Labour government’s agenda, but there was
considerable concern over the numbers of wounded foxes. The government set up the
Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals (known as the Scott Henderson Committee) and its
conclusions to retain hunting with dogs were accepted by the RSPCA because of the
suffering caused by alternative methods of control. The welfare benefits of hunting are
as true today as when the RSPCA endorsed them in their submission to the Scott Henderson Inquiry in 1951. Nothing has changed since except the politics of the RSPCA.

21 Dec 2012

Quote by flower411
I think that the point here blue is that people are upset that pest control has evolved into a pursuit that others enjoy. They are unable to grasp that the hunt itself is the enjoyable part and not the kill.
They would prefer any amount of pain and suffering for the animals just as long as nobody is enjoying themselves.

I see what your saying flower, seems some how short sighted to me. Hunting is a combination of recreation, wildlife management and pest control and should be judged solely on what is best for the welfare of the quarry species not by misguided social or moral prejudices. The recreational element of hunting is irrelevant to the central issue of animal welfare, except in so much as it happens to be what pays for this particular method of humane control. The followers, who would rarely have been at the kill, are there to follow the hunt and a wild goose chase across open country, they pay for the privilege and there for pay the huntsman to preform his pest control duty's. For the huntsman it is just a job, like any pest control job.
Is there more morality in shooting, wounding a fox, snaring a fox and letting it die a slow death, I believe the difference to be that the people who scream and shout about hunting never see the other methods, and therefore do not have to care about it. What the eye don't see the heart cant grieve about

21 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

A rabid dog looks no different to another dog going for the kill.
And a utterly defenseless fox.
Now imagine a pack of rabid dogs onto one defenseless fox. How sportsman like and utterly fecking fair eh?
How can we as a civilised society allow this barbaric act to continue virtually unchecked? I am seriously because of this thread about to contact the league of cruel sports to offer a small donation to their cause, as I already subscribe via a direct debit of £5 every month to the RSPCA.

Of coarse you must support the cause you feel is correct, no matter how miss-guided you may be in the choice
Perhaps you would prefer these legal methods of control??
Mod edit: The following links contain material which users may find distressing.

Snaring, indiscriminate, may catch fox, badger, cat, or any other animal passing by. A very slow miserable death I would imagine, some chewing there own legs of to ex-scape, and all perfectly legal. You may fool your self into thinking the haunting act is about cruelty but if it was this and many other activity's would have been looked at.