Bluefish2009's Forum Posts | Swinging Heaven

Join the most popular community of UK swingers now

Bluefish2009

Over 90 days ago

Straight Male, 60

•

Straight Female, 50

UK

Profile Follows

Meets Parties Stories

Forum

14 May 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
awwwww.

thankfully it wont be released into the wild to be hunted. :thumbup:

Awwww aint they cute lol

lol

‘Dad had seen a fox come down the drive and stalk up to her a few nights before. He phoned me and said would a fox attack the cat? I said - perhaps a bit naively - I don’t think so, she would wake up and see it off.
‘A couple of days later, dad heard a commotion outside and looked up to see a fox disappearing up the drive and the next morning found parts of the cat on the lawn. Unfortunately, the family pet was no more.’
Read more:

14 May 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
For different reasons. There may already be a law that the others have to abide by. That is why the law has exemptions either for people or situations.
However, in this situation it is black and white (or so it seems) as no-one has appealed the notice. Looks like those that complained was right in law. However, morally it could be debated........yet throw the intimidation of the other villagers into the equation and the village idyll goes straight out of the window. Two faced christian villagers IMO.
Dave_Notts

Not all villagers are Christians wink

wink

13 May 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
But in this situation, and this is what we are talking about, it wasn't ringing when viewed and when they bought the house. It was months later.

Airports (not new heliports) and main roads are exempt from noise nuisance.
Dave_Notts

Law not so black and white then.
Errr yes. Exempt means not covered by this particular piece of legislation. Is that not black and white. dunno

dunno

Dave_Notts
It means, to me, a two tear law, those that must abide by it, and those that do not have too

11 May 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Point taken. Saturdays stinky poos will be quite effervescent as I ask her to defend those examples and videos.

I would like to add that I have no doubt that most R.S.P.C.A. inspectors,volunteers etc. have the best of intentions,I also have no doubt that they are often hamstrung by a morally bankrupt organisation
:thumbup:

11 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
I have been mistaken for so long

Indeed you have

11 May 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
But in this situation, and this is what we are talking about, it wasn't ringing when viewed and when they bought the house. It was months later.

Airports (not new heliports) and main roads are exempt from noise nuisance.
Dave_Notts

Law not so black and white then.

10 May 2012

Keep the vinegar real lol

lol

10 May 2012

Quote by Rogue_trader
The R.S.P.C.A. are driven by their greed, they don't do anything unless they think they'll get paid

A sweeping statement and not supported by any factual evidence.
It is indeed ... but any organisation that proports to be an animal welfare charity and refuses repeatedly to attend animals in distress is a liar.I can only offer anecdotal evidence so I wont bother.
Fucking R.S.P.C.A. I shit 'em all they want is your Grannies legacy and the chance to play at being police
On this, of the most rarest of moments, I, 100% agree with stags.
Gnv, your granny was also right, at that time they were an upstanding charity. In my view now they are not. Again, only my view, but they care very little about animal welfare.
They have become a money grabbing, (which would be ok if it was to do good) organisation. Which as stags eluded to, has become pissed on there own power.
As some one who used to donate, I have come to dislike everything they now stand for.
Again anecdotal, if you were to cite me references where they have grabbed grannys legacy and refused to help animals in distress then I shall change my opinion. But I can only go on my own anecdotal evidence of what I see from one of my close friends who has been an officer for 20 years with them.
The terrible stories that she deals with day in and day out. Humans can be so cruel and calculating. It makes me despair that I share the same genetic make up with these thugs.
The case if the young man who clubbed his terrier pup was one she attended this week. The court should have looked at psychiatric evaluation on that man because he was "wired up" wrong. But no, a fine and banned from owning an animal.

Remember they have no more power than you or I

10 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
I never said anything about how foxes are or are not culled, I said if the need is there to decrease thier numbers then it should be done through culling, ie selected removal of some numbers.
My experience in culling and the culling I referred to is when I was called upon it to cull deer in the Scottish Highlands, selected marksmen where used for this purpose, both for the culling of deer and to gain further experience for the qualified marksmen.
I do not support or believe hunting to be right, I do not believe that anyone should be allowed to kill a mammal for any reason, that includes farmers on thier own land, I believe this culling should only be carried out by either qualified marksmen or other methods of control such as instantaneous gas or poison, both of which are available and cause no suffering.

You seam to be contradicting your self, one moment culling is ok, the next culling foxes is not. Oh I see as long as it is done your way....
I do not believe shooting to be the best method of control for many reasons, as stated above
Poisoning is now illegal as it killed to many other animal. Gasses for gassing are no longer legal. for your information;
Legal methods
1) Shooting (with (a) rifle or (b) shotgun);
2) Trapping (with legal snares or live cage traps).
3) 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.
Illegal methods of killing foxes include:
1) Gassing (it is not gassing that is illegal, but there are no legal gasses);
2) Poisoning;
3) Illegal trapping (using illegal snares and gin traps), and now include
4) Hunting with hounds, and
5) Terrier work.

10 May 2012

Quote by HnS
to cull or not to cull, that is the question ?
Whether it is nobler to cull the Fox by chasing it with dogs or via a gun.
(sorry for the mis-quote Bard)
One thing is obvious though is that the pressure for a cull of Badgers which the Government might yet win their High Court review for the trials in England, is that they want Badgers to be shot.
Wales have rejected this for a vaccination programme

I feel that both hounds and shooting have there place, but shooting is rarely as clean cut as some might have you think. That is why even the best marksmen have dear dogs to track dead and wounded animals. In fact I believe it is to there credit that they have such a dog and would frown upon those who would go shooting without one.
I think a badger cull is looking very unlikely in its current form

10 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
What I hate about hunting is that those that do it do it for pleasure and I believe that in this day and age getting pleasure from killing an animal is abhorent I believe that those that get pleasure from killing something are sick in the mind.
The only pleasure is from job satisfaction.
I have killed both animals and people and I have never got any pleasure from either, I do get pleasure from helping people and animals.
So what make you presume others get any satisfaction from it. You make assumptions of other peoples character without even meeting them
Hunting started long before there was a need to look at the number of animals of a particular species, why do we not hunt or urban pigeons or rats which are also a problem in thier large numbers, because there is no pleasure to be gained for those that do it.
Pigeons are shot, the dogs have trouble with the plying part, and rats are hunted with terriers.
Are there too many grouse or bears, are our rivers and lakes too full of trout are they causing a problem too, how many grouse are there ? how many trout are there ? what is the problems they cause and how much is it affecting life on the planet ?
The two above mentioned are for food, I take it you eat food?

Pigeons;
Rats;

10 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
No it doesn't happen everyday in Nature
In nature animals and humans die as a result of a natural (however rare) occurence.
Nature does not think ...... hmmmm time to kill some japanese with a tidal wave, let's wipe out a hundred thousand animals with a drought.
In nature animals kill out of instinct or to feed, I know of few cases where animals kill for pleasure and that is the difference between culling, hunting and feeding yourself.
Killing for pleasure is barbaric and belonds in the dark ages from which most civilised people have moved on.
Why else do we have a law to ban hunting, why do we have laws to punish a man who clubs a puppy to death, if you do not want to live by the laws of this land, go to another land.
That is the be all and end all of it.

Most definitely not the be all and end all of it, you are incorrect on that. Do you have any coherent reply to any of my points or,
Did you actually read any of what I wrote????? No one is killing for pleasure. Job satisfaction perhaps, but not pleasure. A little like the man who works in the abattoir
The fox population is estimated at 240,000 (pre-breeding) of which 14% only are in urban locations. Some 425,000 cubs are born each year. So we can see that with no natural prediter, foxes can not be left to there own devises
Regarding your marksmen, The majority of foxes culled in the UK are shot using a rifle. Wounding rates using a rifle can be up to 48% and for a shotgun as high as 60%. Killing rates increase but wounding rates do not decrease with the skill of the marksmen. If you are interested in these numbers you can download the study here;

Add to this it is much more difficult to tell a foxes age and condition than say a dear.
From what you state above you except the need for wildlife management. The main aim of population management should be, firstly to maintain a healthy and well balanced population, in there local environment. A level which is also acceptable to land owners, farmers and us humans as a whole. The thing we seam to differ on is the best method of doing this.
Let me put forward some criteria of what I look for when judging the best method of control. A closed season during the breading season, would be my first consideration. This is some thing observed by hunts to allow the fox to bread in total piece. Marksmen and shooter's do not follow any such code. My second consideration would be a clean kill. With hunting, unless human activity interrupts the hounds the fox is always killed or escapes, but never is it wounded. Again this can not be said for shooting. The next important aspect that hunting preforms is that it mimics nature 100%. It is a natural selection process, preformed by the chase whereby old, weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, or ability, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species. Yet again, this can not be said of shooting. One more important thing to note here is that with the hunting of foxes, the fox is given "quarry species status", without this, to most in the countryside the fox is just a pest.

10 May 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
management of foxes? what by you bluefish? or what about the right honourable julian whatever? what gives you or him or anyone of the countryside toffs,the right to dictate what lives and what dies? stop playing god for your own joyful slaughter of an animal. then you lot wonder what kind of peeple we are when the RSPCA issues a writ. i hope the law intervenes and comes to the aid of the fox. whatever will the toffs do on a sunday then i ask myself.

Do you use the same standard with the meat you put on the Sunday table.
As regards the rest of what you have written, I have clearly answered most of your points but you fail to believe me. There is little I can do about that

10 May 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
You view a house, you revisit, you then buy, live in it for a month and a half and then the chimes start. Are they psychic?
Common sense would be to do what they did. I would say that was reasonable.
Dave_Notts

I think if you move next door to, what is to all intense and purpose, a giant bell, and you are then surprised when the bugger rings...... wink

wink

What happens if these people move in next to the M25 and the traffic keeps them awake at night, is the law still black and white? Will they close the road?
Or under a flight path, is the law still black and white, will they close the airport?
I guess Dave we will have to agree to disagree. :giveup:

10 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
I see this week a lot of media coverage on TV at the increasing number of "urban foxes", in my humble opinion this increase is due to the obvious easy access take away meals available to foxes in urban areas, and the hounding (no pun intended) of them in thier natural environment. I think perhaps they took a leaf from the Book of Human, if your hounded where you live, emigrate to nicer places, can't fault them
I do support culling of herds and wild animals, culling takes out old or infirm animals from a herd in order that the herd is more equipped to survive and prosper, the culling of squirrels, birds, foxes, badgers and so on involves a similar practice, taking out the old and infirm in order that the remaining animals will have sufficient territory to hunt, eat and survice.
Most culling is done in a humane way, though not all, culling deer for example is normally done by a single shot to the head by a marksman, I support humane culling but will never support hunting for sport that involves killing animals of any description, using the "keeping the numbers down" excuse is pathetic, quoting how long we have done it for and how popular it used to be is equally pathetic, we are supposed to have moved on and got more civilised haven't we, or would it still be ok to burn suspected witches just because it used to be popular.
I disagree that it is only the posh that do it, yes many members of a hunt are from afluent backgrounds but not all, and many of the "back up" staff necessary for hunt organisations to exist are not afluent neither are the pub owners that welcome them or the farmers who allow them on to thier land. Let us not let the less afluent people get away with this barbaric "sport".

I was trying to avoid the hunting debate on this one, but I am easily drawn when I read what other right.
I agree with some of what you say and disagree with other parts, in equal measure.
The fox population is estimated at 240,000 (pre-breeding) of which 14% only are in urban locations. Some 425,000 cubs are born each year. So we can see that with no natural prediter, foxes can not be left to there own devises
Regarding your marksmen, The majority of foxes culled in the UK are shot using a rifle. Wounding rates using a rifle can be up to 48% and for a shotgun as high as 60%. Killing rates increase but wounding rates do not decrease with the skill of the marksmen. If you are interested in these numbers you can download the study here;

Add to this it is much more difficult to tell a foxes age and condition than say a dear.
From what you state above you except the need for wildlife management. The main aim of population management should be, firstly to maintain a healthy and well balanced population, in there local environment. A level which is also acceptable to land owners, farmers and us humans as a whole. The thing we seam to differ on is the best method of doing this.
Let me put forward some criteria of what I look for when judging the best method of control. A closed season during the breading season, would be my first consideration. This is some thing observed by hunts to allow the fox to bread in total piece. Marksmen and shooter's do not follow any such code. My second consideration would be a clean kill. With hunting, unless human activity interrupts the hounds the fox is always killed or escapes, but never is it wounded. Again this can not be said for shooting. The next important aspect that hunting preforms is that it mimics nature 100%. It is a natural selection process, preformed by the chase whereby old, weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, or ability, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species. Yet again, this can not be said of shooting. One more important thing to note here is that with the hunting of foxes, the fox is given "quarry species status", without this, to most in the countryside the fox is just a pest.

10 May 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

I have come to dislike everything they now stand for.

as an avid believer in " fox hunting " bluefish i am sure you do, with them taking peeple to court and all that.
and the thought of them wasting there money on a poor old stinking fox eh? shocking waste of money,,,
unless of course you are/belong to/support this,,

awful, just fucking awful. in the name of sport for the toffs. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
what a stinking excuse to kill something for ones own pleasure. watch the video if anyone is not convinced as to what goes on in a hunt.
Nothing to do with sport, nothing to do with toffs.
All to do with the management of foxes. You may find this difficult to watch, but it is no more than what happens in nature every minuet of every day.
Further to that, if those people had not intervened, that fox would have had a swift clean kill and not suffered at all.
Nature

9 May 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
I would agree of sorts Blue. However, the story said the chimes were not working when they viewed and bought the house. If this was the case then they have every right to complain. If the church or other villagers that want to keep the noise then they should all club together and reimburse the money that this family wasted by moving. That is also fair and reasonable.
If they are unwilling to do this, then the family can only resort to law. That is also fair and reasonable.
Dave_Notts

The people next to me never used to have a car, which they start and drive of in in the early hours every morning, but they always had a drive way to put one in.
Almost all churches have bells, a very large percentage have clocks that chime, were they really this short sighted?

9 May 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
In a nutshell, any noise that stops you enjoying your property could be a nuisance. However, there are some excemptions within the law. So it is irrelevant if someone else likes the noise, but it can be used in mitigation as the courts make the final decision.
In this topic, only looking at one side of the story reminds me of this
If some wish to be led then they just need to listen to part of the story, but if they want to form an opinion they need the whole story. In this story only one side was reported.
The crux of the matter is that the reports on this story and similar ones always point towards tradition and custom. Yet fail to mention that tort and common law (where noise nuisance comes from) comes from early English law that predates any of the noise emitting customs.
Mr Powers may have hit the nail on the head with why the church has not appealed. It could be that even they think that chiming throughout the night is unreasonable.
However, if I lived next to the church I would sleep right through it...............but not everybody would
Dave_Notts

Let me take, just this one small point. My view is this, put the law to one side... If you are a person who can not sleep through such things, why but a house, near a church and then spoil what others enjoy?
It seams so obvious to me.
What this point's to for me is people's stupidity, and they should not be aloud to inflict there short failings on others.

9 May 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
the herd would prosper and survive mids without the human deciding which animals can live or die.

This has little to do with this debate, I hopped to avoid the hunting debate as have done it to death, but I am willing to be drawn.
This is a popular misconception.
The herd will survive, but it will not prosper, to be healthy it must be controlled. The old and sick should be removed!
Look at what nature intended and mimic it
Our countryside is no longer wild, it is now a man made environment, one which our ancestors created. The wild life within it simply has to be managed, weather Star likes that or not. We can not now, having buggered the natural balance up, abdicate our responsibility to manage it. A lack of management now would threatens vulnerable populations, biodiversity, habitat conservation and the production of food. Fact!

9 May 2012

Quote by deancannock
Political reasons? So any enforcement of any law should not go ahead if David Cameron has any connection with it? Hogwash.
If the law has been broken then it should be investigated and prosecuted if deemed to meet the evidential and public interest test.
Dave_Notts

But we don't know if the law has been broken yet do we, why not hand over the evidence to the police and let them investigate and prosecute, if required, without the need for charitable funds being waisted?
Well if law has been broken then the RSPCA have every right to go ahead with it. To me the very fact they are going ahead with it, at a time funds are low, would mean they must think they have a very good chance of winning !! Therefore no money spent or wasted...and indeed people may well be more ready to hand over a few pennies to the RSPCA, if they see they won't be itimidated by some politicians friends !!
Since 2004, the RSPCA have not ventured into the hunting act. Since DC road out with the hunt in question, this will be there second attempt at political fame with that very same hunt. :eeek:
This time they are having better news coverage, I will grant to that

9 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Political reasons? So any enforcement of any law should not go ahead if David Cameron has any connection with it? Hogwash.
If the law has been broken then it should be investigated and prosecuted if deemed to meet the evidential and public interest test.
Dave_Notts

But we don't know if the law has been broken yet do we, why not hand over the evidence to the police and let them investigate and prosecute, if required, without the need for charitable funds being waisted?
I would like to think they are doing it because nobdoy else is going to take any legal action against the Hunt, perhaps the CPS dismissed the case or someone else didn't deem it worthy of pressing charges, I would like to think they are doing it because they feel that if they don't do it other Hunts will believe they can get away with it or because no charges are being brought for political reasons and therefore that it is worth the expense and time, that's what I would like think .......
Or, will they waist a million pounds of dead relatives money, on some thing they can not prove in a court of law?

9 May 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
The R.S.P.C.A. are driven by their greed, they don't do anything unless they think they'll get paid

A sweeping statement and not supported by any factual evidence.
It is indeed ... but any organisation that proports to be an animal welfare charity and refuses repeatedly to attend animals in distress is a liar.I can only offer anecdotal evidence so I wont bother.
Fucking R.S.P.C.A. I shit 'em all they want is your Grannies legacy and the chance to play at being police
On this, of the most rarest of moments, I, 100% agree with stags.
Gnv, your granny was also right, at that time they were an upstanding charity. In my view now they are not. Again, only my view, but they care very little about animal welfare.
They have become a money grabbing, (which would be ok if it was to do good) organisation. Which as stags eluded to, has become pissed on there own power.
As some one who used to donate, I have come to dislike everything they now stand for.

8 May 2012

Quote by Gee_Wizz
Proud to be English?

Nope. I'm one of those annoying people who prefers to be called British, but when faced with no choice, I'm Welsh. It's one tiny little island on the edge of Europe that doesn't really have anything to offer the world any more. I can't wait for the chance to emigrate!

8 May 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
Political reasons? So any enforcement of any law should not go ahead if David Cameron has any connection with it? Hogwash.
If the law has been broken then it should be investigated and prosecuted if deemed to meet the evidential and public interest test.
Dave_Notts

But we don't know if the law has been broken yet do we, why not hand over the evidence to the police and let them investigate and prosecute, if required, without the need for charitable funds being waisted?

8 May 2012

Quote by M1ssVery
I quite like the sound of church bells ringing on a Sunday morning, but at my last home I thought about campaigning to have them outlawed in the UK, why, because I lived within earshot of no less than 3 mosques, I was worried that the right to ring church bells would give mosques the right to sing out the call to prayer on the loudspeakers they use in other countries, how many times a day is it that they sound the call to prayer, it would have drove me mad, now I live neither near a church or a mosque so sod the rest of people it wont affect me anymore

Just a wee FYI, not all Arab countries "sound" the Azan(call for prayer) in the same tone, some countries it sounds harsher than others..I grew up In Lebanon, with about 2 mosques within earshot and by golly it was sometimes spine-tingling..You never tend to pay much attention to it through out the day with the hustle and bustle of city noise. But sometimes, I would wake up at around 5am, around the time of the Dawn call for prayer. City is completely still, the Sheikh had an AMAZING voice and did a beautiful rendition, and as it echoed..it gave you goosebumps..whatever your belief..
Not quite the experience you would have here in the Uk I accept ;)
I find it strange and fascinating. What can be a noise nuisance to one can sound beautiful or enchanting to another.

8 May 2012

Quote by Gee_Wizz
There is no such thing as bad publicity. People against fox hunting will see this and no doubt donations will increase as a result.

A valid point I had completely missed
Bit of a gamble though, you have to make more than you spend
And politics, anthoer dangerous pit fall for a charity, in my view

8 May 2012

Quote by Gee_Wizz
I've always maintained that I think Biofuels is the best way forward for sustainable energy. I can't find the article, but recently there was something written about how carefully engineered biofuel-producing crops have been able to produce significantly larger quantities of fuel without an increase in the land area required to grow them. We've already got the technology to use them, since it would pretty much just replace petrol in our cars of course.
The idea of plug-in-rechargeable cars is ridiculous to me. Where does the electricity come from? Coal-fired power stations. Only distributing that energy across the country inevitable means a lot of it is wasted. Add to that the devastating effect on the landscape mining the Nickel for the batteries has. The only way plug-in cars would work is if the electricity came from Nuclear-fueled stations, which I'm all in favour for as well.

Bio fuels may possibly be a way forward, I am not comfortable with them as yet

8 May 2012

I am not sure if this prosecution is political or not.

But one does have to wonder about there motives.
Time's are not good for RSPCA financially at the moment. The RSPCA recently said that it is facing a funding crisis, with rising costs and legacies dropping. So to my mind it makes it all the more important that funds raised are directed to genuine causes.
In July 2005, the RSPCA announces a 78% rise in animal cruelty cases
In July 2006, the RSPCA says that conviction cases had risen by 20%
In April 2007, the RSPCA reveals that its workload had increased by 50%
In April 2008, the RSPCA states that cases of abandoned pets rose by 25%
In May 2011, the RSPCA says that cases of alleged cruelty rose by 10%
In April 2012, the RSPCA states that cases of cruelty have risen by 23.5%
Concentrate on spending there charitable donations from the general public on the real animal cruelty I say, and leave politics to others.

8 May 2012

Britain's prettiest villages becoming 'rich people’s ghettoes'
One village where the housing market has had a drastic effect on the local community is the village of Chapel Stile in the Lake District.
According to Mark Squires, the local headmaster, none of the parents of the 39 pupils at the village school or any of the teachers is able to afford to buy a home in the catchment area.
He said the village’s 200 or so residents are squeezed into only 20 per cent of the houses and it was not unusual for young adults to remain with their own parents even when they have children of their own.
“It is almost like living in a film set,” he said.
“It looks lovely and it is lovely but there are an awful lot of gaps in the local community.”
“William Summers, campaigns officer, for the National Housing Federation said: “Young families and lower income earners are being priced out of villages where they grew up and forced to move to cheaper, more urban areas.
“When they leave, the shops and services they support often disappear.
“To preserve the countryside for everyone to enjoy we need to make sure it’s affordable for people who live and work there all year round, not just the wealthy. “More affordable homes can make a real difference and give a village a whole new lease of life.”

And then they want to stop the bells ringing wink

wink

8 May 2012

Quote by M1ssVery
I really apologise for lowering the tone and this unhelpful contribution..but..BJ for London?? :giggle: Might cheer up a lot of Londoners..
couldn't help myself..

With such a great profile pic you may lower tone as often as you wish lol

lol

:lol: