Quote by gulsonroad30664
look john, you gotta understand. there is this worldwide terrorist organisation called al quader (data base in arabic, of the mujahadeen recruits used to defeat the ruskies in afganistanbananistan by the c.i.a), who wos on the american side led by osama bin liner (of the wealthy bin liner family of saudi arabia and share holders in the carlise group along with the bush family), who at sum point changed sides and decided to attack uncle sam. from bin liners cave in tora bora (that warren of caves the size of a small town, in the mountains of tora bora afganistanbanistan thats so secret, its never been found, bit like the weapons of mass deception), bin liner, trained and directed 17 saudi's and one syrian to fly commercial aircraft into the twin towers and the pentagon.
whilst norad was on an exercise in canada, these sneaky phukers carried out their evil deed led by mohammed atta. they knew it wos im cos they found his green saudi passport at ground zero and thats why the americans invaded afganistan bananistan and they are still there lukin for er... alawaki ?
there are sum con spiracy theorist who say that a pipeline is being built from the north of afganistanbananistan down through pakistan to the sea but i cant believe it. they say that kissenger and brezinski formulated this foriegn policy in the late nineties but i dont believe it. the west is bringing democracy to eurasia and carrying out a humanitarian mission, not protectin poppy fields. abu grave wos just done by a few over zealous soldiers and not policy from the top down. guantanomo bay prison is for enemy combatants and the patriot act in america and anti-terrorist act in the u.k. is to keep us safe. war is peace and ignorance is strenght.
we gotta ave austerity cos austerity is best for the economy and all of us in the long run. we will find the money (not from bankers bonuses) to flatten libya and protect the civilians just like the americans did when they flattened fallujah.
hope this clears thing up for ya john.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
sexyslut79
Over 90 days ago
Bi-curious Female, 46
Straight Male, 66
0 miles · Bristol
Forum
Quote by flower411
If we were living in the nineteenth century when there was no State education for all paid by the tax-payer then unless you came from a rich background you would neither have been capable of reading my post nor replying to it because you wouldn't have been able to read and write.
Read your History.
I was a little bit confused by your post, so I went and read some history. It turns out that not just people from rich backgrounds were educated as you say. Many apprentices, soldiers and sailors, members of religious groups and guilds assistants received education. In fact, King Alfred insisted that "section leaders" (or the equivalent term of the day) of his armies who weren't all from rich backgrounds were taught reading and writing so that they could understand his written orders from Winchester, and be able to report back to him in the same way.
Perhaps you need to re-read your history?
Well I am an Historian and teach it at University. I would happily sit down and discuss with you the points you have raised, but that is not possible, and I do not have the time for a full written reply as I am just about to depart for warmer climes. However, if you contact me after March 5th when we return, I would be happy to write to you in full, citing my sources . In the meantime,may I suggest, for KIng Alfred, that you read "Anglo-Saxon England" by F.M. Stenton ?
So when you said "Read your History" You meant just read the bits that you say we should read ......glad you`ve made that clearer.
Personally I`d rather take a balanced view.
Oh I'm sorry, I thought that as an Historian with a Ph.D in the history of Anglo-Saxon England, I would know more about the subject than people who aren't Historians and don't teach the subject at university. I also thought that I was right in referring to the nobles who led Alfred's armies as ealdormen and thegns rather than 'section commanders". I also thought a polite reply to your posting would elicit a polite response. Clearly I have a lot to learn, but obviously not from you.
Quote by Bluefish2009
At last, help for rural family's could be in sight, I am sure many who live in towns will not like this idea
Chancellor George Osborne has taken the first step towards a 5p fuel discount in rural Devon and Cornwall after admitting families are "under pressure".
docId=N 43527A
Wow! 5 pence! That's what I like about the Tories, they're so generous. The next time I see one I'll doff my cap, tug my forelock and thank him profusely.
Quote by Max777
I remember people in the 70s calling those of us who chose not to cut our hair short and wear either cloth caps or bowler hats depending on our socio-economic class 'weird' and suspecting us of all kinds of heinous crimes. .
I take it that was the 1870's as it certainly isn't how I remember the 1970s
Oz obscenity trials? Police raids on organised squatting groups in London? The wrongful conviction of the Guildford Four who were no more than a group of Irish freaks? (hippies).Raiding of International Times offices? Police brutality at Windsor Free Festival? Where were you when that all happened?
Quote by ForestFunsters
If we were living in the nineteenth century when there was no State education for all paid by the tax-payer then unless you came from a rich background you would neither have been capable of reading my post nor replying to it because you wouldn't have been able to read and write.
Read your History.
I was a little bit confused by your post, so I went and read some history. It turns out that not just people from rich backgrounds were educated as you say. Many apprentices, soldiers and sailors, members of religious groups and guilds assistants received education. In fact, King Alfred insisted that "section leaders" (or the equivalent term of the day) of his armies who weren't all from rich backgrounds were taught reading and writing so that they could understand his written orders from Winchester, and be able to report back to him in the same way.
Perhaps you need to re-read your history?
Well I am an Historian and teach it at University. I would happily sit down and discuss with you the points you have raised, but that is not possible, and I do not have the time for a full written reply as I am just about to depart for warmer climes. However, if you contact me after March 5th when we return, I would be happy to write to you in full, citing my sources . In the meantime,may I suggest, for KIng Alfred, that you read "Anglo-Saxon England" by F.M. Stenton ?
Quote by swcpl2005
It was because people like him had the guts to go out onto the streets and protest that we now have free education for all, free health for all, equal rights for women etc etc and if we don't continue fighting then piecemeal they will be taken away from us.
"
Free education? Where does the money come from to fund the eduction budget?
Free health? Where does the money come from to fund the NHS budget?
If you think those are free then you need to look at where your council tax, NI and general taxation are going.
There's no such thing as "free".
I am well aware that State education for all is paid for by the tax-payer. But where would we be if this wasn't the case? If we were living in the nineteenth century when there was no State education for all paid by the tax-payer then unless you came from a rich background you would neither have been capable of reading my post nor replying to it because you wouldn't have been able to read and write.
Read your History.
Quote by Bluefish2009
I will freely admit that I am not a big fan of stop and search, I see it as one of the many tools used by Labour to remove a little more of our liberty.
However, we currently have it, I believe in a limited form now. Our current/biggest terrorist threat is not from white mums. Any statistics will reflect that
Photographers suffer also
Again I am forced to agree with you bluefish. If, for example, I were an officer in the Anti-Terrorist Squad, I would stop and search Moslems, not white fox-hunters
quite simply because it is Moslems who are most likely to plant bombs and not white fox hunters.The thing is, that most white people are paranoid about being 'racist'-(despite not actually knowing what the term means- a racist is one who believes in the supremacy of a particular race, NOT one who dislikes other races) Several years ago, a reporter from the Daily Mail asserted that gang-rapes were far more likely to be committed by black youths than white youths. Now I loathe the Daily Mail, but soon after this there was a programme on the television hosted by Darcus Howe who is a black guests included someone from the Commission for Racial Equality and several black mothers. Darcus Howe asked the black mothers whether they would be more worried if they learnt that their daughters were encountering a gang of black youths or white youths and they all replied 'black youths'.
The representative from the CRE, who called himself' black' but was no more 'black' than I am when I have been in the sun for a few weeks tried to argue this. Darcus Howe asked him where he had been born and brought up and his answer was a town in Kent which, as Darcus Howe pointed out, was a white, middle class then told him that he was born and brought up in Trenchtown Jamaica,and that in his experience gang was rife there. He then asked the representative from the CRE whether he knew what a certain West Indian term (which I cannot recall) meant. The latter said he did, and that it was a slang term for gang . Darcus Howe then asked him whether he agreed that if a culture has a slang term for something like gang- it is because what it describes is common in that culture. He ended the programme by saying that gang- is a black problem and black people need to address it. Had he been white he would have been called a racist.
I am sure there will be a flurry of protests from other users of this forum so let me pre-empt some of them. Yes I know that , football hooliganism and random drunken violence are crimes carried out mainly by white people, not black gang is more likely to be carried ot by blacks than whites and bombings are more likely to be carried out by Moslems than white mothers.
Quote by Bluefish2009
Cattle can be (I believe, not being a farm or vet expert) vaccinated against TB - job done. I have a feeling there was some objection to this as the vaccination shows up as a case of TB in tests?
I'm led to believe that no EU licensed vaccine as yet exists, and cows that are tested positive for TB using a fairly dubious test are destroyed at some cost to the taxpayer. ((( Farming being a massively subsidised and thoroughly socialised essential industry, which is kind of ironic when you consider the political leanings of quite a lot of farmers, eh, but that's a different topic? ;) ))) The presence of TB antibodies would prevent the export of live cattle to other EU countries.
The cull of badgers will be based purely upon economic considerations. As per usual some country types will nevertheless demand the wholesale extermination of a species and / or habitats that pre-date their commercial activities by some millennia,that would otherwise interfere with their methods as custodians of the country ways they often claim to be trying to protect. I can make some allowances for them, cos I'm sure a lot of 'em wouldlike to be doing otherwise, and are worried they'll not make it to 2015 or whenever it will be that the vaccine finally becomes available, but that don't mean I'm not scathing of their dubious methods in the meantime?
N x x x
I don't believe any farmer/countryman would like to see the total extermination of any animal or it's habitat, I would suggest, if I may be so bold, more habitats have been destroyed by the building of our towns, city's and the pursuit's of heavy industrial factory's rather than rural community's.
Well I might not agree with you about fox hunting bluefish but I certainly agree with you here and I fail to see how anyone cannot agree.
But how do we stop the building of yet more towns, cities, factories etc in the countryside? It seems to me that we can't. All we can do is hope that the population decrease.
Incidentally, I come from a city (London) but love the country!
Quote by tweeky
Interestingly, Jon Gaunt (remember him? Kenty's best choice for PM - he seems to becoming more of a slob every time I see him) on SkyNews Sunrise program suggested that the sentence was too harsh!
He suggested that the sentence was politically motivated.
Whether that or not, he has learnt a very valuable lesson early in life; you are responsible for your own actions and he is extremely fortunate that he did not face a more serious charge altogether.
Fortunate not to be facing a more serious charge and unfortunate he is the victim of a media hyped case. Its not that I think the sentence is harsh I just think when you compare it to some people who mow down children in cars drive off and dont event get a prison sentence or get about the same as this guy it just does not add up. This is what I think about British law, its old traditional and totally fucked up and in need of simplification.
Absolutely, Tweeky. And whether or not he should have done what he did, or whether or not his sentence was too harsh, he at least had the guts to go out on to the streets and protest about something he thought unfair, unlike most English people who don't have the courage to do anything about anything they feel is unfair beyond grumbling about it. It was because people like him had the guts to go out onto the streets and protest that we now have free education for all, free health for all, equal rights for women etc etc and if we don't continue fighting then piecemeal they will be taken away from us.
"
Quote by PrettynGinger
i havent really kept up with this case, i dont like reading about the sickos in this country to be honest, and hate reading about the people that are needlessly killed, thier families loss and the tributes from thier friends as i find it unsettling. But i did read about the poor girls Landlord and how he was Guilty (by the press) as soon as he was questioned, just because he is a little weird. God il bet that there are people out there who will think i am weird because i have a superhero design tattoo (my own take on one anyway)
These newspapers have basically ruined the guys life, fair enough if the hammer falls and hes the nutter that killed the girl but it hasnt. This is 2011, we are meant to respect individuality, there are now laws against gay hatred, religion bashing etc, so why on Earth are the Newspapers allowed to basically say people are guilty of murder just because thy are possibly gay and have blue hair!
i hope the idiot who did it is found, but i also hope an apology is put out the the landlord.
I remember people in the 70s calling those of us who chose not to cut our hair short and wear either cloth caps or bowler hats depending on our socio-economic class 'weird' and suspecting us of all kinds of heinous crimes. The irony of it was that in actuality it was usually those people themselves who committed those crimes. Things haven't Sun and The Daily Mail decide Chris Jefferies is guilty because he looks 'weird', but how many of the convicted paedophiles, rapists and murderers that we see in the papers or on the news have long hair, mohican haircuts,or face piercings? None of them. They all look 'normal' and outwardly at least have thoroughly conventional lifestyles with 9 to 5 jobs .
Quote by tweeky
Er, she does considerably more than that, and speaking as a man, if I have a pair of lips around my cock, then no matter how I feel, it will rise to the occasion, and I am 52, have smoked cannabis since 1973 and tobacco since 1975.
Erectile dysfunction is reportedly far more common in Britain than is popularly believed. Perhaps the NHS should consider dispensing free cannabis and tobacco to these unfortunate people!
Doing considerably more is not the point. The point is Woman in general can have a whole heap of performance related worry in thier head yet they dont have the mechanical performance worry that men have. Woman dont have to worry about getting it up or letting it off too early. I would guess that eases sexual performance worry for woman some what. I know there is a lot of other stuff you can worry about as a woman but the those two in particular for a man mean no intercourse and possibly a lot of embarrassment.
Emphasising that I am being totally serious here (which is rare for me), it seems from the reading I have done recently, that there are all kinds of reasons why men sometimes fail to get erections . Some I knew-tiredness, stress etc. But others I didn't. For me It's all been a bit of an eye-opener really. All I can say is that I am glad that I am what I would call an uncomplicated person and what my wife would call a 'simple' person :lol:
Quote by tweeky
.We are both educated, thinking people who know precisely what we want and what we don't want-and we do want mmfs. What we don't want is limp penises!!!
Just be grateful that as a female all you have to do is spread and lay there like a sack of spuds
Er, she does considerably more than that, and speaking as a man, if I have a pair of lips around my cock, then no matter how I feel, it will rise to the occasion, and I am 52, have smoked cannabis since 1973 and tobacco since 1975.
Erectile dysfunction is reportedly far more common in Britain than is popularly believed. Perhaps the NHS should consider dispensing free cannabis and tobacco to these unfortunate people! :lol:
Quote by foxylady2209
People who walk up (or down) escalators. Thus in one act, insulting every designer and engineer who worked their fingers and brains to the bone to design stairs you DON'T have to walk up/down and at the same time barging past the rest of us with our/their shopping bags getting entangled.
/half-jest mode
I'll make a deal with you. I won't try to force you to walk up the escalators by shoving and pushing you if you don't try to force me to stand still by standing on BOTH sides of the escalator rather than on one!
Oi, what are you saying about me standing on both sides? I'm not THAT big!
No indeed and if ever we meet on an escalator I shall happily offer to carry your bags of shopping for you as recompense for any unintended suggestion that you are! :lol:
Quote by duncanlondon
To be fair, hearing what the guys experienced might throw another perspective on this fairly common 'problem'. As a couple you present admirable credentials, but something is not working for you.
It might be that you are focussing on the outcome and not investing in the process. Are you spending enough time and effort in working with the partners or just expecting a result? Your relationship may need all your energy and focus in what you normally do. Do you have the capacity to take on other people, really?
Most people think that they are okay with sex when they are already in a good relationship and having fab sex. Change things slightly and it may not be the case anymore. Then that comfortable feeling goes and you are on edge again.
Most of us are conditioned to monogamistic thinking, and despite wanting to swing and even doing it, may still be deeply fundamentally not content about doing it. So is it really for you?
Some couples present an impenetrable quality brought about by a strong love and commitment. Its a powerful shield, which you have to switch off when swinging. Otherwise the extra partner may feel excluded.
Well some ideas to think about.
Your comments and advice, like everyone else's are most welcome,but I have to say that I do not agree with what I think is the the gist of what you are saying. It is not for a couple to effectively pretend that they are not a couple in order to make a man who wants to join them for an mmf feel comfortable with them, but for that man to refrain from contacting them with a view to joining them for an mmf if he doesn't feel that he can be comfortable in an mmf situation with a couple. He can reasonably expect them to be friendly and considerate, but if he expects them to do what you appear to be saying they should do, then I would suggest that it is he who should ask himself whether mmfs are for him, or whether he should stick to one to ones.
With regard to your comments concerning conditioned monogamy, I don't really think this has a are both educated, thinking people who know precisely what we want and what we don't want-and we do want mmfs. What we don't want is limp penises!!!
Quote by foxylady2209
People who walk up (or down) escalators. Thus in one act, insulting every designer and engineer who worked their fingers and brains to the bone to design stairs you DON'T have to walk up/down and at the same time barging past the rest of us with our/their shopping bags getting entangled.
/half-jest mode
I'll make a deal with you. I won't try to force you to walk up the escalators by shoving and pushing you if you don't try to force me to stand still by standing on BOTH sides of the escalator rather than on one!
Train conductors who announce that "we shall soon arrive into Bristol Templemeads Station Stop". People who park their cars on pavements. Women whose perfume smells like vinegar or people who reek of garlic and then turn up their noses at the smell of my roll-ups. Young boys with their trousers halfway down their skinny bums. Young girls (or boys) who keep tossing their hair about. Cash machines which tell me my 'request' is being processed. (It's not a request, it's a demand-it's my bloody money). Australians. The voices of Caroline Wyatt and Orla Guerin. Police officers who 'proceed' down the street when the rest of us walk down it. People who pick their nose in public. Girls who totter about in high heels when there are several centimetres of snow on the ground. Packets which are seemingly designed not to be easily opened. Public school pupils who bray or whinny depending on their who wear sunglasses and chew gum with their mouths open. 25 year olds who contact us when we explicitly state that we are looking for men over 40. Computers. My right boot which creaks when I walk. More Australians. People who stand in my way on escalators when I want to walk up and thus avoid becoming as unhealthy and fit as they are. Cranky, irascible people who find everyone and everything else irritating, and people who have no sense of humour. Oh yes, and even more Australians.
Quote by Bluefish2009
We have had experience of three men joining us for mmfs. has had problems rising to the occasion and every one of them has pleaded 'nerves' as the reason. We have discussed this with each other and find this hard to believe firstly because each of those men was an experienced swinger and secondly because we are a friendly couple who not only have no problems about sex but no problems talking about it either. Has anyone else encountered this kind of problem and can anyone offer us any advice?
We have had a few occasions, one happened with a regular of ours, we had met twice before and many time since, all with no problem.
I think that our imagination is our best sex aid, the only trouble with this is, too much thinking and it can easily become our enemy also.
Having looked at your profile, sexy is clearly stunning, with a gorgeous body, have you considered that possibly some men could become intimidated.... I think it could be very easy to start thinking along the lines of gosh she is so hot, hope I live up to her expectations, or don't cum too soon, before you know whats on, the little fella gives up on ya... I think there is little one can do about this only meet them again and see how it goes.
I could possible liken it to a family get together last year, I found myself sat next to family members I had not seen since I was very young, I new I should start a conversation, but the harder I tried to think of some thing to say the more my mind went blank.
The mind is a funny thing
You may have a point there bluefish-i didn't think of that. Perhaps there's an opening for 'swinging therapists' to counsel men who are about to take part in an mmf .In fact perhaps I could do it myself-I fancy a career change and therapists make a lot of money! :lol:
Quote by alaninuk
Hi Sexy
I have perved at the pictures and am fairly sure it isn’t you !! (umm there lovely !)
Although us blokes are fairly simple when it come to sex – rub it enough and it will cum is the sort of thing, we do appear to have some hang-ups when focusing on our genitalia ! (we are constantly comparing size and ability !!) I think the first night nerves is all that it is – the bloke wants to impress but oddly enough it probably isn’t you he is hung up about its Mr’s ability he is living up to and concerned about. In my case I can’t really handle the gang bang scenario – too many guys there really puts me off – Ratio of 2 or 3 guys : 1 is fine but hit 4:1 and ‘he’ flops !! Oddly enough this doesn’t occur in couple’s rooms where there can be 10 couples and ’he’ is fine – (personally I think ‘he’ can do odds and realises that at over 3:1 chances are he will brush against something he doesn’t want to !! ) . But I have been to clubs and marveled at the way some blokes can just perform when 10 are crowding around a greedy girl. Personally it does nothing for me. So Sara may be right but it wouldn’t appeal to my makeup !
I would go with what most appear to be saying – basically – it happens ! don’t take it to heart. That doesn’t help at all when you have planned the evening and got all horny thinking about it will go and it doesn’t happen !! Maybe as a back up have a supply of Viagra or some such thing and if the next bloke fails to rise pass him that and tell him to come back in 20 minutes when its working (or however long it takes ) .
An if all else fails – give me a call…….
Just a thought
Alan
Interesting. Whilst Sexy considered that it might have something to do with her, I didn't. Okay, I am biased because I am her husband, but notwithstanding this the men knew what she looked like from our pictures before they came to see us, and they saw her face to face at a preliminary meeting. I put it down to physical problems and denial of this on their parts. But you might have a point. I am lucky enough to be self-confident by nature, but many people aren't I suppose, and all three of the men did say they felt a little nervous. The sad thing is that all three of them were really nice guys with whom we could easily have become friends.
Quote by mrs-bmw
Steak and kidney pie with thick gravy and mashed potatoes
Beef and ale caserole
A huge stew that lasts for about a week and gets better every day with enough dumplings to feed a rugby team
Sausage and mash with fried onions and onion gravy
Treacle pudding and custard
Home made thick rice pudding made with a touch of cream
Rhubarb and ginger crumble with clotted cream
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Well we don't know who you are but you have our tastes in food! How about a joint of brisket slowly cooked in Mackeson?
We have had experience of three men joining us for mmfs. has had problems rising to the occasion and every one of them has pleaded 'nerves' as the reason. We have discussed this with each other and find this hard to believe firstly because each of those men was an experienced swinger and secondly because we are a friendly couple who not only have no problems about sex but no problems talking about it either. Has anyone else encountered this kind of problem and can anyone offer us any advice?
Quote by Bluefish2009
I will try to answer some of your points foxy.
If it's about controlling fox numbers it's got to be about the most stupidly inefficient and resource-heavy method anyone has come up with.
Efficiency should not be the sole deciding factor in choosing the method of culling, it is more about which foxes are culled, rather than how many. Hunting seeks to manage rather than exterminate populations of the fox.
You've got, what, 15 people and 15 horses and their kit, another 10 people following on foot or in Land-Rovers, special outfits (in a lot of cases) a good 4 hours of everyone's time - all to kill one fox.
Can anyone convince me the financial loss caused by the fox is anywhere near the financial cost of running a hunt event? And that's assuming the horses aren't only used for the hunt - if they are you'd have to factor in their whole cost too.
The cost of the hunt to the farmer/stock-man is free, surely that is very cost effective indeed. The employed members of staff, along with, hounds, horses etc, are paid for by the subscription of mounted members who wish to follow the hunt, all at there own cost. Further to that the hunt perform a free fallen stock service for the stock-man, the meat then feeds the hounds. They are contractors, who provide a service to the customer for free.
What's wrong with 2 guys, 2 hunting rifles, some local knowledge and a flask of tea?
I've got nothing against killing stuff - I'm partial to a bit of venison myself - but, really, fox-hunting seems so wasteful.
Nothing, shooting has its place, but shooting inevitably produces a percentage of animals that are wounded. No amount of training can eliminate mistakes by the beginner, the reckless and the downright unlucky. Research sponsored by the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group has shown that up to 60% of foxes may be wounded by shotgun shooting and up to 48% by rifle shooting.
Also worth noting that hunting uniquely reproduces the natural selection process whereby weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species. Hunts also perform a vital role in sheep farming areas and have always been responsive to "call-outs" to deal with foxes causing predation problems at lambing time, this means the troublesome fox can be tracked from its kill by the hounds, neither can be reproduced by shooting.
Oh come on this is getting ridiculous. Do you seriously think that anyone is going to accept your implied portrayal of fox hunters as people who, out of the kindness of their hearts and with tears in their eyes go around the countryside eliminating pests or putting injured creatures out of their misery? You are trying to defend the indefensible. Fox hunters are people who derive pleasure from killing defenceless animals and most people know this and disapprove of it. Mind you I am prepared to believe that I am wrong. In which case perhaps you could arrange for a party of oddly dressed people on horseback accompanied by several hounds and assorted minions to come to my allotment and eliminate the slugs and snails which ravage our fruit and vegetables.
Quote by Bluefish2009
On the contrary, I read what you said quite I indicated, I am not really too concerned with whether or not a group of people dress themselves up in silly clothes and go charging about the countryside with a pack of hounds in pursuit of foxes. Having said this, I do think their justification for doing so is ludicrous and fools no-one with any common sense. They do not hunt foxes because they are pests, they hunt them because they are deranged enough to enjoy killing and too cowardly to pick on animals which can fight back. Let these people go out to the Yukon Territory armed only with a spear and try their luck with a grizzly bear. I, for one, would happily stand by and watch them get torn to pieces or, in the event that they won, applaud them for their courage, and gladly accept a piece of cooked bear meat (which incidentally is delicious).
I believe all of what I have writen to be factual, the fact that you believe it to be ludicrous is beond my control :sad:
Perhaps The Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management, can be more help to you, Most of the 550 supporters of VAWM are general practitioners spread across England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, Many have had years of clinical experience with all common species of domestic and wild animals. Most of them do not ride to hounds, but many have first-hand knowledge of hunting. Some are academics with a wealth of research experience, five are veterinary professors and six are fellows of the Royal College of Pathologists, a collective authority that must be second to none in the on going debate on hunting. Furthermore the group does not seek primarily to protect personal liberty or livelihood, a country sport or however many jobs in the countryside. First and foremost it seeks to protect the welfare of wild animals in the wild.
Personaly I prefer the to listen to the knolage of fellows of the Royal College of Pathologists rather than a Cree Indian, just my view of coarse.
Well I am an academic-an Historian in fact and I would trust my knowledge and understanding of people rather than that of Veterinary Surgeons!
Quote by Bluefish2009
I wouldn't say it's a matter of priorities Blue. It does seem to be a well considered excuse that some people might buy though? The fact that the Govt would probably overwhelmingly lose the free vote they promised, and split the coalition still further given the Lib Dems record on voting for a ban on hunting with dogs is probably the real reason why he's decided to put off delivery of that particular manifesto pledge, but given that David Cameron has promised to do away with spin and what have you, I'll do me best to ascribe to him the purest of motives. ;)
Having said all that, I'd actually quite like to see the vote come round. I think it's probably a badly made law, that's next to uselessly ineffective and mostly unenforcable. A bit of decent debate on the issues followed by an overwhelming vote in favour of a continued ban, followed by suitable amendments to statute would pull the rug right out from under the pro-hunting brigade who seem to think this has more to do with some sort of class-war, civil-rights thing than it has to do with the simple denial of their right to enjoy barbarous practices like fox-hunting with hounds, hare-coursing, lamping, billy-digging*, etc, and would probably put an end to the whole argument for the foreseeable. That's no doubt an other reason for the delay.
N x x x ;)
* See what I did there? No? Oh well . . . .
Not really sure that I, or any other pro-hunting person is part of a brigade? Just a group of persons with an opposing view to yours. Believe it it or not there are elements of class war, although I agree with you, it should not be, as hunting attracts people from all walks of life, and as you have mentioned it, I believe that they/we are entitled to use civil rights as much as the next man.
You also mention enjoying barbarous practices, I would argue that the most barbarous activity we have as a nation is meat eating, hunting is far less barbarous and practiced on a much smaller scale than our meat industry, yet meat is eaten because we enjoy it, just as the fox hunter enjoys his job.
I feel the most important point for me to make is that foxes, whether you like the idea or not, need to be controlled in certain areas. A hunting ban will not change that, just the method of kill will change, and beyond any measure, the finniest way to achieve a clean kill is with hounds. The persons who often require the help of the huntsman and his hounds is the Shepard, if he is experiencing his lambs being killed by a troublesome fox he will call the huntsman, they arrive in the early hours, take the hounds to the killed lambs and then track the fox, this way they can ensure that the actual fox who is causing the trouble can be tracked and destroyed swiftly. In the Burns Report, an independent Government Inquiry into hunting with dogs, Lord Burns concluded that: "insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught." Other published veterinary opinion on hunting with hounds stated: "The kill occurs as a swift, almost instantaneous, procedure made possible by the considerable power weight advantage the hound has over the fox." In my view, that does not sound barbaric, in fact there is no finner method. That can not be guaranteed by any other method!
Most often trouble some foxes turn out to be the old or sick, now unable to kill there normal prey and taking the easy option of a captive meal. Another troublesome fox, which has only become a problem in more recent years are the urban foxes, trapped by animal rights activist's who then take them out into the countryside and release them to a certain death. As these animals struggle with hunting there own food, many starve to death or are killed due to getting into chicken coups, etc.
However, I would agree that you are quite right, a free vote would be lost
I have never concerned myself with fox hunting and whether or not it should be allowed feeling that in the grand scheme of things it is such a trivial issue. But I feel constrained to say something in the light of the above.
Some time ago I was in the Yukon Territory in northern Canada talking to an old Cree Indian man who in his youth had lived a traditional lifestyle hunting for food. He told me that in those days a young man would go out alone into the wilderness armed only with a spear to fight a bear in order to prove his manhood and that sometimes he would be seriously injured or even killed in the process, but that if he was successful, he would skin the bear and eat the meat. I told him about fox-hunting in England, and he said that no Cree Indian would kill an animal merely for pleasure as this was disrespectful to Life, and that only a coward would derive pleasure from killing an animal which had no chance whatsoever of defending itself.
Enough said.
I would have to say, that you can not have read a word I have written
But respect your veiw
On the contrary, I read what you said quite I indicated, I am not really too concerned with whether or not a group of people dress themselves up in silly clothes and go charging about the countryside with a pack of hounds in pursuit of foxes. Having said this, I do think their justification for doing so is ludicrous and fools no-one with any common sense. They do not hunt foxes because they are pests, they hunt them because they are deranged enough to enjoy killing and too cowardly to pick on animals which can fight back. Let these people go out to the Yukon Territory armed only with a spear and try their luck with a grizzly bear. I, for one, would happily stand by and watch them get torn to pieces or, in the event that they won, applaud them for their courage, and gladly accept a piece of cooked bear meat (which incidentally is delicious).
Quote by Bluefish2009
I wouldn't say it's a matter of priorities Blue. It does seem to be a well considered excuse that some people might buy though? The fact that the Govt would probably overwhelmingly lose the free vote they promised, and split the coalition still further given the Lib Dems record on voting for a ban on hunting with dogs is probably the real reason why he's decided to put off delivery of that particular manifesto pledge, but given that David Cameron has promised to do away with spin and what have you, I'll do me best to ascribe to him the purest of motives. ;)
Having said all that, I'd actually quite like to see the vote come round. I think it's probably a badly made law, that's next to uselessly ineffective and mostly unenforcable. A bit of decent debate on the issues followed by an overwhelming vote in favour of a continued ban, followed by suitable amendments to statute would pull the rug right out from under the pro-hunting brigade who seem to think this has more to do with some sort of class-war, civil-rights thing than it has to do with the simple denial of their right to enjoy barbarous practices like fox-hunting with hounds, hare-coursing, lamping, billy-digging*, etc, and would probably put an end to the whole argument for the foreseeable. That's no doubt an other reason for the delay.
N x x x ;)
* See what I did there? No? Oh well . . . .
Not really sure that I, or any other pro-hunting person is part of a brigade? Just a group of persons with an opposing view to yours. Believe it it or not there are elements of class war, although I agree with you, it should not be, as hunting attracts people from all walks of life, and as you have mentioned it, I believe that they/we are entitled to use civil rights as much as the next man.
You also mention enjoying barbarous practices, I would argue that the most barbarous activity we have as a nation is meat eating, hunting is far less barbarous and practiced on a much smaller scale than our meat industry, yet meat is eaten because we enjoy it, just as the fox hunter enjoys his job.
I feel the most important point for me to make is that foxes, whether you like the idea or not, need to be controlled in certain areas. A hunting ban will not change that, just the method of kill will change, and beyond any measure, the finniest way to achieve a clean kill is with hounds. The persons who often require the help of the huntsman and his hounds is the Shepard, if he is experiencing his lambs being killed by a troublesome fox he will call the huntsman, they arrive in the early hours, take the hounds to the killed lambs and then track the fox, this way they can ensure that the actual fox who is causing the trouble can be tracked and destroyed swiftly. In the Burns Report, an independent Government Inquiry into hunting with dogs, Lord Burns concluded that: "insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught." Other published veterinary opinion on hunting with hounds stated: "The kill occurs as a swift, almost instantaneous, procedure made possible by the considerable power weight advantage the hound has over the fox." In my view, that does not sound barbaric, in fact there is no finner method. That can not be guaranteed by any other method!
Most often trouble some foxes turn out to be the old or sick, now unable to kill there normal prey and taking the easy option of a captive meal. Another troublesome fox, which has only become a problem in more recent years are the urban foxes, trapped by animal rights activist's who then take them out into the countryside and release them to a certain death. As these animals struggle with hunting there own food, many starve to death or are killed due to getting into chicken coups, etc.
However, I would agree that you are quite right, a free vote would be lost
I have never concerned myself with fox hunting and whether or not it should be allowed feeling that in the grand scheme of things it is such a trivial issue. But I feel constrained to say something in the light of the above.
Some time ago I was in the Yukon Territory in northern Canada talking to an old Cree Indian man who in his youth had lived a traditional lifestyle hunting for food. He told me that in those days a young man would go out alone into the wilderness armed only with a spear to fight a bear in order to prove his manhood and that sometimes he would be seriously injured or even killed in the process, but that if he was successful, he would skin the bear and eat the meat. I told him about fox-hunting in England, and he said that no Cree Indian would kill an animal merely for pleasure as this was disrespectful to Life, and that only a coward would derive pleasure from killing an animal which had no chance whatsoever of defending itself.
Enough said.
Quote by foxylady2209
Has anyone noticed how the gutter-press has focused on the 'weird appearance' of Christopher Jefferies, the suspect in the Jo Yeates murder case? Perhaps the readers of the Daily Mail , The Sun, and other comics haven't noticed that football hooligans and other yobs, paedophiles and murderers usually have 'normal appearances' (and frequently read 'newspapers' such as the Daily Mail and The Sun)
I choose not to read the gutter press - which nowadays means pretty well all of them. I stick to such as the BBC and even then attempt to separate cold fact from the fluff and speculation they feel the need to add.
Actually what I thought was particularly wierd was his desire to go to the press himself and discuss the 'sighting'. It felt very much like him trying to validate the claim by talking to as many people as possible about it. If the police weren't already suspicious of him, I'm sure this would have raised their interest immediately.
We do feel the need to defend ourselves here. We never read The Daily Mail or The Sun-we got it all from the Internet!
Has anyone noticed how the gutter-press has focused on the 'weird appearance' of Christopher Jefferies, the suspect in the Jo Yeates murder case? Perhaps the readers of the Daily Mail , The Sun, and other comics haven't noticed that football hooligans and other yobs, paedophiles and murderers usually have 'normal appearances' (and frequently read 'newspapers' such as the Daily Mail and The Sun)
