SICK FILTH.

Things that aren’t banned but are: eg taking photographs in public.

These days, apparently, making law is as much about “sending messages” as about actually doing anything.

3- Eek. I was about to post precisely the same comment – HAS THE WORLD GONE MAD??!!

Ahem. Quite, only pass laws that you plan on enforcing. If you want to send a message, write a letter.

You folllow beagles on foot not on a horse.

“If you want to send a message, write a letter.”

That also applies to voting Lib Dem ;p

5 – quite right. Plus, beagles are used for hunting hares (called, spook, beagling) while foxes are hunted with (blimey) foxhounds. Or rather aren’t hunted. Or are, but aren’t, or whatever the formulation is.

Besides, no gentleman would wear a ‘red tunic’. They’d wear a pink coat.

Strictly speaking the Video Recordings Act 1984 hasn’t lapsed because it was never enforceable; someone forgot to notify the European Commission by the due date, something that needed to be done as this was a restriction on trade.

I wonder if there are any other such ‘laws’ currently on the books?

Psst: http://dogattacksyouneverhearabout.blogspot.com

I agree with the spirit of the article, just not the bit about pit bulls. Breed-specific legislation isn’t just stupid, it’s useless.

Is it not the case that the police resources required to effectively enforce the fox hunting ban are so vast that the relative benefit is negligable?

I think this was known and understood by government and the police prior to the ban but too many Labour MPs were dying to have a pop at some toffs for it to stop there.

That does rather reduce it to an act of petty, class based spite and it does seem a waste of time to police when they could be out nicking “proper” criminals.

Well the Gov are all set to ban all Home Education unless parents first get a licence from the Local Authority (this will necessitate allowing LA representatives to enter the home, and interview children without the parents present). It takes away parental responsibility for the education of the child and puts it firmly in the hands of the LA.

They say it’s not a ban, well it’s not if you allow access to your home and your children regardless of their consent and if your curriculum is judged appropriate the LA consultants. (the impact report says a minimum of 8 hours consultant time per child will be needed at a cost of £1000 per year) It’s an interesting twist on this post. If this is what is meant by policing a ban we need to think about whether we can afford to police too many more such bans.

Details of the bill here if anyone wants to wade through it

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmbills/008/10008.38-44.html#m01s

The problem with the hunting ban and the dangerous dogs act is that they are badly drafted law. Both were drated in a hurry, in response to pressure from the media and/or sections of the public and both are consequently hard to enforce and haven’t solved the problem the legislation aimed to outlaw.
I haven’t got a position on hunting either way, but I would question whether chasing a load of drunken toffs around the countryside is really a good use a police resources. As a parent I’m more concerned about dangeous dogs, I don’t understand why the police can’t use the act to at least harass dog owners, on the spot fines CCTV fottage of minor infringements etc, the way they do with motorists, is it perhaps because the average owner has no visible income and therefore no revenue to be made from persecuting dog owners.

I would question whether chasing a load of drunken toffs around the countryside is really a good use a police resources.

Agreed.

Much better to have them sitting on motorway bridges clocking motorists driving at 80mph.

£60 a pop and they don’t have to leave the van.

The hunt round my way sips the finest Ruby Port not common Sherry.

I’ve never seen a fox hunt but on getting back from shopping most evenings lately, one of our local foxes often crosses the road or a path about 100 metres or so ahead of me. This is such a regular event that local dogs don’t even bark when foxes pass by or bark in the night. Just occasionally, local foxes have a mighty fight with much scuffling and barking, making enough noise to wake me.

A couple of years back on getting back from shopping, I had a stand-off with a fox standing on the garden path leading up to my front door. I walked up to within a couple of metres. It stood there, looked me up and down and then ambled off into bushes nearby quite unbothered.

In this neighbourhood, foxes cross busy main roads and the traffic, if necessary, will stop or slow down to let them pass.

By the local shopping centre, a few hundred metres away, there is a bricked up cave which – according to the London Encyclopaedia – contained evidence of human habitation going back at least to the middle stone age. But foxes have very likely been around here longer than that.

‘You folllow beagles on foot not on a horse.’

Should be easy: stumpy legs and short of breath from all that smoking.

I still support the ban on fox hunting but I take less pleasure in it knowing those who said it would be the beginning of a slippery slope were right.

Good post. Governments like to bring in crowd pleasing legislation. What a waste of time and money. I seem to remember that the hunting ban was intended to keep the Labour activists happy while Tony Blair got on with privatising things.

“You folllow beagles on foot not on a horse.’

Should be easy: stumpy legs and short of breath from all that smoking.”
– - – - – -

Good gawd – you people pass laws protecting foxes, but you allow your beagles to smoke?

You all need to put some effort into integrating your philosophies a bit better, eh?

@17: “the hunting ban was intended to keep the Labour activists happy while Tony Blair got on with privatising things.”

And the Iraq war – so he could be billed as a great war leader.

More than 700 hours of Parliamentary time was spent in debating the ban on fox hunting.

As Aneurin Bevan used to say: The religion of Socialism is the language of priorities.

Question – why did they have to pass specific laws against fox hunting? There are laws against ordinary cruelty to animals. I take it I’m not allowed to pursue stray cats around the streets with a couple of dogs to rip the cats to pieces when we corner them. So why did they have to have a law against fox hunting as such instead of charging fox hunters under ordinary cruelty to animal laws?

“Question – why did they have to pass specific laws against fox hunting?”

As someone above suggested – any apparent increase in the threat to ban fox hunting through legislation was absolutely guaranteed to be a huge political distraction which could be deployed by the government whenever it felt the opposition in Parliament might focus on some more important and critical issue.

The sheer farce of spending over 700 hours of time in Parliament debating a ban on fox hunting is as much an implied criticism of the opposition – and the obsession of fox hunters – as of the government for manipulating the political agenda.

Compare hunting in other countries around Europe. Mind you, Hitler did ban fox hunting in the Third Reich but I seriously doubt that was out of his deep concern for the welfare of foxes.

Actually he was a pioneer of animal rights, environmentalist, healthy living and anti-smoking. Who’d have thought it, fascists and their causes eh ??

I know this government is famous for passing badly drafted and pointless legislation, but aside from the speculation that spending so much time on the fox hunting ban was “manipulating the political agenda” was the legislation actually redundant? I mean, would you be able to book fox hunters under normal cruelty to animals legislation, and if that’s so, did anyone point this out at the time?

@23: “I mean, would you be able to book fox hunters under normal cruelty to animals legislation, and if that’s so, did anyone point this out at the time?”

Not that I recall – although I must confess to not following closely all those hours spent in debating a ban on fox hunting. But as suggested above, the government patently used the threat of an impending ban to distract attention away from other issues. The opposition and the pro-hunting lobby could be relied on to rise to the bait.

I’m no lawyer but I suspect that it would be difficult to successfully prosecute fox hunters for cruelty to animals under other legislation – which is probably why opponents of hunting felt impelled to press for the ban.

The obvious defence against allegations of cruelty would be to point out that: (a) fox hunting had been going on for centuries and was often depicted on Christmas cards without, apparently, causing general offence, (b) similar hunting practices are conducted in other European countries, (c) in the countryside, foxes are predators upon farm livestock so some control over fox populations is deemed essential, (d) hunting tends to selectively kill weaker and older foxes, which are the more likely to go for softer targets among farm livestock – younger and healthy foxes perform a useful ecological function in the countryside of vermin control, killing rats and rabbits and the like, which damage farm crops, (e) any method of controlling fox populations would inflict some distress and there is little to no evidence to show other successful means of control in the countryside would generally cause less distress.

From the top: ”upper class tossers in red tunics”

That’s what puts me off the anti-hunting point of view most. I have never been to a hunt, but I’d imagine that it’s more of a mixed group of people than that. My mum has some fond memories of following the hunt in the Irish Republic in the 1940s.
It seemed to be a local event. Something everyone could get excited about, even the children from the local farms.

I can see why it has to be banned, but I don’t think the reasons for its official banning are good enough. (Basicly, in my opinion, too many people getting too emotional over something that doesn’t deserve that much attention).

As for bit bulls and similar breeds? Definitely harass the owners. Anyone seen encouraging their dog to jump up and grab onmto low hanging tree branches (and then swing from it by the mouth) should be arrested for something.
If those PCSO’s are worth anything at all, it’s this kind of thing that they should be on to.

Anyone seen encouraging their dog to jump up and grab on to low hanging tree branches (and then swing from it by the mouth) should be arrested for something.

Arboreal abuse?

If those PCSO’s are worth anything at all, it’s this kind of thing that they should be on to.

And if a pit bull is worth anything at all…….

I’m guessing the toffs are simply following New Labour policy as best they can:

‘If it’s not banned, it’s compulsory.’

Vive la liberte.

“, is it perhaps because the average owner has no visible income and therefore no revenue to be made from persecuting dog owners.”

It would actually be a lot easier, re-introduce licensing, tax the sale of dogs, demand dog owners carry the license (another back way of doing ID cards), on the spot fines for owners of dogs who litter the streets or take them off the leash, tax dog food as well, etc etc. And all you’d need to do to get public support for it is to arrange for Paul Dacre’s kids/grandchildren to be bitten by a dog owned by an ethnic minority person.

That the government hasn’t done the above suggests that they really aren’t out to maximise revanue, and are really not out to get you.