NationStates Jolt Archive

On Thursday MPs used the Parliament Act to push through a ban, which will outlaw fox and deer hunting and hare-coursing with dogs from February 2005.

The Countryside Alliance is challenging the legitimacy of the 1949 Act. It also claims the ban does not comply with some aspects of the Human Rights Act.

If this challenge is succesful, three other Acts pushed through government could be under threat; the 1991 War Crimes Act, allowing Nazi war criminals to be prosecuted by the British courts; the 1999 European Parliamentary Elections Act, altering the way Britain elects it's MEPs; and the 2000 Sexual Offences Amendment Act, which among other things lowers the age of homosexual consent to 16.

(Fortunately, I live in Scotland, which outlawed the barbaric practice of fox-hunting more than two years ago.)

Any thoughts?

On Thursday MPs used the Parliament Act to push through a ban, which will outlaw fox and deer hunting and hare-coursing with dogs from February 2005.

The Countryside Alliance is challenging the legitimacy of the 1949 Act. It also claims the ban does not comply with some aspects of the Human Rights Act.

If this challenge is succesful, three other Acts pushed through government could be under threat; the 1991 War Crimes Act, allowing Nazi war criminals to be prosecuted by the British courts; the 1999 European Parliamentary Elections Act, altering the way Britain elects it's MEPs; and the 2000 Sexual Offences Amendment Act, which among other things lowers the age of homosexual consent to 16.

(Fortunately, I live in Scotland, which outlawed the barbaric practice of fox-hunting more than two years ago.)

Any thoughts?

To be honest i don't think it would ever get revoked.They are just getting desperate now that the ban has come through despite the Lords voting against it.

Guys, come to Australia and hunt foxes and rabbits here as they are pests here!

To be honest i don't think it would ever get revoked.They are just getting desperate now that the ban has come through despite the Lords voting against it.

Your probably right. Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael has said "People have every right to use the courts to test the law, but I don't believe that they will succeed...The legal advice I have had is that the bill as it is complies satisfactorily with the human rights legislation. I am quite confident about that."

I think we can safely say hunting with dogs is gone. (Yaaaay!) I was momentarily worried about the other three Acts that this challenge could turn over, especially the Sexual Offences Amendment Act. After the uphill struggle that Gay Rights activists have had to deal with, the last thing they need is a return to is discrimination over consent.

The 1949 Parliament Act was itself passed under the 1911 Parliament Act, hence the challenge to its legitimacy. However, this is extremely unlikely to be accepted by any judge as it would undermine every Act passed under the 1949 Act (which I've just realised you've already pointed out, but worth reiterating).

However, it is a bit of a joke to use the Parliament Act for a relatively minor issue. The Government have become obsessed with forcing it through, without accepting that hunting with hounds is far less cruel than shooting them - the hounds are trained to kill the fox instantly, whereas shooting could leave a fox to bleed to death for hours. (That's notwithstanding whether you think hunting is wrong, full stop, of course - personally I have no strong position on that matter, I just think the Government have acted improperly)

The thing the House of Lords is likely to do though, is to stop the Government from putting a rather cynical delay on the Act actually becoming law (in the name of "allowing people to adjust"). The reality is that there will be disruption when it becomes law, and they're shit-scared of that affecting the outcome of the General Election next year.

The thing the House of Lords is likely to do though, is to stop the Government from putting a rather cynical delay on the Act actually becoming law (in the name of "allowing people to adjust"). The reality is that there will be disruption when it becomes law, and they're shit-scared of that affecting the outcome of the General Election next year.

Yeah, people might vote tory again :headbang:

The 1949 Parliament Act was itself passed under the 1911 Parliament Act, hence the challenge to its legitimacy. However, this is extremely unlikely to be accepted by any judge as it would undermine every Act passed under the 1949 Act (which I've just realised you've already pointed out, but worth reiterating).

However, it is a bit of a joke to use the Parliament Act for a relatively minor issue. The Government have become obsessed with forcing it through, without accepting that hunting with hounds is far less cruel than shooting them - the hounds are trained to kill the fox instantly, whereas shooting could leave a fox to bleed to death for hours. (That's notwithstanding whether you think hunting is wrong, full stop, of course - personally I have no strong position on that matter, I just think the Government have acted improperly)

The thing the House of Lords is likely to do though, is to stop the Government from putting a rather cynical delay on the Act actually becoming law (in the name of "allowing people to adjust"). The reality is that there will be disruption when it becomes law, and they're shit-scared of that affecting the outcome of the General Election next year.

wow.

that is one of the first truly smart things i have heard on these boards about the UK.

you should dip your oar in more.

Yeah, people might vote tory again :headbang:

Not the worst thing that could happen - the tories would never get a majority (as they would gain in the rural areas rather than the urban areas, which they would need to win), but it could result in a hung Parliament.

A Hung Parliament is the best possible election result, because it would force the Lib Dems and Labour to get into bed together - which the Lib Dems would only agree to if the electoral system was changed to one of proportional representation. And that's when the fun really starts!

wow.

that is one of the first truly smart things i have heard on these boards about the UK.

you should dip your oar in more.

Ah, it's nothing. I've just got my finger on the red button.

(Not really - BBC Text is shite)

Not the worst thing that could happen - the tories would never get a majority (as they would gain in the rural areas rather than the urban areas, which they would need to win), but it could result in a hung Parliament.

A Hung Parliament is the best possible election result, because it would force the Lib Dems and Labour to get into bed together - which the Lib Dems would only agree to if the electoral system was changed to one of proportional representation. And that's when the fun really starts!

You in favour of proportional representation? Personally, i think its the way to go at the moment, as the proportion of seats Labour has to the proportion of votes it has is stupidly different.

In fact i pretty much agree with all of what you said! Roll on hung parliament!!!

You in favour of proportional representation? Personally, i think its the way to go at the moment, as the proportion of seats Labour has to the proportion of votes it has is stupidly different.

In fact i pretty much agree with all of what you said! Roll on hung parliament!!!

Solidarity brother!!

:fluffle:

Ooh, easy tiger! Not that solid

Ah, it's nothing. I've just got my finger on the red button.

(Not really - BBC Text is shite)

I thought your text looked familiar, i read the article on it this morning :p :) still though its an important point you made.

Solidarity brother!!

:fluffle:

Ooh, easy tiger! Not that solid


:rolleyes:

I thought your text looked familiar, i read the article on it this morning :p :) still though its an important point you made.

Erm, no, I haven't been looking at BBC Text - digital text is still a bit pants, old teletext is much better - but I have picked much of it up off BBC News.

Erm, no, I haven't been looking at BBC Text - digital text is still a bit pants, old teletext is much better - but I have picked much of it up off BBC News.

Oh right, apologies. they wrote the same thing on the website, hence why i thought it looked familiar...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4024421.stm

However, it is a bit of a joke to use the Parliament Act for a relatively minor issue. The Government have become obsessed with forcing it through, without accepting that hunting with hounds is far less cruel than shooting them - the hounds are trained to kill the fox instantly, whereas shooting could leave a fox to bleed to death for hours. (That's notwithstanding whether you think hunting is wrong, full stop, of course - personally I have no strong position on that matter, I just think the Government have acted improperly)

Personally, I disagree with all forms of hunting, and am amused at Blair's hypocrisy on the matter. In September 1999 the PM wrote an article in the Daily Telegraph reasuring readers that:

There will be no ban on the country pursuits of shooting and fishing. Let me make this perfectly clear. As long as I am Prime Minister, I guarentee that this Government will not allow any ban

Now, disregarding Blair's apparent confusion on what a PM can and can't do (How can the PM guarentee there will be no ban on shooting and fishing? He has no veto power or exclusive rights to Parliment Acts) this seems to be blatant inconsistency. What makes shooting or fishing less cruel than hunting with dogs? How is a bullet in the gut or a hook in the head any different from a hound at the throat? Obvously the PM does not agree that cruelty to animals is sufficient for criminalisation.

The thing the House of Lords is likely to do though, is to stop the Government from putting a rather cynical delay on the Act actually becoming law (in the name of "allowing people to adjust").
I laughed out loud when I heard him say that. Oh no Tony, the fact that a General Election is coming up has nothing to do with a delay ;)

The 1949 Parliament Act was itself passed under the 1911 Parliament Act, hence the challenge to its legitimacy. However, this is extremely unlikely to be accepted by any judge as it would undermine every Act passed under the 1949 Act (which I've just realised you've already pointed out, but worth reiterating).

However, it is a bit of a joke to use the Parliament Act for a relatively minor issue. The Government have become obsessed with forcing it through, without accepting that hunting with hounds is far less cruel than shooting them - the hounds are trained to kill the fox instantly, whereas shooting could leave a fox to bleed to death for hours. (That's notwithstanding whether you think hunting is wrong, full stop, of course - personally I have no strong position on that matter, I just think the Government have acted improperly)

The thing the House of Lords is likely to do though, is to stop the Government from putting a rather cynical delay on the Act actually becoming law (in the name of "allowing people to adjust"). The reality is that there will be disruption when it becomes law, and they're shit-scared of that affecting the outcome of the General Election next year.


Whether or not it was a minor issue is not the issue. (heh)
The fact of the matter is that the ban had the support of the elected commons, and the support of the people. An unelected body cannot be allowed to obstruct the rule of the popularly elected body.

Whether or not it was a minor issue is not the issue. (heh)
The fact of the matter is that the ban had the support of the elected commons, and the support of the people. An unelected body cannot be allowed to obstruct the rule of the popularly elected body.

It has the support of the urban people. Come to the countryside and you will find a very different attitude - there is an awful lot of opposition to this bill. It's the last straw after the Government have ignored them for years. Much of this country's Government is only interested in London issues.

An unelected body cannot be allowed to obstruct the rule of the popularly elected body.
A view that, I imagine, would be supported by the Countryside Alliance. Unless of course their tooting horns come under threat.

Personally, I disagree with all forms of hunting, and am amused at Blair's hypocrisy on the matter. In September 1999 the PM wrote an article in the Daily Telegraph reasuring readers that:

There will be no ban on the country pursuits of shooting and fishing. Let me make this perfectly clear. As long as I am Prime Minister, I guarentee that this Government will not allow any ban

Now, disregarding Blair's apparent confusion on what a PM can and can't do (How can the PM guarentee there will be no ban on shooting and fishing? He has no veto power or exclusive rights to Parliment Acts) this seems to be blatant inconsistency. What makes shooting or fishing less cruel than hunting with dogs? How is a bullet in the gut or a hook in the head any different from a hound at the throat? Obvously the PM does not agree that cruelty to animals is sufficient for criminalisation.

Well technically its a different government since there was a general election. But i agree completely, its total hypocricy.

A view that, I imagine, would be supported by the Countryside Alliance. Unless of course their tooting horns come under threat.

An interesting article on the CA and their motives:

http://www.labouranimalwelfaresociety.org/gary/New%20articles/Racism%20and%20the%20Countryside%20Alliance.htm

It has the support of the urban people. Come to the countryside and you will find a very different attitude - there is an awful lot of opposition to this bill. It's the last straw after the Government have ignored them for years.
Bollocks. I live in the countryside and I support the ban. In the two years the ban has been in action in Scotland, I've not heard one dissenting voice against it.

This whole urban vs. county is nonsense propagated by people like those in the CA. If there's any social conflict going on here it's between the Upper class and the rest of us plebs.

Much of this country's Government is only interested in London issues. That I can agree with.

Deer hunting with dogs is outlawed in most states in the US. But fox and rabbit are fair game.

Well technically its a different government since there was a general election. But i agree completely, its total hypocricy.

And technically he kept his promise of no top-up fees, because it won't be brought in until the next election. Tony Bliar has a catalogue of lies behind him - I was surprised anyone trusted him in the first place, but I find it difficult to believe anyone could still trust him now.

I was surprised anyone trusted him in the first place, but I find it difficult to believe anyone could still trust him now.

Yeah, but I trust Michael Howard less. I'm not liking the idea of a Thatcherite back in power.

Yeah, but I trust Michael Howard less. I'm not liking the idea of a Thatcherite back in power.

So that leaves us with Kennedy, who if you believe the poles, is the most liked leader out there.

EDIT: Polls dammit Polls!!!!

So that leaves us with Kennedy, who if you believe the polls, is the most liked leader out there.
Really? Which poll?

Hmmm, A Lib Dem government...

EDIT: Polls dammit Polls!!!!
Dammit, I had a good joke coming...

I'm glad its been banned. Their type (tory tossers) have always made life worse for the rest of us, time they get something bad happen to them.
I don't think it will make much difference to the election, the people who support hunting would vote tory anyway, also if they keep complaining I reckon people will just get fed up with them and side with the government.

Bollocks. I live in the countryside and I support the ban. In the two years the ban has been in action in Scotland, I've not heard one dissenting voice against it.

This whole urban vs. county is nonsense propagated by people like those in the CA. If there's any social conflict going on here it's between the Upper class and the rest of us plebs.

I take your point, I did exaggerate a bit (and I think you've exaggerated the class war bit too) - but I'm severely pissed off that the Government thinks it knows what is best for anyone and everyone, and centralise all control to London.

A great example recently - the NE Assembly, which might well have been a good idea, but they never bothered to explain to the people there how it would work, just how great it would be when it did. Quite rightly, they got hammered in the referendum.

If they did it right in the South West though, I'd welcome a regional assembly down here. If it meant a bit more local governmental control, of course.

Back to the hunting though - why have they banned hunting with dogs rather than other types of hunting, which can cause far more distress to the hunted animal?

Really? Which poll?

Hmmm, A Lib Dem government...


Dammit, I had a good joke coming...

Ah, they were the polls done by sky, bbc and the independent during the last general election. i was just going off them.

I'm glad its been banned. Their type (tory tossers) have always made life worse for the rest of us, time they get something bad happen to them.

That is the worst reason to ban anything.

Not really. Its just them getting what they deserve.

Back to the hunting though - why have they banned hunting with dogs rather than other types of hunting, which can cause far more distress to the hunted animal?
My point as well, it's total hypocrisy. Ban all hunting!

Not really. Its just them getting what they deserve.

Bollocks. It's exactly the sort of reasoning that people like Mugabe use.

Bollocks. It's exactly the sort of reasoning that people like Mugabe use.

A bit of an extreme example, but your quite right TW. Nothing should be banned because 'they had it coming'.

I don't see anything wrong with doing something that pisses someone off that supports an organization that has ruined many peoples lives.

A bit of an extreme example, but your quite right TW. Nothing should be banned because 'they had it coming'.

Yeah, I knew it was extreme but I had to hammer it home. :p