Features

The hunting ban could be gone soon – but the hypocrisy will linger on

Cameron looks like making good on his promise to deal with the worst law of our time. He still won’t admit to enjoying hunting, however

11 July 2015

9:00 AM

11 July 2015

9:00 AM

When Bill Clinton was asked if he had ever smoked marijuana he uttered the infamous cop-out that he had smoked it but had not inhaled.

David Cameron’s position on hunting has been similar. He cannot deny that he once rode to hounds with his friends in the beautiful English countryside where he spends weekends. But he has never said much about the experience other than it was terribly challenging to stay on the horse. Rather than saying ‘I enjoyed it’, he has always been careful to give the impression that hunting was going on around him, so he did it, and he survived to tell the tale. But he didn’t inhale, so to speak.

Whatever the truth, Mr Cameron knows he has to deliver something to the hunting fraternity now that he leads a majority government, because he promised a vote on repeal in his manifesto. The trouble is that he can’t risk a free vote, which only entrenches the hunting ban if it goes against him. So a solution has been hit upon that involves amending the Hunting Act by statutory instrument.

The idea is to change the conditions that exempt particular sorts of hunting for pest-control purposes. At present it’s legal to hunt with two hounds to flush a fox to a gun. If the proposed change went ahead, the exemption would cover using as many hounds as were necessary for wildlife management. This would help farmers, especially in upland areas, who have struggled to protect livestock from foxes since the ban. It would also, incidentally, help foxes who are wandering around covered in mange and dying a slow, lingering death.

That means that the most controversial types of hunting, such as hare-coursing, will not come back. It brings the situation in line with the law in Scotland, so it will be difficult for the SNP to object. And because it’s a statutory instrument it will take 90 minutes of debate, not days and weeks of valuable parliamentary time. Cameron was putting the idea to his party’s 1922 Committee this week. If the Tories go for it, the statutory instrument could be debated as early as next week. If passed by MPs, it would go to the Lords for debate in the autumn. If approved there, it would take effect immediately, so the new regime would begin this winter.


It cannot begin soon enough. We are ten years on and the ban has been arguably the most shameful piece of bad law enacted in our time. Even Tony Blair says he’s ashamed of doing it. It is almost unique in having no benefit to anyone or anything. It has cost the taxpayer millions as police try to enforce it, dragging innocent people through the courts in the process, and not one animal rights organisation has been able to demonstrate any benefit to wildlife or animal welfare.

I don’t want to challenge, yet again, the soul-destroying arguments against hunting here now. I think I would rather argue with an atheist about whether God exists. But I will tell just one anecdote to illustrate my point of view. Recently, I went on a date with a guy who took me to a Moroccan restaurant serving, in his view, the best lamb tagine. As we tucked in, he repeatedly gasped in ecstasy at the flavour. Then he drove me home and as we neared my house a fox ran out in front of us. ‘Damn thing,’ I said, watching it flee with a ripped up garbage bag strewn in the road behind it.

‘Beautiful creature!’ he corrected me. ‘Really?’ I said, thinking how smug and unattractive he suddenly looked. ‘Yes,’ he said, adding pompously: ‘I don’t agree with the killing of sentient creatures for fun.’

I stewed on this all night and in the morning sent him an email explaining that I did not wish to see him again and a big part of the reason for that was that I could not reconcile his lurid, lip-smacking enjoyment of a piece of a sheep that had been killed for his delectation and his professed opposition to the killing of a fox ‘for pleasure’.

‘Let’s face it,’ I wrote, ‘if you really don’t want a sentient creature to suffer for your pleasure you could have eaten a bowl of dry old couscous and halloumi cheese.’

But of course, the question of man’s position at the top of the food chain, his right to hunt to enjoy meat, and his right to hunt to control the pests that plague the natural environment producing that meat, will again be a fraught one when the issue comes before Parliament.

For some reason, we just don’t want to admit we have an innate duty to order the world around us any more. It is part of our detachment from nature. Put all slaughter — even horribly cruel halal slaughter — behind closed doors and pretend it doesn’t exist. Then shrink-wrap the results.

As such, I am dreading this being debated again. MPs will, as usual, get all worked up about killing foxes then slope off to fancy restaurants to eat free-range chickens and lambs that could never have been bred if foxes weren’t controlled. As they mount their high horses, they won’t admit that hunting not only makes sense, but is kinder and quicker than what is done daily in the name of mass food production and ritualistic religious slaughter.

But above all, as the hypocrisy reaches hysteria levels, no one on any side will admit that it might be perfectly natural for hunting to be pleasurable.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • john

    Excellent points. I am leading a movement to widen interest in hunting. I look forward to riding my horse, accompanied by hounds to chase and kill local kittens.

    • cartimandua

      Well cats do take a lot of birds but on the whole we don’t eat wild bird eggs or wild birds.

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      I do really dislike cats, but better to get them early.

    • GraveDave

      No matter what the arguments, for or against, it’s been too long and the likelihood is that most people outside your hunting circles will still tend to shun you. So good luck.

  • Freeworld

    Oh I’m with john on this one, just think of the fun we have all been denied now we can get on our horses half drunk and tallyho let the ripping and tearing of live terrified fox flesh commence, oh how brave and courageous we will feel and quite rightly so

  • cartimandua

    It is still legal to shoot gas trap and snare the fox. None of those are “kind” or allow the fox to escape if it is healthy or to engage in natural behaviour.
    Since my best friend has just lost all her ducks and most of her chickens I imagine she is going to pay someone to shoot a few foxes.
    Lampers roaring round fields now there are some real yahoos.

    • Freeworld

      Your friend shouldn’t be keeping animals of any description if she hasn’t got the basic principles of protecting them. She is at fault not the fox.

    • haywardsward

      Your friend needs to get a Maremma, Cane da pastore Maremmano-Abruzzese, at 30-40 kg, foxes do not stand a chance.

      The people that we buy are eggs from here Down Under have Maremma in the paddocks with their free range chickens.

      They keep foxes, cats, wild dogs all introduced vermin in Australia away from the chickens.

      An alternative is alpaca/llamas which are also used her in paddocks to guard sheep, goats, chickens as they will stomp on predators

  • irina palm

    Melissa, I urge you to stop handwringing now. Trust me on this one, it’s not a good look for you.

  • Henry

    The fox hunting ban is class war, pure and simple. What would Labour do if there were a law to ban angling?

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      Not fish.

    • GraveDave

      Yeah , it’s a class war. Course it is. Those lefties and commies and cultural Marxists. What would the raving right do without them.

    • Jack Pott

      It’s not entirely, most of the minions are working class.

  • Peter Stroud

    As one who has enjoyed hunting for over fifty years, rarely on a horse, but often on foot: though recently due to extreme lameness, by car – I agree with what you say. I also dread the red faced Labour, and someTories, spluttering their descriptions of foxes being torn apart – live! A hunted fox was dead within a second, when hounds caught up with him, then he might, or might not have been eaten by hounds. Anyway, the current proposal is simply to de-restrict the number of hounds that can be used by gun packs, to drive the fox to the guns. This will bring it in line with Scotland. Why all the fuss?

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      Rubbish. You should have lived in rural Devon in the early 1970’s like me, then you’d have a clue about what you are pontificating on. Hunts are cruel. Vulgar people and a vile pastime based on bloodlust and crass indifference to everyone and everything. You come across as smug and pig ignorant.

      • Peter Stroud

        I hunted in Devon in the 1970s up to the 1990s and hunting was no more cruel than elsewhere in the UK. I see you are using the same insulting language common to all antis.

        • Sten vs Bren

          It’s possible that the Devon hunt was no worse than any other but any other hunt is pretty insulting, even on a good day.

          The worst elements amongst the hunt would use it as an opportunity to assert themsleves over the other people of the countryside. They were the countryside’s version of football hooligans except the police were on their side.

        • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

          I only insult those I dislike.

    • trendsetter

      There is no fuss. Someone’s trying to make a fuss but it isn’t working.

    • Shorne

      “Post-mortems commissioned by the Home Office inquiry into hunting show no evidence to support claims by hunt supporters that foxes are killed by a ‘quick nip to the back of the neck’ and finds that in many cases foxes are disemboweled first. Independent vet Professor David Morton, who heads the department of biomedical ethics at Birmingham University, has examined the post-mortems carried out by vets from Bristol and Cambridge universities. He said: ‘The fact that none of the animals died instantly clearly shows that they would have suffered. But probably more important is the mental distress these animals would have suffered before they were killed or caught.’”

      All the myths (to put it politely) propagated by the hunting lobby can be compared to an inevitable by product of keeping male bovines.

    • LeBot_Lynda

      Mr Stroud I think you might change your mind when you are vulnerable and the odds are heavily stacked against you then if you are lucky enough to get a second chance of life you will never look at another living thing the same way again

  • Richard Lally

    Fox hunting is classist. Bear baiting and cock fighting are banned because they are working class pursuits.
    Apparently, killing foxes is OK because it is what the upper middle classes like doing!

  • Talleo

    To Mr Collins the cartoonist. The only hunting I’ve seen in snow was done on quads. Horses might slip on snow and hurt themselves and riders. Nice cartoon though.

  • The_greyhound

    There’s nothing quite so debased as the creatures that support fox hunting. Vicious lowlifes with room temperature i.q.s and no moral sense.

  • GraveDave

    Liking the need to hunt foxes to people’s need for meat on the table
    Hilarious these hunting folk. .

    • Des Demona

      The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.

      • Peter Stroud

        Thank you Oscar!

  • thomasaikenhead

    The real hypocrisy is at the RSPCA which does nothing to relieve the animal suffering of the poor creatures who die a slow and lingering death due to religious slaughter to provide halal and kosher meat!

    • Gilbert White

      This is a po!itical issue with the laws already in situ. The people can force the government to enact the government’s own laws without EU interference.

  • theSkeptic

    In a good year a vixen (female fox) can have 2 litters, each with about 8 cubs; so where there were 2 foxes in an area at the beginning of the year, there could easily be 18 at the end. If nature is to remain in balance (the predators matching the food supply), all but 2 of those foxes need to die or to find other areas in which to live where there is an adequate supply of food.
    Thousands of years ago there were a number of top predators – wolves, lynx, bears, wolverines, eagles, eagle owls etc., which would have reduced the numbers and dispersed the young to other areas; now there is nothing apart from man.
    If the numbers aren’t kept in check, the smaller mammals will be wiped out and the rural foxes’ food chain will collapse, leading to illness and starvation. As we were responsible for the wiping out of these predators, it falls to us to manage the result and to control the (current) top predators for both their sake and for that of the rest of the wildlife in the countryside.
    The only “natural” method of fox control and disbursement is by the use of packs of hounds as they will catch and kill the old, weak, injured, stupid and infirm (thus both removing the animals which are least likely to survive the winter and improving the health of the population by natural selection) and disburse the healthy foxes to new areas where they can continue to keep the smaller vermin (rabbits, rats etc) under control.
    A method of population management is needed and no other system is selective in this way – all others are indiscriminate and none but hunting with hounds provides absolute certainty of either the animal escaping with nothing more than an bit of exercise and an adrenalin rush, or a guaranteed fast death.
    Please, let’s take the politics and “class envy” out of the situation and do what’s best for the wildlife of the countryside.

    • Sten vs Bren

      Or you could shoot them.

      • Jon Maz

        When foxes are shot they are unlikely to die instantly and painlessly, rather they suffer a drawn out death usually the result of gangrene. Shooting also has the unintended consequence of ensuring that the young, bright, healthy foxes which are bold and daring in spirit are those which are killed first. Whereas the meek by way of infirmity live on. Hunting with hounds allows the opposite.

        • LeBot_Lynda

          If this is country management then I have a real problem understanding that logic!

        • Sten vs Bren

          “When foxes are shot they are unlikely to die instantly and painlessly, rather they suffer a drawn out death usually the result of gangrene.”

          So, we are agreed. Shooting foxes kills foxes. I have to say that having shot foxes, I can’t say that I wounded them. I killed them. It was them or the chickens.

          “Shooting also has the unintended consequence of ensuring that the young,bright, healthy foxes which are bold and daring in spirit are those which are killed first. Whereas the meek by way of infirmity live on. Hunting with hounds allows the opposite”.

          The job is killing foxes. You want to get the young ones because they are the ones that breed.

          One decent marksperson beats a noisy hunt.

      • theSkeptic

        Shooting is a valid method of removing foxes from an area where they are potentially damaging to human concerns, but it doesn’t address many of the areas of wildlife management outlined in my post. Please re-read it and I feel sure you will agree.

        • Sten vs Bren

          No, I don’t.

          1. You do not mention “areas of wildlife management” in contrast to “an area where they are potentially damaging to human concerns”, in your post.

          2. It’s a false distinction because you can shoot them in either area.

          3. Marksperson beats hunt for kills and for speed.

          • theSkeptic

            1. Yes, you are correct. However, I could write a book on the subject and not cover every aspect.
            2. Also correct in as far it goes, but shooting is of little use in maintaining a healthy fox population or for disbursing adolescent foxes to find new terrotories.
            3. Also partially correct. I was one of the best shots in my regiment but wouldn’t guarantee a perfect and instant kill with every shot. The Veterinary Assosciation for Wildlife Management estimates that up to 40% of foxes shot in the UK are not cleanly killed.
            Hunting is not promoted as being the most efficient method of wiping out a population of foxes, but as the only and best system of selectively culling the old, weak, injured and stupid animals, whilst leaving the healthy to continue as top predators, and disbursing over population.
            I and many of my friends shoot both for pleasure and vermin control. I fully recognise it as an efficient system, but it isn’t the “be all & end all”. Hunting with hounds has its place and nothing matches it for natural population management.

    • Jack Pott

      This isn’t about management or pest control, all things hotly disputed in themselves. This is purely about protecting a form of entertainment.

      • theSkeptic

        Please explain precisely where my post falls down – what is factually incorrect within it ? From your blinkered point of view the argument might be about “protecting a form of entertainment”, but that is because you obviously don’t understand the ways that wildlife needs to be managed in order for it to thrive in our massively altered countryside.
        In order for you to improve your understanding I warmly suggest that you download, read and take note of the information contained in the document in this link – http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/images/stories/item-images/pdf/VetOpinion.pdf
        It has been produced by veterinary surgeons, whose total life’s work is dedicated to doing the best they can for animals, both domestic and wild. Once you have re-read my original post and absorbed the information in the leaflet I look forward to hearing any genuine reasons for objection to the proposed alterations to the law concerning hunting with hounds.

    • claireannejames

      foxes save arable farmers hundreds of thousands of pounds each year in rabbit predation. Foxes are not a pest. Lamb losses on upland farms have been reported by DEFRA to be largely the result of poor husbandry (95%) rather than predation. The IFAW report produced by Bristol and York Universities states that there is no evidence that foxhunting plays any role in the control of fox populations. As pest control it is ineffective. But then, it’s not about pest control, is it. That’s why hunts make artificial earths to encourage foxes to breed in hunting areas, have been caught feeding foxes, and have been caught keeping cubs in a barn.

      • theSkeptic

        Read, inwardly digest and learn. http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/images/stories/item-images/pdf/AnswerstoMs3-10.pdf
        http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/images/stories/item-images/pdf/VetOpinion.pdf
        Both are links to information produced by an association comprising of well over 500 professional veterinary surgeons – highly intelligent and trained individuals who have dedicated their lives to the best interests of animals, both domesticated and wild. They take an unbiased, reasoned and realistic view of the genuine science before coming to agreed decisions over the truth of how best to look after our countryside and the animals which live in it.
        They are self funding – neither paid by field sports enthusiasts nor animal rights campaigners – and their sole interest is in achieving what is best for the animals as a whole.
        I suggest you take note of the facts rather than swallowing the biased and falsified pseudo-science produced by the animal “welfare” campaign groups.

        • claireannejames

          These 550 pro-hunt vets do not represent the 2,800 registered vet practices in the UK. Their material reads like an advertising document – or even a propaganda document – for hunting and contains all the usual lies backed up by ZERO cited research other than their own opinions. They may be self-funding but they are most certainly field sports enthusiasts (they declare that some of them in fact hunt) and absolutely do NOT present any unbiased research. All you have demonstrated yet again is the breathtaking lengths to which hunters and their friends will go to to justify their fun.

        • claireannejames

          The fact that this group of vets even support terrier work tells you all you need to know.

          • theSkeptic

            As a lover of domestic cats – probably the most callous and sadistic killers on the planet and the animals most responsible for the massive loss of garden birds in the UK; may I suggest you take the beam out of your own eye before pointing out that there may be a splinter in someone else’s.

  • Fraziel

    Its rare that you read an article as profoundly ludicrous as this one. Have you turned into Laurie Penny? To compare a load of hoorays charging about half pissed on horses slaughtering small mammals for their own pleasure and amusement to the quick and humane slaughter of animals for food consumption has to be one of the most ridiculous things i have read in many a year. I have to wonder about just what goes on in someones mind to make such a ludicrous comparison but then i suppose thats the pro hunt brigade for you, utterly divorced from reality and will say anything to support their right to kill things for fun.

    • Jon Maz

      The horse riding “hoorays” do not slaughter a single living creature. They follow the hunt, they themselves do not hunt. It is the hounds that do the hunting and killing. And anyway, I don’t imagine that, say in the case of a chicken, being forcefully restrained upside down by the legs as it is transported along a conveyor belt before having its throat cut is all that humane either.

      • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

        Not the ones I saw in Upottery in 1977 beating a fox to death with a shovel.

  • Cymrugel

    To be perfectly honest I couldn’t careless if they ban hunting or not.
    If a lot of upper c lass arses want to go bouncing around the countryside on horseback after a bloody o and the local landowners have no problem with it – on you go.
    But please spare us the rubbish about controlling the pest population. You are chasing a fix, clattering all over the place and finally allowing a pack of hounds to tear it to bits.

    A local farmer could da better job with one gun and perhaps a dog.
    It would be perhaps more sensible to have a local referendum in the areas in which these events take place.
    If it really is such a wonderful and cherished tradition you’ll have no problem winning it, will you?
    By the way. I really think with all that is happening at the moment this is one of the most silly and trivial pieces I have read in the speccy in a while.

  • Ron

    The fox is now an urban problem and like rats has no social sensibility whether it’s Kennington or under neath the arches. Will we see a Jihad declared in Tower Hamlets against something that is so obviously British and must be Tory to boot.

  • valaismec

    Is this article written by a ten-year-old? Sounds like it.

  • PeterMBeck

    Best Quality performance spectator……… <…… Find Here

  • Rodney H Vincent

    Talking about hypocrisy it would be hard to beat the Countryside Alliance’s assertion that fox hunting is about pest control. Rubbish! It’s about killing animals for sport

    • claireannejames

      Foxes are not pests. They save arable farmers hundreds of thousands of pounds every year controlling the rabbit population.

      • claireannejames

        indeed if they were pests, why have hunts been caught making artificial earths, feeding foxes, releasing bagged foxes, and keeping cubs in a barn ajoining hunt property.

  • LeBot_Lynda

    The argument to legalise fox hunting has nothing to do with class as all ‘classes’ fox hunt. It’s more to do with compassion and respect towards animals who have as much right to inhabit this planet as we do.
    Calling fox hunting a ‘pleasure able experience’ Melissa says more about you as a compassionate human being than anything else. How on earth can heavily outnumbering a defenceless animal with the aim to tear it to sheds be pleasurable?

  • Greyfox

    You’ve forgotten the bit about how the lead hound is specially trained to administer anaesthetic to the fox so there’s no suffering. Fox hunting is sheer bloody cruelty.

    • Dr Foster

      Ms Kite wanted to add the bit about anaesthetic, but couldn’t spell it.

  • Needs2Cash

    Next we have to cull another top predator: the badger.

    • Sten vs Bren

      They say kill the fox, you say kill the badger.

      Don’t you know that our true enemy is the hedgehog? Those little bastards. If we dealt with them, all our troubles would be at an end.

      • Malus Pudor

        Wrong… the foxes and badgers are killing all the dear hedgehogs on our behalf …

  • Clive

    Many foxes are, in fact, immigrants a few generations removed. http://www.newforestexplorersguide.co.uk/wildlife/mammals/foxes/numbers.html
    …in many parts of 19th century Britain, foxes were relatively scarce. In fact, until 1914, foxes were imported from abroad for the benefit of the hunt, and transported to final destinations using the burgeoning railway system.

    The Reverend Francis Kilvert, for example, writing in 1873 about the Radnorshire and West Herefordshire Fox-hounds refers to a ‘bag fox’, that is, a fox deliberately released into the countryside to be hunted – the fox was ‘kept in a darkened cellar so long that he was dazed and half-blind when he was turned out’ to be hunted.

    So perhaps we should extend the idea and keep some fresh immigrants in a darkened room to be released, confused and disoriented, into the arms of Melissa whateverhernameis to buy her dinner.

    Maybe that’s a step in cruelty too far.

  • ChrisJHenning

    Last 40 year Best Home Income with spectator < ……. Find Here

  • paul

    Perhaps the Tories will bring back The Slave Trade as well ?

    • Yvon & Barry Stuart-Hargreaves

      No. But to reduce the impact of the £9 barely living wage, perhaps child labour. Remember economics killed the Slave Trade, not social angst. Child Labour undercut the Slave Trade.

  • Ordinary Man

    Why should a fox be seen as a noble creature and not a mosquito? Mawkish sentimentality about animals really is one of the less attractive characteristics of the British.

    • hugh_36

      Hunting with dogs is not about fox control. Farmers are encouraged to provide the conditions which favour foxes. It would be relatively easy to eliminate foxes but that isn’t the point of fox hunting

  • Game Bird

    If you support the fox hunting ban please sign this petition:

    https://www.change.org/

  • Dr Foster

    If these despicable people actually managed to get hold of the fox and
    end its life before the dogs did, then roasted and ate it, none of ‘us’
    would have much, if anything, of an argument against it – same as the
    pathetic dribble that was frothed about the Chinese diet of dogs. And
    these despicable people fail to see that. They think that it is
    perfectly normal behaviour to hunt an animal down in their manner, and
    see it torn to shreds. Anyone who thinks (no matter how they dress it
    up) that foxhunting is anything other than uncivilised has something
    seriously wrong in their brain. Are you reading, Melissa? I doubt it.

    It doesn’t matter if it’s a pest, it doesn’t matter if it has (itself)
    freshly slaughtered a number of sheep, it doesn’t matter if there are
    too many on them…what matters is the method of killing…far, far
    worse than halal. A farmer with a good rifle shot is regrettably
    acceptable. Nothing else is. We shouldn’t be looking to retard laws in
    this way. Oh, we’re back to Melissa Kite.

    The hunting ban, as poorly drafted as it was, was a step toward a slightly more civilised Britain. Anything that even suggests at taking it away is backward.
    And we’re back to Melissa Kite again.

  • Margot

    Really think DC should start thinking about legalising dog fighting – another currently illegal pastime that’s very popular in the country. Cock-fighting doesn’t seem to have such a following but no doubt its followers would be grateful to be legitimised. And of course there’s bear baiting – very traditional and could be held in the village square……

    • Malus Pudor

      And every County Town should re-introduce a Gibbet in the main square so that the long-suffering public could enjoy the public hanging of all the Chavs and boy racers who plague us…

  • TerrenceACaraballo

    Lates Quality performance .spectator…. <…. Find Here

  • martin ow

    If you want to control foxes there are easier and more effective ways doing so.

    If you want to have fun riding horses across the countryside, then take up drag hunting or some such interest.

  • bengeo

    Seems from these comments that The Spectator has chosen to support the wrong side of the argument!

  • Mongo

    I find the needlessly cruel, inhumne slow-death slaughter of animals for Halal purposes abhorrent.

    why isn’t Cameron proposing legislation to ban that pointlessly barabaric practice, instead of endless hand-wringing over fox hunting?

    sorry I forgot, one must not criticise or question the Religion of Peace.

    • Sten vs Bren

      Equal parts bunny hugger/Islamophobe.

      Weird one.

      • Game Bird

        That’s not the comment of a bunny hugger trust me; I know, I am one.
        We hate fox hunting as much as un-stunned halal and kosher.

        • Mongo

          oh I loathe foxhunting too, I just bemoan the double-standards, particularly amongst lefties, at turning a blind eye to Halal practices. It’s strange

          • Mary Ann

            Do lefties turn a blind eye to unstunned meat, I’m a leftie and I think it is disgusting, I believe the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful but if they want their meat unstunned they should become vegetarians, not go to a country where they are willing to kill animals unstunned because that just adds to the misery of the animals there. I also believe that foxes should be controlled in the most humane way possible, which I don’t believe is hunting, especially as some of the hunts have bred foxes to hunt in the past.

      • Mongo

        ah the usual infantile rhetoric of the apologist….

        criticism = Islamophobia

    • Mary Ann

      I agree about the issue of Halal meat that is not stunned before slaughter, but if we are to believe what we read most so called halal meat is in fact stunned and for those animals I don’t suppose they have a problem with a prayer being read over them. We do need to get the government to make sure that the rest is stunned.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27324224

  • Bobby Mac

    Good grief, this is one of the most illogical arguments I have ever read on the subject. Most people who oppose fox hunting recognise that pest control is required, just as human carnivores would not tolerate animals being terrorised before being killed. I can’t imagine that her dinner companion would stick around for very long, once he had sussed out Melissa inability to reason.

  • Bluebottle

    ….this is an awful bit of writing.

  • ItsAlreadyTooLate

    The lamb didn’t get ripped apart before it was cooked.

  • Mary Ann

    It is hypocrisy to get rid of the law, Cameron know that the majority of the electorate are against it, he knows that getting rid of the hunting ban is not why people voted Tory, and it is not why he won the election.

  • spiritof78

    I seem recall that one of the substantial arguments against the ban made by the Countryside Alliance was that the legislation involved taking up huge amounts of parliamentary time on a npn-priority issue. In which case, don’t the same arguments apply now?

  • huw

    there was hunting, there is hunting, and there will allways be hunting…..despite what brian may says,,,

Close