James Delingpole

The children’s author BB had the right idea about man’s part in nature

The BBC’s Chris Packham should read the great amateur naturalist’s books and learn a few things

16 January 2016

9:00 AM

16 January 2016

9:00 AM

Wild Lone is one of the most violent books I’ve ever read. It was published just before the last war and it doesn’t pull its punches: mothers are slaughtered with their babies; brothers and sisters are eaten alive; callous parents look on indifferently as their sick children die slowly beneath them; the few survivors almost invariably succumb to disease, cold or starvation. Every child should read it, for it tells you how the world really is.

The natural world, I mean. It was written by one of the last century’s great amateur naturalists, Denys Watkins-Pitchford, under his nom-de-plume ‘BB’ and it purports to be the biography of a ‘Pytchley fox’ called Rufus.

Rufus is simultaneously the book’s hero and villain. Because it’s written mostly from the fox’s perspective you root for him all the way — even in the dismal scene when (based on a true story, this) he manages to drown five couple of foxhounds by luring them onto the thin ice on Fawsley lake.

But you can never love him, because he’s such a ruthless bastard. Night in, night out, he kills relentlessly and indiscriminately: hens in their coops, nesting partridge, duck, moorhens, Old Zank the heron, hedgehogs, a grass snake (only once because the taste is awful), lambs, rabbits, mice, tree pipits, a kingfisher…

Now let’s fast-forward 75 years and meet one of BB’s modern-day counterparts. The naturalist Chris Packham is standing in a wood very much like the ones described— with considerably more eloquence — by BB. He is hymning the glories of what he’d probably call its ‘biodiversity’: ‘every bug, every butterfly, every bird, every mammal that comes together to make this … our greatest natural treasure.’


Warming to his cod-Churchillian theme, Packham tells us: ‘We want this place to prosper, complete, rich and wonderful for the next 500 years.’ Yes, I’m sure we can all agree with that. But possibly not with the bizarre non-sequitur that follows: ‘And the only way we’re going to do that is if we respect all of the life that lives here.’

All of it? Really? What about, say, the grey squirrels that kill off the red squirrels and wipe out the young trees by ring–barking them? What about the self-seeded sycamores that create congestion and steal the light from the undergrowth? What about the deer that eat the saplings, the badgers that eat the hedgehogs, the magpies and the jays that predate on other birds’ nests? What about the foxes that kill everything that moves?

Actually, we know what Packham thinks about foxes because that’s the point of his video (which you can watch, if you’ve the stomach, on his website). It’s part of a passionate plea to the ‘people of Britain’ to ‘prevent the return of fox hunting’, which he calls ‘psycho-pathic barbarism.’ Heartfelt, certainly. Informed? Hardly.

If Packham were just some random animal-rights nutcase with weird dead eyes and disturbingly Malthusian tendencies, this crass emotive grandstanding wouldn’t much matter. But he’s not. He co-presents some of the BBC’s most-watched nature documentaries, Springwatch and Autumnwatch, with audiences of up to four million. People take his views on wildlife seriously. This is worrying.

It’s worrying, because Packham’s BBC-endorsed view of nature — sentimental, over-reverential, laced with misanthropy — is utterly at odds with the basic truths that more observant naturalists have understood since time immemorial. Simple, obvious stuff like the fact that nature is cruel — ‘red in tooth and claw’; that without mankind to manage it, it tends not towards some gorgeous, pristine state of prelapsarian loveliness but rather towards an unholy, very unbiodiverse mess where unchecked top predators and scavengers run rampant while anything more delicate is quickly exterminated.

As a naturalist of the old school, BB knew all this. Born in 1905, he became a sickly youth and was home-educated and so free to spend much of his childhood wandering through the Northamptonshire woods, observing and cherishing nature with his painter’s eye. He also shot, but this didn’t make him a hypocrite. Rather, it enabled him more properly to appreciate the ambivalent relationship man has always had with the natural world, on the one hand as its loving guardian, on the other as its callous destroyer.

I suspect he wasn’t a foxhunting man. ‘In exchange for the pleasure man found in horse-craft and hound-craft when hunting the fox, he had given him continued life and on the face of things this seemed a good bargain,’ he writes. And: ‘Hunting with hounds is cruel, however, and man knows it to be cruel; the whole of Life is cruel, or, shall we say, unfeeling.’

But it seems to me a fair attempt at a neutral, honest assessment. (Especially when he goes on to say how brave hunting-men are…) What I like about it — and what puts it so very much at odds with anything you ever hear from any of the modern breed of naturalist, be they Packham, Bill Oddie, or even David Attenborough — is the way it sees man as a part of nature rather than as some unwelcome and irrelevant interloper.

Until the growth, in the mid-20th century, of the environmental religion, this wouldn’t have needed explaining. It was a given that God had given man dominion over the creatures of the earth, whether to use as food, transport, companions or for sport. Because people were far less deracinated from their rural origins, they were less prone to squeamishness about issues like conservation management and pest control.

Recently I wrote a piece about foxhunting and I was quite taken aback by the mix of self-righteousness and vicious misanthropy of the emails from antis wishing me to break my neck. Perhaps if they were to spent a bit more time with BB and a bit less with Packham, they might get a proper sense of perspective.

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
  • Rik

    I blame Disney.

    • bufo75

      You’re absolutely right.
      I was 7 years old when I first saw “Bambi” in 1942 and remember being embarrassed, as I cried when Bambi’s mother was killed by “wicked hunters” !

  • The real disproof of this Smuttian “balance of nature” eugenics pseudoscience is its use by Smuts to enforce racism in South Africa (to “preserve the balance of nature” and “racial purity”) and in Hitler’s extermination policy to deal with “overpopulation” by allegedly inferior races. Its’ equivalent is today’s BS animal species control (artificial attempts to stop some “endangered” species from naturally going extinct).

    The reality is that even if you cut or burn down rainforests and the soil is eroded and washed downstream, it piles up someplace else and another rainforest occurs. CO2 speeds up plant growth! New environments have always encouraged new species to evolve specifically to take advantage of them!

    There’s also a lovely set of photos published by Dr Ralph Palumbo of the rapid rainforest regrowth after 10.4 megaton and 1.69 megaton nuclear tests on an island 2.5 miles away in Eniwetok Atoll. (Dr Ralph F. Palumbo, Radioactivity and Recovery of the Land Plants at Eniwetok Atoll, 1954-1957, University of Washington report UWFL-66). So even the extreme fantasy of nuclear war destroying nature is BS.

    I don’t know what you mean by “cod-Churchillian”. Churchill was very sensible regarding capitalism’s inability to endanger the earth: “You will make all kinds of mistakes; but as long as you are generous and true and also fierce you cannot hurt the world or even seriously distress her.” – Winston S. Churchill, “My Early Life”.

    • jamesdelingpole

      If you bothered to look at the video you would not need to ask what cod-Churchillian meant. But then that would have denied you the pleasure of asking your rhetorical question and ostentatiously volunteering your expertise on things Churchill said.

  • Rudi

    What really highlights this authors ignorance is his claim that so called ‘environmental religion’ only dates from the 20th C as opposed to being, oh I don’t know, the oldest religious notion in the world. Well, that and his basic argument, which boils down to “Foxhunting isn’t cruel, because life is cruel, and foxes are twats”

    • Mr B J Mann

      You’ve misunderstood because he forgot to capitalise environMentalism!

  • Lou

    Ha ha-“especially when he goes on to say how brave fox hunting men are”. And there you have it-Delingpole reeks of inadequacy and over excitement at having found a group who will allow, support and encourage his desire to indulge in blood sports which make him feel like finally he’s showing the world who’s boss. Except there’s nothing brave about hunting. And there is something hugely hypocritical about demonising a wild animal without the ability to reason whilst aping what you call its ‘cruelty’. You and your fellow blood sports fans are the only ‘cruel’ fellows Delingpole-you’re a human being from whom a higher level of morality is expected. Oh-and all those nasty antis..I likened your embarrassingly cliched last piece on hunting to an Enid Blyton piece and you blocked me. Hardly vitriolic?

    • Mr B J Mann

      Except the animal “lovers” would prefer to see wildlife controlled by disease, starvation and lingering death.

      In fact the Chair, or whatever, of PETA welcomed BSE in the States because it would hit agribusiness where it hurts.

      They couldn’t make their real agenda an plainer than that!

      • Lou

        People who get a kick from terrorising wild animals don’t have any interest in welfare beyond their own.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Yup!

          People who get a kick from terrorising wild animals by releasing not just vicious, but diseased, wild animals from fur farms and laboratories into the wild to hunt and infect and terrorise the indigenous fauna before themselves usually dying an agonising, terrifying, death don’t have any interest in welfare, animal, or any other, beyond their own self-seving, guilt-attenuating, virtue-signalling agenda!

          • Lou

            Yes, I believe that sort of thing was reportedly happening back in the 80s.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So you agree it’s actually the self-styled animal-lovers who are the actual, real, terrorist, animal terrorisers!

          • Lou

            Er, I was commenting that the odd incident you reference was reported back in the 80’s. Don’t really see the relevance. Today, the terrorists tend to be Islamists. And in the countryside, the arrogant criminals who refuse to obey the law and take pleasure in terrorising vulnerable wild animals.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Throwing explosives about and bringing down aircraft you mean?

            Don’t animal “lovers” throw fireworks around to scare the horses, ann hound the dogs?

            And aren’t animal lovers suspect of causing a light aircraft, or microlight, to crash (fataĺly?)?!

          • Lou

            No animal lover would throw around fireworks near animals. I don’t know what incidents you are referencing but obviously there will be idiots on either side-that doesn’t say anything about the merit or otherwise of their cause

          • Mr B J Mann

            Exactly: animal lovers aren’t.

            It’s just an excuse for the activists to get back at human society because they are social inadequates,

          • Lou

            Any chance you might be generalising a little? According to polls upward of 80% of Britons oppose hunting. Your hysteria suggests that you believe all those people to be crazed, antisocial student types? I think you’ll find that people from all walks of life and with a wide variety of views oppose bloodsports. Do those who protest bullfighting fall into the ‘crazed animal rights fanatics’ group too?!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Moi?!

            According to polls upward of 80% of infantilised, Disny distracted, Bambified Britons bamboozled by PETA propaganda and emotive and biased loaded poll questions oppose hunting, you mean!

          • Lou

            Hmm, who’d have thought that bias and brainwashing could exist on one side of the hunting debate like that. Demonising of so many species seems to be a hallmark!

          • Mr B J Mann

            I wouldn’t call Demonising omivore men and near total carnivore dogs for doing what comes naturally “Demonising of so many species seems to be a hallmark!”.

            Or did I misunderstan what you meant to ssy?!

          • Lou

            No, you didn’t ‘misunderstan’ what I meant to ‘ssy’! All animals have ‘natural urges’-something they can’t be held responsible for or demonised for-particularly as they have no notion of right or wrong and wild animals in particular need to hunt to survive. Surely though there’s an argument for humans having to control their urges when it involves harming anyone else. Otherwise we’re in territory of justifying all sorts of things-as an imam recently attempted to do with regard to the cologne attacks. Natural male urges-no responsibility to control ‘the beast within’ as Golding coined it?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Try again!

            Apologies for the dyslexic mistakes/typos not spotted on a tiny Blackberry screen.

            As for your latest “reply”:

            “No, you didn’t ‘misunderstan’ what I meant to ‘ssy’! All animals have ‘natural urges’-something they can’t be held responsible for or demonised for”

            You seem obsessed with demonisation: who, apart from you, indulges in that? Do you have a pile of voodoo dolls on your bed?!

            “-particularly as they have no notion of right or wrong

            I’ve already said that animals are NOT people too!

            Having said that, the animal rights lobby insists that they have rights, some even go so far as demanding they have the right to vote?!?!?

            Despite them having “no notion of right or wrong”!

            I suppose that what’s right for 16 year olds and “liberal” lefties should be right for the goose too?!?!?

            “and wild animals in particular need to hunt to survive.”

            And?

            Are you trying to say that as humans (or hounds) don’t NEED to hunt to survive they shouldn’t?

            Who made you boss of that??!

            And does that mean that if we were to feed predators in the wild it would be OK for those that were (unknowingly) naughty to be shot (or maybe just imprisoned, in a zoo, perhaps?!

            “Surely though there’s an argument for humans having to control their urges”

            What? Not eating sugar? Not bingeing? Not dashing out and joining a protest? Not displaying more and more flesh as they get nearer and nearer the peak of their fertility cycle?

            “when it involves harming anyone else.”

            So Not eating sugar because it harms the public’s wealth? Not bingeing because it can also lead to physical harm of others, especially if it’s drink or drugs while driving? Not dashing out and joining a protest – we’ve all seen what happens when the “liberals” get carried away! Not displaying more and more flesh as they get nearer and nearer the peak of their fertility cycle – all those wimmin getting carried away with the men they attract and then the men getting carted away when the regret sets in and the wimmin wail wape!

            “Otherwise we’re in territory of justifying all sorts of things-as an imam recently attempted to do with regard to the cologne attacks.”

            Nothing wimmin like more than a Daesh of Cologne!

            Yup, just look at what happens when wimmin get men’s dander up!

            More to the point, just look what happens when bleedin-heart, trendy-lefty, “liberals” get their equality agendas and diversity doctrines bl0wing up in their faces.

            Surely it’s time to recognise that every hare-brained idea they come up with ALWAYS turns out to have unwelcome unintended consequences and restrict the vote to over 21s (30s for wimmin) who’ve had a proper private sector job, rather than to have to continually sort out the mess resulting from sixth form politics?!

            But I digress:

            “Natural male urges-no responsibility to control ‘the beast within’ as Golding coined it?”

            So now you agree that there is a beast within every man that needs to be satisfied!

            By the way, as unborn humans “can’t be held responsible for or demonised for” anything they can, or can’t, do, and “particularly as they have no notion of right or wrong”, AND react to pr!cks and scratches, just like even lobsters, who shouldn’t be subjected to cruel, or any kind of human delivered, death, I take it you are “Pro Life” for babies as well as badgers?!

          • Lou

            Ok-well the demonising is pretty easy-I’ve grown up in the country where a small group insist upon portraying the fox as a monster-usually based on outrageous anecdotes like ‘old Bob’s cousin’s wife saw a fox kill a llama back in ’73’. Kind of like this (from a representative of British bloodsports: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AA4nikpIfn0). Embarrassing, no? Always struck me as odd as there were at the same time other groups made up of different farmers and landowners who claim foxes aren’t a problem. Who to believe? The ones who demonise usually had a link with the hunt or were those civilised chaps, the ‘terriermen’. Coincidence perhaps. The outrage if a fox so much as scavenges compared to the anger yet acceptance if a dog attacks livestock is also strange-double standards?
            Unlike hunters who anthropomorphise, I apply common sense: the animal kingdom encompasses a huge variety of creatures from oysters to gorillas- a blanket rule on what is acceptable human conduct towards them is impossible. Some primates for example have more ‘human’ characteristics than severely disabled people (self awareness and so on)-the justification for drawing a line between ‘human’ and ‘animal’ is not as clear cut as you make out.
            I stand by the statement that anyone is free to do anything they wish providing it doesn’t harm the interests of another sentient being. Why would you want to cause pain and suffering if it could be avoided? Every single element of hunting can be retained by switching to a volunteer human quarry-drag hunting. What’s the problem there-it’s a tiny concession. We don’t live in a perfect world so your analogies are ones endlessly debated-should smokers be treated on the nhs etc etc. Golding was questioning, in light of the holocaust, whether human nature is evil or good or a mixture of both. History shows us both-I don’t see how applying compassion to all sentient creatures-whatever species-and acting where possible for the good of all-responsible stewardship rather than getting off on the power of killing for fun-can go far off course. Call that ‘bleeding heart’ and scoff if you will.

          • Mr B J Mann

            “well the demonising is pretty easy-I’ve grown up in the country where a small group insist upon portraying the fox” hunter “as a monster-usually based on outrageous anecdotes like ‘old Bob’s cousin’s wife saw……. a representative of British bloodsports…….”

            So your point is?!

            ” Embarrassing, no? …….The ones who demonise usually had a link with the hunt”” saboteurs!

            By the way, who are these “hunters who anthropomorphise”:

            And who do they “anthropomorphise”?

            As for you:

            “apply common sense: the animal kingdom encompasses a huge variety of creatures from oysters to gorillas- a blanket rule on what is acceptable human conduct towards them is impossible. Some primates for example have more ‘human’ characteristics than severely disabled people (self awareness and so on)-the justification for drawing a line between ‘human’ and ‘animal’ is not as clear cut as you make out.”

            Where did I say it was clear cut?

            I in fact pointed out there seems to be a lot of confusion in the “liberal” rights lobby:

            What with insisting people can’t kill lobsters, and even shellfish, because they react to being prodded and scrapped:

            But it’s OK to kill unborn babies despite them reacting and more to being prodded and scrapped?!

            “I stand by the statement that anyone is free to do anything they wish providing it doesn’t harm the interests of another sentient being.”

            Who made you the boss of who or what is “another” “sentient” “being”, never mind what their “interests” are, what would “harm” them, and what you can or can’t do to them.

            But it’s interesting you thing it’s wrong for hounds to kill foxes, but you seem to be saying it’s OK to kill a disabled person, or even maybe an old duffer with Alzheimer’s!

            “Why would you want to cause pain and suffering if it could be avoided? Every single element of hunting can be retained by switching to a volunteer human quarry-drag hunting. What’s the problem there-it’s a tiny concession.”

            So you think it’s wrong for hounds to hunt and kill a fox.

            But it’s OK for them to hunt and kill a volunteer human quarry?!

            You do understand what “hunting” is, don’t you?!

            Next you’ll be feeding tigers veggieburgers and insisting they chase a cardboard cutout of a gazelle hanging off the back off a Land Rover?!?!?

          • Lou

            A total misrepresentation of what I wrote. You asked for evidence of demonising-I gave examples including a video which you ignored. Pointing out that some primates can be categorised as more ‘human’ than some humans is to illustrate the point that the line between humans and other species isn’t clear cut-not to advocate treating those people badly. Which I’d have thought was glaringly obvious. And nobody ‘made me boss’. Sentience is a fact and scientific research on animal perceptions of fear and pain can be measured via brain scans, blood tests and other means. Are you seriously suggesting that a hunted fox or deer doesn’t suffer? Drag hunting involves volunteer human runners who, last time I checked, are not killed. I assume that as you ignored many other points you decided it was easier to resort to farce?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            The video seemed to be a load of anti-hunt types savaging a gentle rational naturalist, but I didn’t manage to watch it all.

            And you’d better start campaigning against predators, and other apes, killing apes then!

            And it’s not me who is resorting to farce.

            You can probably measure perceptions of fear and pain in foetuses. You still haven’t confirmed if you are Pro “Choice”! And do the measurements mean that animals can feel emotion and contemplate their future?

            And as I didn’t make it clear enough:

            Drag “hunting ISN’T hunting!

            Is it?!

            I assume that as you ignored many other points you decided it was easier to resort to farce?!

          • Lou

            The only difference is an animal isn’t hounded. Get over your need for blood.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Which need for blood would this be? The need to circulate oxygen round my body perhaps?

            Are you wishing me dead in that cute artistic morally superior way the “liberal” left love to?

          • Lou

            I do love how your narrow minded ignorance is displayed here time and again. You assume anyone who opposes hunts is ‘lefty..liberal..cat lady..’ Ha! You couldn’t be more wrong-your assumptions just show how brainwashed you are.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Moi?

            I note you’re still ignoring most of my points, and evading the rest.

            How about finally telling us if you’re pro choice or pro life?!

            And whether you support PETA?!?!?!!!!!

          • Lou

            What does abortion have to do with a debate on hunting? Surely you aren’t one of those pro hunters who aims to change the subject? Cherry pick ‘evidence’? Conveniently ignore videos proving hunters demonise animals? Claim juries are made up of lefty ‘student types on benefits’ when you dislike the verdict? Justify assault? Lie? Smear?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrmmmmmmm

            Hunting is, literally a pro life / pro choice debate.

            So, just to confirm, are you pro life, even for less, or even for non, sentient stages of human life?

            If I were to crush the pupea, or even the embryos, of the last surviving example of a rare butterfly, would that be OK, as I hadn’t actually killed a born, or reborn, and living thing?!?!

            Or are you pro choice for people who only think of their own welfare and inflict terrifying and extremely bloody cruelties (and remember they don’t have to have the capacity for full human-consciousness thought, just the ability to light up certain areas of a brain scan if stimulated with a scrape, prod, or non-invasive “pr!ck”) on defenceless life?!

            Over to you, Lou!

          • Lou

            As humans aren’t endangered (and the world is already overpopulated) I have no issue with human abortion if performed before nervous system in place as no suffering actually takes place. Ditto for all other species, only relevant issue is if preventable suffering involved. Completely off topic and irrelevant to the hunting debate which is far easier morally.

          • Mr B J Mann

            According to the anti-hunting, pro abortion Beeb:

            “The embryo is now about the size of a baked bean and its spine and nervous system begin to form” (in week 6?)

            And:

            “at week eight….. At about this time the embryo officially becomes a foetus…… The nervous system is also developing rapidly especially the brain”

            “Days 50 to 56 – Little Einstein
            Your baby’s nervous system develops rapidly at this time too, especially the spinal cord and brain. Brain waves can be measured now.”

            “In week 17 the foetus can hear noises from the outside world.”

            “The foetus’s senses begin to develop at about week 22: taste buds have started to form on the tongue and the foetus starts to feel touch.”

            Take your pick.

            Then again, the pro choice lobby will argue that it’s not until after birth that a foetus develops human consciousness, and not until later still human personality.

            In fact some say it’s OK to “Abort” a baby up to two weeks, and even two YEARS, AFTER BIRTH.

            I take it that as you think it’s wrong beyond the point you can detect brain activity, you’d want abortions banning after eight weeks?!

            Or maybe even six!!!

          • Lou

            What would be your view-hypothetically if foxes could be made extinct in U.K. would you feel relief at no longer having to kill to ‘maintain a heathy population ‘ I wonder? Personally, I wish they were extinct in U.K. so that inadequate humans couldn’t use them as a convenient whipping stick.

          • Mr B J Mann

            What do you mean by “would you feel relief at no longer having to kill”?

            Do you mean I’m going around killing foxes to maintain the population health now?!

            As for you wishing “they were extinct in U.K. so that inadequate humans couldn’t use them as a convenient whipping stick”.

            Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

            So you would prefer them to all be killed off to satisfy your agenda of preventing “inadequate humans” using “them as a convenient whipping stick”?!

            Shows you in your true light!

            No interest in animal welfare at all!!

            Real interest in whipping the hunters!!!

          • Lou

            I mean: be honest and admit that hunting has nothing to do with ‘pest control’- it’s all about human enjoyment. No more, no less. And yes, I do wish that foxes were extinct because then people like you wouldn’t be able to torment and abuse them for your perverse pleasure.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I mean: YOU be honest and admit that I’ve never, ever, said ANYTHING about hunting having ANYTHING to do with ‘pest
            control’

            Whereas you keep wittering on about pleasure in terrorising poor ickle creatures, pleasure in causing pain, pleasure in causing suffering, pleasure in a “need for blood”…..

            Yes, clearly humans, or at least natural normal ones, get pleasure, as in satisfaction, as in bio-chemical rewards, just like any other predator animal, in a satisfactory prey-kill.

            So, yes, in mother nature’s terms, for all (natural, non-perverted) humans:

            – “it’s all about human enjoyment. No more, no less.”

            As for:

            And yes, I do wish that foxes were extinct because then people like you wouldn’t be able to torment and abuse them for your perverse pleasure.

            Who said I did anything with foxes, apart from when I’m starring in your perverse erotic dreams?!

            And you are clearly one of those hunt sabs/animal lib terrorists with the same mindset as that PETA (which you’ve STILL avoided commenting on, along with probably by now a hundred other issues I’ve raised) leader who welcomed BSE in the States as it would hit agribusiness where it hurt.

            Clearly your cares have nothing to do with foxes.

            And everything about to do with toffs in red frock coats!

          • Lou

            Finally-an honest one. So you admit you get a thrill from killing? And that’s why you support hunting? The issue is nothing to do with ‘toffs’- most huntsmen I know are corporate middle managers and salesmen-as for the terrier thugs-yes very classy. You’re angry because you see nothing wrong in your cruelty and you want everyone else to indulge you, like a spoilt brat. You obviously lack the ability to realise that no matter how much you attempt to justify your perversion, the vast majority find it repellent. Which is why you have to scratch around looking to bring up topics such as abortion to try to present yourself as a decent human being. Which you clearly are not.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Finally yet another lying defamatory smear piece typical of the cat-lady conning animal rights terrorist activists.

            How could I get anything from doing something I’ve never done, you past-it former activist cat-hag?!?!

            Never mind admit to it!!!!

            My cruelty?

            I don’t hunt!

            And neither am I a hunt “supporter”!!!

            But neither do I try to spook horses, try to injure and even kill riders, and get my 0rgasms from playing eco-terrorist in between feeding my pus sy by hand!

            What I’m angry about is enviro-nutters hijacking parliamentary time for their obsessions!

            What I’m angry about is daft old bats like you projecting their delusions and frustrations onto normal people.

            Because YOU see nothing wrong in YOUR cruelty to people and animals, and because YOU want everyone else to indulge YOU, like a spoilt brat/ess. YOU obviously lack the ability to realise that no matter how much YOU attempt to justify YOUR perversion, the vast majority find it repellent once they look at the facts, rather than being distracted by guilt-tripping, tear-jerking emotional blackmail. Which is why YOU have to scratch around looking to bring up distractions topics and avoiding topics such as abortion, which is EXACTLY the same argument, and demonstrates how hypocritical most “liberals” are, constantly trying to cherry-pick to try to present YOURSELVES as decent human beings. Which YOU, whether you are risking harming horses and riders to protect non-feeling foxes, or killing supposedly non-feeling foetuses, clearly are NOT!

          • Lou

            Ha!! I’m 25! And your rant has demonstrated what a bitter, angry, ostracised and dogmatic old git you are!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Don’t leave your keyboard to feed your cats just yet, I’m sure I’ve still got some of your “contributions” to reply to!

          • Mr B J Mann

            25 going on 75!

          • Lou

            Thank you, yes I have always been considered mature.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Because you’re grown to a “ripe” old age?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            And clearly you’ve missed the fact it’s YOUR rant reflected back at you!

            Now go feed your cats, before they recover from their fatty liver disease!

            Ooooh, look, there’s one toying with a dying mouse, how cute!

          • Lou

            Now, now-surely you can think of your own points rather than parrot? I must’ve forgotten the insults I threw at you-are you angry at being a ‘cat lady’? It’s nothing to be ashamed of, cats are great pets.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I’ve given you dozens, all of which you’ve failed to address properly, if at all.

            One of which is, as in the posts in question, you are the one hurling abuse, but projecting your nasty nature on your victims.

            But I don’t believe you’ve forgotten the insults you’ve thrown at me, I don’t believe you could have considering how often you repeat them!

            And cat lady doesn’t men you have cats as pets.

            It means you are obsessed with animals to the exclusion of your fellow human beings.

            Somebody must have hurt you really badly for you to be offloading so much bitter bile on humanity!

          • Lou

            So you write for the Oxford dictionary too? Cat lady tends to mean female cat owner- not in your world obviously where people must be neatly categorised into boxes. Again, your mystic meg tendencies are showing-am trying to recall the incident you claim-can’t place it. And I guess you’ve categorised my friends and family too-all those human beings I secretly despise?!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            I don’t know about the OED (that only has “an old cat” – “A malicious or spiteful woman”).

            But Wikipedia has:

            “A cat lady is a single woman, often a stock character, who owns many pet cats. The term is usually considered pejorative, though it is sometimes embraced.”

            Or the Urban Dictionary:

            “A old woman who usually lives secluded from society with her hundreds of
            cats. Because she is forced to use all of her social security money of
            her cats, she eats only cat food and drinks only milk. She usually feels
            the need to name every single one of her cats with funny names and
            possesses the uncanny ability to recognize which cat is which no matter
            how similar they may look to one another.”

            Or, at best:

            “A woman of any age who adores cats. She does not have to own a certain
            amount, nor does she have to be old, nor does she have to smell like a
            litter box, but she does have to love cats and be on the verge of loving
            them too much and giving them people emotions and characteristics. She
            can be quite beautiful, but- as everyone ages- one day she could be the
            old ugly “crazy” cat lady, especially if she does not build a family or
            relationships with friends to supplement her love for cats.”

            Or

            “A woman who is fond of cats so much that she decides to live her life
            with cats all around her than being with chauvinistic male. The
            catladies are independent women who know how to take care of their cats.
            They are proud, highly intellectual beings having a behavior resembling
            that of a cat itself.”

            But clearly, that’s not you as you keep getting so many things so spectacularly wrong in such a dumb way!

            Then again the Medical Dictionary says:

            “crazy cat lady A popular stereotype referring to a subpopulation of older single woman who, by circumstance or choice, replace personal and social relationships and human interaction with feline companionship.”

            “Such cases may have a pathophysiologic substrate as such often have high antibody levels of the cerebrocentric parasite Toxoplasma gondii, suggesting a subtle brain involvement in their mental state and behaviour.”

            Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm………………

          • Lou

            Can you find anything on the male equivalent-perhaps it’s the bitter old man who was dumped because he’s not as charming, entertaining or endearing as a domestic short hair?’!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Just can’t see when you’re wrong, can you.

            Most people learn that when they’re in a hole they should stop digging by around five.

            You seem to still be in the terrible twos, never mind twenty five!

          • Lou

            I find your hatred of harmless old ladies with pet cats troubling for someone who claims philanthropic tendencies. There’s a lovely elderly lady living near to my grandparents who I visit occasionally. Full of fun and an incredibly sweet nature. Don’t think anyone who met her could hate her.

          • Mr B J Mann

            It’s what’s know in the trade as a joke, or banter as it was once termed, before you all started with your safe spaces, oooh, a big horsey being skittish near me, I must find shelter in a nice safe ditch while invoking the authorities to save me from the nasty, nasty man!

            And lock him up for being on the horse!!!

            That I made nervous and nearly break its leg!!!!!!!!

          • Lou

            You must’ve missed the fact that the idiot on the horse was deliberately riding into them, caring little about his horse and clearly feeling powerful and brave by bullying an elderly couple. And I disagree completely with the ‘safe space’ rubbish. Again you’ve made an assumption based on prejudice. I’m quite the Douglas Murray fan actually.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I shouldn’t feed the troll, but you really should watch your own propaganda pieces!

            The horse was obviously spooked and nearly backed into a ditch itself.

            None of the videos show anybody deliberately riding into anyone.

            Only a skittish horse and sabs playing out a pantomime and making unverifiable accusations.

            Funny how every camera managed to miss every supposed shove!

            Same with the other video:

            the rider clearly left them plenty of room, and one clearly backed up quite a distance to collide with the horse, the other was dragged even further by their “mate” if they didn’t jump back a long way.

            Like the suffragette (who didn’t care about frightening the horses – but then they also weren’t worried about shooting and bombing either, not to mention filling their spare time with their other hobby of handing out white feathers to underage boys and disenfranchised men lucky enough to be repatriated with, rather than shot for, shell shock, or, rather failing to fight for the suffragettes! but I digress!!) who clearly hadn’t planned on getting killed (she had a return ticket and future plans) they hadn’t planned on THEMSELVES getting injured.

            That doesn’t mean they hadn’t planned on getting anyone, or anything, else injured.

            And these are the people you don’t just defend, but support?!?!?!!!!

            I thought you had a horse yourself?

            How would you feel if you had to put it down because of some human hating, selfish, animal welfare disregarding, activist sabs activities?!

          • Lou

            Firstly I wouldn’t ever put my horse or any pedestrians in that position as I’m not a podgy, aggressive bully. Secondly, I doubt the horse was euthanised..

          • Mr B J Mann

            Again I’m being weak and feeding the troll!

            Where did I say any horse was euthanised?!?!

            And you just can’t comment without casting aspersions (il)liberally laced with ad hominems, can you.

            You really are bitter and twisted inside, aren’t you?

            Did someone ditch you at the Hunt Ball?!

            Or did daddy spend too much time with the hounds, and not enough with you?!

          • Lou

            Speaking about my horse: ‘How would you feel if you had to put it down…?’
            Don’t think I’m casting aspersions by calling out an obvious case of bullying. And as for ad hominem-er who’s the troll again?!

          • Lou

            Ps-you’re missing a programme on your idol-ITV now!

          • Mr B J Mann

            That’s at least twice now you’ve made a claim that Adolf was my idol.

            And you accuse *ME* of seeing things in black and white and being autistic?!

            And as for accusing ME of insulting YOU………………

          • Lou

            Ah so you saw it too? It was a joke, prompted by your twisting of my comments (comparing hunters to Isis!!)

          • Mr B J Mann

            8< – – – – – – –

          • Mr B J Mann

            Well, you’re the one who keeps changing the subject onto attacking me personally.

            Cherry picking evidence?

            Like producing a video of a load of “liberals” verbally attacking a pro hunt person who produced a real live film of a fox as proof that hunters demonise foxes (are you saying it was a terrierman dressed in a fox outfit?!?!

            And another of some anti-hunt agitproppers falling into ditches near huntsmen while wailing they made their horses push me into a ditch as proof that huntsmen attack protesters?!?!

            Is that the best you can do?!?!

            As for juries, it’s a long-standing complaint that professionals and other people with good jobs (presumably those with more intelligence) can easily get out of jury service while the people who end up on them are the, shall we say less educated, or more work-shy, end of the population.

            Like perpetual students.

            You really will have to try harder!!!

          • Lou

            Ha ha!!!! You surely are joking??!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            You really are a self-deluded mad old cat-bint, aren’t you!

          • Lou

            Classy.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I doubt that you are!

          • Lou

            Have a look in your crystal ball Meg, and be honest. I don’t need my feelings spared!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Already done so.

            And seen something very different from what you think you see when you look in the mirror.

          • Lou

            How old are you? I haven’t had any desire to speculate about you/your life/your circumstances but you seem obsessed with knowing all about me. Would it be so that you can label me with one of your absurd generalisations and file it in a box labelled ‘don’t need to think about it because….’ followed by one of your many prejudices? Have you been tested for autism? The need to see the world as black and white, to accept or dismiss points based on a prejudiced view of the person making them rather than the merit of the point, a very narrow world view-all hallmarks. Seriously, get tested.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I couldn’t give a damn about you or your life.

            What I do give a damn about is obnoxious hypocrites like you who don’t bother to even speculate, but have an obsessive desire to label people they know nothing about:

            “Your hysteria, your need for blood, your narrow minded ignorance, You assume -your assumptions just show how brainwashed you are, Surely you aren’t one of those pro hunters who aims to change the subject? Cherry pick ‘evidence’? Conveniently ignore videos proving hunters demonise animals? Claim juries are made up of lefty ‘student types on benefits’ when you dislike the verdict? Justify assault? Lie? Smear? So you admit you get a thrill from killing? And that’s why you support hunting? The issue is nothing to do with ‘toffs’- most huntsmen I know are corporate middle managers and salesmen-as for the terrier thugs-yes very classy. You’re angry because you see nothing wrong in your cruelty and you want everyone else to indulge you, like a spoilt brat. You obviously lack the ability to realise that no matter how much you attempt to justify your perversion, the vast majority find it repellent. Which is why you have to scratch around looking to bring up topics such as abortion to try to present yourself as a decent human being. Which you clearly are not. your rant has demonstrated what a bitter, angry, ostracised and dogmatic old git you are! Says the man who has a soft spot for Adolf Hitler!! Disgusting man, you inhabit a dark world…….”

            Who labelled whom with those absurd generalised and specific insults?!

            I suppose they prove you are open minded, unbiased, and lack prejudice?!

            Clearly you haven’t been tested for autism or you might have realised by now you lack empathy with your fellow man.

            And as for seeing the world in hunters and gamekeepers bad, animal rights protesters and hunt saboteurs good even (especially?) when they try to get a huntsman throw, a horse to break a leg, or slice a huntsman’s head in half?!?!

            Get your husband, the next time he pops back for some clothes, or your horse, to explain to you what is wrong with this:

            “The need to see the world as black and white, to accept or dismiss points based on a prejudiced view of the person making them rather than the merit of the point, a very narrow world view-all hallmarks. Seriously, get tested.”

          • Lou

            I haven’t the time or inclination to collect all the insults you have thrown-just bear in mind that this entire debate opened with me agreeing that anyone chucking fireworks isn’t responsible and that there are idiots on both sides of the debate. Have yet to hear a similar concession from you-only black and white (terrorist cat lady human hating student layabout animal obsessive who wish to be injured by gentle, kind, right thinking, all knowing, practically saintly hunters).

          • Mr B J Mann

            No, the entire debate opened with you asserting:

            “Delingpole reeks of inadequacy and over excitement at having found a
            group who will allow, support and encourage his desire to indulge in
            blood sports which make him feel like finally he’s showing the world
            who’s boss. Except there’s nothing brave about hunting. And there is
            something hugely hypocritical about demonising a wild animal without the
            ability to reason whilst aping what you call its ‘cruelty’. You and
            your fellow blood sports fans are the only ‘cruel’ fellows….”

            Oh, and you STILL haven’t explained how, when and where he “blocked you”, or what he supposedly blocked!

            Between ourselves you began by implying I “get a kick from terrorising wild animals” and that I “don’t have any interest in welfare beyond their own”.

            You then tried to minimise and excuse animal rights terrorists and equate hunters with ISIS.

            While trying to paint me as someone who, at best, sees things as black and white.

            In between alleging I’m some kind of sadistic bloodthirsty killer.

            So stop trying to play the innocent!

          • Lou

            That was my initial comment-directed at Delingpole-not you. I likened his style to Enid Blyton on Twitter and was blocked rather than receiving a response. Don’t think he’s a fan. Your first comment to me was regarding animal rights activists releasing ‘diseased’ animals back into the wild-I didn’t even know your views on hunting then so I wasn’t quite sure what you were getting at: it’s not a charge levelled at people opposing blood sports but was an issue years ago from what I understand (fur farms/lab animals). The Isis reference was nothing to do with hunting: the vast majority of terrorists now are Islamist rather than animal rights ones. And yes, I do think you paint with a broad brush: plenty of right wing, intelligent, well balanced people also oppose hunting-in fact I’m no fan of the student types who jump on a cause because it’s fashionable before abandoning it once they join the real world. But I admire anyone who has empathy for others and doesn’t enjoy cruelty.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrmmmmmmm, you posted:

            “People who get a kick from terrorising wild animals don’t have any interest in welfare beyond their own.”

            To which I replied:

            “Yup!”

            “People who get a kick from terrorising wild animals by releasing not just vicious, but diseased, wild animals from fur farms and laboratories into the wild to hunt and infect and terrorise the indigenous fauna before themselves usually dying an agonising, terrifying, death don’t have any interest in welfare, animal, or any other, beyond their own self-serving, guilt-attenuating, virtue-signalling agenda!”

            What’s not to get?

            Why do you even need to know my views on hunting to be quite sure what I was getting at?

            It’s a straight demolition of one of your typical senseless soundbites!

            And the Isis reference was EVERYthing to do with hunting:

            Or rather your demonisation of hunters:

            “Today, the terrorists tend to be Islamists. And in the countryside, the arrogant criminals who refuse to obey the law and take pleasure in terrorising vulnerable wild animals.”

            Or are you now backtracking and claiming you didn’t mean hunters were “the arrogant criminals who refuse to obey the law and take pleasure in terrorising vulnerable wild animals” in the countryside?!

            So who WERE you referring to?!?!?

            And the rest of your post just reinforces your lack of empathy and your pathetic juvenility:

            “And yes, I do think you paint with a broad brush: plenty of right wing, intelligent, well balanced people also oppose hunting”

            Meaning you think I’m right wing, dumb and unbalanced?

            Because I don’t agree with you about foxhunting!

            Again with the judgemental black and white pigeonholing!

            “-in fact I’m no fan of the student types who jump on a cause because it’s fashionable before abandoning it once they join the real world.”

            ie you disagree with people who used to agree with you but now (that they’ve matured) see sense.

            “But I admire anyone who has empathy for others and doesn’t enjoy cruelty.”

            ie you hate anyone who YOU JUDGE lacks empthy and YOU ACCUSE of ENJOYING cruelty.

            There has to be a psychiatric label for someone who “thinks” like that!

            I’m outta here!

          • Lou

            Oh yawn. Again, not to do with hunting-where is the proof that anti hunters release diseased animals into the wild? Even if they do, how does that justify hunting?
            You accused others of animal rights terrorism: I pointed out where real terrorism comes from and made the point in opposition to yours-namely that if there are terrorists in the countryside they would be the law breaking, violent hunt thugs.
            You label people opposing hunting as lefty, liberal, unwashed, student etc etc-I was merely pointing out that the stereotype is wrong. There are many opposite to that stereotype who still oppose hunting.
            There are idiots on both sides of the debate-some who join it as they see it as fashionable but lack conviction. I don’t have much time for people who are fickle and who jump on and off bandwagons because they harm the causes they claim to care for. Hypocrites like the disgusting Jimmy saville who ‘did so much for charity’.
            Yes, I do dislike cruel people. Hunting is cruel-torment of an animal particularly for no reason other than to provide ‘pleasure’ for humans with a whole world of opportunities to experience is indefensible. A view many share with me.

          • Mr B J Mann

            And as for being called brainwashed by the person who “replied” to:

            “Except the animal “lovers” would prefer to see wildlife controlled by disease, starvation and lingering death.

            In fact the Chair, or whatever, of PETA welcomed BSE in the States because it would hit agribusiness where it hurts.

            They couldn’t make their real agenda any plainer than that!”

            With:

            Lou -> Mr B J Mann
            2 days ago
            “People who get a kick from terrorising wild animals don’t have any interest in welfare beyond their own.”

            And the basis of whose argument is:

            “Get over your need for blood.”

          • Lou

            Says the man who has a soft apt for Adolf Hitler!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Lou -> Mr B J Mann • 12 hours ago

            Says the man who has a soft spot for Adolf Hitler!!

            You couldn’t make it up!

            Oh, wait:

            You just did!!!!

          • Lou

            Yes, I copied you! Crappy way to carry on, eh?

          • Mr B J Mann

            ?!

          • Lou

            Deliberately misreading and stereotyping, come on-why so coy? It’s your modus operandi

          • Mr B J Mann

            A strange reply, well, perhaps not considering it’s you, considering I’ve already posted this the day before:

            “As for hysteria, look in the mirror!

            As I’ve already acknowledged, there are not only the manipulative maniac activists:

            There are also the guĺlible cat ladies.

            And no doubt other deluded do-gooders too!”

          • Mr B J Mann

            As for “your narrow minded ignorance”, tell me, if an Amazonian Indian, with a plot under cultivation, and free protein from developed countries, still hunted for meat, is that acceptable to you, or would you accuse them of:

            “Aping” nature’s “cruelty”, taking “pleasure in terrorising vulnerable wild animals”, in fact getting “a kick from terrorising wild animals”, neglecting “to control their urges when it involves harming ‘anyone’ else”, in fact refusing to suppress their “Natural male urges” – or taking any “responsibility to control ‘the beast within'”, wanting “to cause pain and suffering if it could be avoided”, “getting off on the power of killing for fun”, and refusing to stop “many of the atrocities towards man and beast”, instead of getting over their “need for blood”?!

            Well?!?!

          • Lou

            Er, what’s that got to do with the hunting debate?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Absolutely everything.

            But I wouldn’t expect you to have the time to stop and realise that in between overfeeding your houseful of cats!

          • Lou

            So you hate cats too?! I am a cat fan, love the little things but don’t have any-can’t trust the gamekeepers around here who are known to kill people’s pets. In fact, with your love of children, you’d surely be appalled to hear of my friend’s daughter whose cat was almost killed and lost a leg in a trap
            left out by a psychopathic gamekeeper. Poor child was heartbroken, but the gamekeeper probably got a kick fulfilling his ‘natural desire’ to maim and harm.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Sight, you really are a deluded bat, old before her time.

            How are they “known” to kill people’s pets?!

            How do you know the trap was set by a gamekeeper?!?!

            How do you know it wasn’t someone trying to blacken the name of a game warden.

            Remember, it’s the animal “lovers” who put children’s lives at risk by sending letter bombs to their homes.

            I’ve never yet heard of a “blood” sports enthusiast doing that.

            As for “the gamekeeper probably got a kick fulfilling his ‘natural desire’ to maim and harm”:

            You probably deserve your sick dreams!

          • Lou

            Are you a townie by any chance?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Are you a video viewer who sees footage of a fox messing with a pushchair and agrees with the anti-hunting crew “discussing” it that the person who produced it had got a terrierman to put on a fox outfit and play the part by any chance?!

          • Lou

            So you did in fact watch the video then? Charlie (aptly named)-the representative of the British field sports society was the one who explained exactly what the video was: a gamekeeper implying through a laughably absurd experiment that a fox eating a dead piglet left out for it meant that foxes were thus a danger to children. Even my toes curled for him-puerile.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You really need help love!

            I’ve told you more than once that I watched it, I merely said that I didn’t watch every minute as every bit I did watch seemed to be members of a gang of anti-hunt types attacking someone for trying to put another viewpoint.

            You were free to point out the equal number of people supporting him, demonstrating it was a balanced discussion and programme, but, for some reason, well, because it was true it was unfair, biased and prejudiced against hunting, you failed to do so!

            And why is Charlie (aptly named) – are you saying all the representative of the British field sports society are on Coke?!

          • Lou

            The panel was made up of a pro hunter, an anti hunter and 2 impartial specialists. The presenter and the impartial specialists, like anyone watching with an open mind, clearly saw how absurd and unfair it was to do such a stupid ‘experiment’ in hopes of terrifying parents that foxes were a danger to their children.
            And no-I was referring to the more innocent expression ‘he’s a right charlie’

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errmmmmm, so you actually mean, or claim:

            “a pro hunter, an anti hunter and 2 impartial specialists. AND The presenter”?

            Which is five people.

            Or did you mean:

            “a pro hunter, an anti hunter and 2 impartial specialists. AND The presenter AND the impartial specialists mate Brian May”?!

            Because I can see SIX people in the “discussion”!

            And as all the rest seemed to be against the pro hunter, as you clearly admit, what you are actually admitting is:

            “a solitary pro hunter, an anti hunter and 2 partial specialists. AND The anti-hunt presenter AND the anti-hunt specialists anti-hunt mate”.

            As you are clearly unaware, an independent impartial specialist is supposed to put BOTH sides of the argument and leave OT>HERS to judge.

            Clearly, by your own admission, they were not independent, but totally partial proponents of one side of the argument!

            Anyone impartial watching with an open mind, clearly saw how absurd and unfair it was to do such a stupid stitch up and have five biased participants attacking one solitary defender of the ‘experiment’ in hopes of terrifying him into changing his view that
            foxes were a danger to their children.

            Even my toes curled and even if I had been an anti-hunter, rather than just a non-hunting neutral observer, my sympathies would have swung to him.

            This was yet another puerile, pro-non-sentient-life, propaganda piece.

            Which actually turns off real open-minded, really impartial, as opposed to guilt-induced and emotionally-blackmailed gullible sheep, independent observers!

            But feel free to continue shooting yourself in the foot by insulting non hunters who dare to question your poorly prepared propaganda!

          • Lou

            Ok pedant-there was Brian May (anti), RSPCA guy (anti I expect), a professor (impartial), presenter (impartial) and a vet (anyone’s guess). If Charlie’s argument had been anything else I would have felt sorry for him-clearly the film backfired hugely and he was on his own. But it was a disgraceful attempt to scare parents and to spread hatred of foxes for reasons of self interest-Charlie shows no pity to others clearly so I have little sympathy for him. You can’t honestly think there was a decent motive behind that absurd stunt?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Well, you forgot, yet again, to produce any evidence that I am narrow minded or ignorant, despite allegedly having given you plenty of examples, hardly surprising as you are just resorting to personal insults.

            Try as I might, I can’t find a reference to cat ladies in the post you are replying to, but if you feel the cap fits lady/b0y, feel free to wear it.

            And feel free to demonstrate your right wing and real actual liberal, as opposed to the hijacked “liberal” self descriptor people like you feel entitled to wear with PRIDE! credentials!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Notice total avoidance of the questions asked, yet again, and reversion to ad hominem attacks.

          • Lou

            Here’s another ‘gentle naturalist’ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=snPP2-kPZSM

          • Mr B J Mann

            I’d call that comedy gold if it wasn’t for the fact that a rider got a prison sentence for daring to be on a skittish horse on the same road as a couple of clueless townies.

            Falling into ditches (probably didn’t realise there were such things till they stumbled into them!). Scared witless in the presence of a real live herbivore (imagine if they’d come across a fox!).

            And then repeatedly giving a running commentary for the cameras about how they’d been pushed into the ditch…..

            Which “crime”, strangely, none of the cameras managed to record?!?!?!!!!!

          • Lou

            How did he get the prison sentence then? Disgusting man-in attempting to justify this behaviour you’ve shown your true colours. Care about humans eh?!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Clearly the jury was stuffed with lefty “liberal” perpetual student activist layabouts on benefits.
            Did you actually watch the videos?
            The only behaviour being justified is that of the townies scared of the animals they profess to love stumbling into ditches (probably on purpose) and then trying to stitch up the rider (probably all deliberately set up)!
            The big question is haw even a jury of lefty “liberal” perpetual student activist layabouts on benefits could fail to convict a hunt sab gyrocopter pilot of murder, never mind manslaughter, after they deliberately manouvered against a huntsman and sliced his head in half.
            And you call me disgusting?!?!?!!!!!

          • Lou

            Yes-the evidence is clear. The fat huntsman is a rude, violent criminal and I know of the gyrocopter incident where the pilot was cleared of blame. And the video evidence clearly showed the huntsman killed behaving violently and attempting to stop the gyrocopter leaving which resulted in the accident. Inquiry cleared the pilot. Are you into conspiracy theories perchance-seems like you inhabit a dark world where ‘liberal lefty catwomen’ wielding obscene power are out to get everyone?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Again, a strange reply, or perhaps not, considering it’s you, given that the day before I posted:

            “As for hysteria, look in the mirror!

            As I’ve already acknowledged, there are not only the manipulative maniac activists:

            There are also the[ir] gullible cat ladies.

            And no doubt other deluded do-gooders too!”

          • Mr B J Mann

            How is it clear?

            I don’t think there is even any clear video (despite several from different angles) of a horse connecting with the activists, never mind a rider causing it to?!

            Just video of activists wildly waving their cameras/phones about while calling out “oh, oh, look, the evil huntsman is pushing me over” .

            What a Pantomime!

            Aren’t you a bit old to believe in Fairy Tales?!?!

            As for the gyrocopter, if a huntsman had claimed to have carefully aimed his car at the car-width gap between two protesters that refused to move out of the way and were acting aggressively and “accidentally” hit one, he would be strung up.

            Here we have a pilot who aimed a gyrocopter at a narrow gap and sliced someone’s head down the middle, and then he, or his mate shouts out “Oh dear, the tw-t didn’t stand clear of it”!

            How that’s not murder, never mind manslaughter, is something most right thinking people would struggle with.

            And yet a jury even found him innocent of manslaughter.

            Well, is it any wonder gangs of yobs “get away with murder” because they can’t prove who struck the blow that actually killed the victim out of the hundreds delivered?!?!

            Oh, and where is the “video evidence clearly showed the huntsman killed behaving violently”.

            Even the Guardian only says that “In a graphic video taken by a fuel handler at the airfield, a voice is heard shouting to Morse: ‘You are obstructing him taking off, you have no right to do that, you have no right to do that’.” (the “fuel handler” was a friend of the pilot who brough some fuel for him to refuel with).

            So, yes, he was “attempting to stop the gyrocopter leaving”.

            But, as I said, if anti-hunt protesters had tried to block a hunt car, and the driver “carefully aimed at a gap” which resulted in “the accident” of killing a supporter, would you say the huntsman was innocent and the hunt protester was to blame for it?

            After all, you’ve just been blaming a huntsman for “attacking” protesters because they were so scared of real live animals they tripped over their feet trying to get away from them and stumbled into a ditch?!

            Note the horse in question nearly fell into the opposite ditch too trying to back away from the protesters, the poor animal was probably terrified of them! But you aren’t worried about the animal.

            You aren’t worried that the rider could have been thrown or crushed.

            You’re worried about your mates the sabs.

            I’d call you an animal.

            But that would be unfair to animals!

          • Lou

            I, like you, am an animal-some are obviously a little further along the evolutionary scale than others. But mammals all. I can’t believe you are trying to justify the appalling bully’s behaviour, nor making out that the jury who heard all the evidence and cleared the pilot in the gyrocopter incident were part of some ‘lefty’ conspiracy. What of this then, still more violent behaviour from hunters-I suppose it’s the girl’s fault for daring to be in the countryside?! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FI8MMMg1x5s

          • Mr B J Mann

            You really are a piece of work.

            Who was it who taught you that if you tell a big enough lie often enough any fool will believe you?!

            First, thanks for the introductory point:

            I take it you’re slyly trying to imply you’re more evolved than me/I’m less evolved than you:

            On that, guilty as charged:

            I’ve not evolved my own built in par of blinkers yet!

            Nor grown wool over my eyes to save people like you having to try and pull it down over them!!!

            Were you hoping that as I’m not as evolved as you that I don’t know you can not only pause, but slow down the video?!

            The person by the “injured party” and closer to the camera clearly jumped back towards the horse but not far enough to get knocked over.

            While that person is jumping back, they are completely blocking any view of the “injured party standing beyond them who, therefore must be much further away from the horse.

            Therefore the “injured party” clearly jumped backwards much later, and much further back, than the first hunt sab.

            So how is the rider supposed to know (or care) exactly how far they managed to jump back while trying to get him thrown off his horse?

            And how is it his fault if a hunt sab throws herself backwards into his horse, trying to get him thrown (check out how many people die getting thrown off horses – the rate per hour of riding might be even worse than recreational motorcycling!) and injures HERSELF ! ! !

            And remember that horses don’t have wing mirrors.

            So, as the video clearly shows that the injuries were clearly SELF inflicted why are you surprised that the police didn’t charge anyone?!

            In fact, were the sabs on a public footpath or trespassing?

            If they were trespassing and they were obviously trying to harm the the rider why weren’t BOTH the SABS charged with aggravated trespass and attempted GBH?!?!

            And isn’t it amazing that you (and, perversely, a jury) think that a pilot of an aircraft with two rotors spinning at hundreds of miles per hour who tries to force himself past someone standing blocking his path and slices the man’s head open is innocent.

            But a (probably trespassing) hunt sab who, hidden by her accomplice who jumps back into the path of a horse and rider trying to throw them, jumps back even further with the same intent and suffers self inflicted injury justifies the person they tried to kill getting charged.

            If you’re evolved, I’m glad I’m not evolving down that evolutionary dead end!

            PS Reviewing the video, it’s possible that her mate actually pushed her under the horse!

            Two more questions:

            Why didn’t they even look round at the sound of a galloping horse?

            If they weren’t acting illegally why are their faces blanked out?!

            Three, actually:

            Which one’s you?!?!

          • Lou

            You seriously believe that the girl would throw herself deliberately in front of a horse sustaining serious injuries simply to spite some hunters?!! I’m speechless.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So how did she get in the path of the horse when she started off well out of it’s way, further away than her mate who didn’t jump back far enough to be injured?!?!?

            Take the blinkers off you prematurely aged cat-lady!

          • Lou

            This sums you up. Thank you!

          • Mr B J Mann

            You don’t need to highlight the fact you can’t address the point, catty!

          • Lou

            Well, how exactly do I address the point that I am a ‘prematurely aged cat lady?’ And to suggest that the girl in question actually WANTED a punctured lung and broken ribs…er who hates humanity again?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Is it your communication skills or your capacity to reason that is causing your problems?!

            Where did I “suggest that the girl in question actually WANTED a punctured lung and broken ribs…er”

            All I did was point out that the rider was passing some way behind them, that the other sab jumped back towards it, and the injured protester seemed to have to cover an even greater distance to get to the horse and either must have jumped back too, or possibley was dragged back by the other sab.

            I’ve no doubt that neither sab actually WANTED an injury.

            To themselves at any rate!

            Now, why do you hate people you know nothing about so much that you insist on taking pointing these facts out as evidence that I hate humanity?!

            Oh, I remember, you live in a fantasy in your head where everyone who disagrees with your take on nature practically eats (human) baybees for breakfast.

            After slowly toasting them on a fork for the fun of hearing them scream?!?!?!

          • Lou

            You actually stated that the girl appeared to deliberately move so that she would be mown down! Just as you suggested that the elderly couple deliberately fell in the ditch (and implied they were out to harm the horse?) That man was described as a despicable bully by the judge when sentenced. But the judge must’ve been an unwashed student layabout I imagine?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Yes, I actually dared point out what could be seen in YOUR video “evidence”!

            If that’s the best you can do you really should quit while you’re behind!

          • Mr B J Mann

            PS That’s three pieces of propaganda that have backfired on you!

          • Lou

            Oh-and the anthropomorphism to which I refer is the hunters ascribing human notions of right and wrong onto wild animals: foxes-‘wicked..killing for fun..’ Animals have no way in which to make moral judgements, it’s akin to blaming a baby throwing its toys-just natural behaviour devoid of malice.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So that’s OK then!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Second try!

            “We don’t live in a perfect world so your analogies are ones endlessly debated-should smokers be treated on the nhs etc etc.”

            Why shouldn’t they be?

            They are more likely to have paid their NI than hunt sabs on bennies.

            Plus they pay about 8 times the total “cost” of smoking related disease (and that includes things like smoking cessation clinics and anti-smoking ads) in tobacco duty.

            “Golding was questioning, in light of the holocaust, whether human nature is evil or good or a mixture of both. History shows us both-I don’t see how applying compassion to all sentient creatures-whatever species”

            Bambi has a lot to answer for!

            “-and acting where possible for the good of all-responsible stewardship

            There are no natural high level predators left in the UK:

            Nature NEEDS us to, having turned the countryside into a great big leisure park, make it more natural, test and cull the weak and ill, keep numbers in check, and, if we’re going to keep dogs, and not “euthan!se” them all, give them proper “exercise”!

            Are you a cat-lady?

            Do you have any idea of how many songbirds, never mind other animals, cute cats that make us laugh kill?

            Oh, and what are your thoughts on Foi Gras?

            Do you know what harm that does to geese? They are given Hepatic lipidosis – “fatty liver”.

            Except that in the wild geese give it to themselves every year before migrating.

            Naturally.

            Unlike most pet cats who are given it by cat-ladies”

            “rather than getting off on the power of killing for fun”

            or, alternatively, cat ladies having 0rgasms slarging orf people they don’t agree with!

            Why don’t you stick to over-feeding your pus sy and let other people get 0ff on their own hobbies?!

            “-can go far off course.
            Call that ‘bleeding heart’ and scoff if you will. But that attitude
            would certainly have stopped many of the atrocities towards man and beast we have witnessed throughout history. A little mercy is no bad thing.”

            Actually, it’s you who rated the lives of the disabled, and those humans who you don’t consider sentient enough, below that of apes!

            That’s why people like Stalin and Mao killed far, far more people than Adolf:

            The Internationalist Socialists were always far, far more inhuman than the Nationalist ones!

            Why Adolph was even an animal loving veggie (gun banner).

            A shoo-in for the Democrats or Corbynats!

            By the way, I couldn’t watch all that video.

            Was there anything on it other than one person trying to rationally argue a pro hunt position while a gang of hunt protesters ganged up and attacked him?

          • Mr B J Mann

            As for hysteria, look in the mirror!

            As I’ve already acknowledged, there are not only the manipulative maniac activists:

            There are also the guĺlible cat ladies.

            And no doubt other deluded do-gooders too!

          • Mr B J Mann

            And so he continues to evade the issues and counter with straw men and
            ad hominems, when he’s not trying to distract from the issues………….

          • Mr B J Mann

            More denial and trying to spread the blame for animal rights terrorists onto hunters:-

          • Mr B J Mann

            And when I try to bring Lou back to the point, he tries to make out that on that point the terrorists were from another generation, were only responsible for one or two incidents, that aren’t relevant, oh, and tries to distract with what IS!S does, and then tries to equate hunters with IS!S?!?!?!?!?:-

          • Lou

            She, not he. Equates hunters with ISIS? Sorry, I assumed you were intelligent enough to understand the point of an analogy. Clearly not.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Hahahahahahahaaaaa!

            “She”, says “@Gavin444”!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!

            Who swore blind I was mistaken in drawing an an analogy between him and cat-ladies!!!!!!!!!

            So I was even right about you being (exactly like) a cat lady!!!!!!!!!!

            Perhaps I was even closer to the truth when I wrote lady/boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Lou

            Why the overexcitement? Gavin is the name of my husband-am I to assume that you are truly called Mr BJMann?! If so, I do hope you’re not a teacher. I own dogs and a horse and live in the countryside so am not a ‘cat lady townie’-sorry to burst your (narrow minded) bubble. What’s it like to live in black and white?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Ahhhhhhhh, so he left and you inherited his computer!

            But you don’t own your cats:

            They own you!

            But how can you enslave a noble horse?!?!

            And I bet you feed the dogs veggieburgers!

          • Lou

            There may well be an opening for you on The Sun newspaper-didn’t Mystic Meg die?

          • Mr B J Mann

            So I was right!

          • Lou

            Was Mystic Meg right?

          • Mr B J Mann

            I’ve no idea, I don’t know absolutely everything.

            But you seem to have recognised a certain ability to divine things where others can’t, though you hate to admit it!

          • Mr B J Mann

            As for “analogy”, WHAT “analogy”?!

            You denied, wrongly, that animal rights terrorism was anything more than a few extremist incidents in the 80s (wrong on both counts).

            And claimed:

            “Today, the terrorists tend to be Islamists. And in the countryside, the
            arrogant criminals who refuse to obey the law and take pleasure in
            terrorising vulnerable wild animals.”

            Perhaps you meant the protesters and self-confessed sabs trying to spook horses and throw their riders in the best two videos you could come up with to try, but spectacularly fail, to demonise hunters and their horses!

            And while ISIS slices peoples necks, it was a hunt sab who sliced a hunter’s head in half with his gyrocopter!

          • Mr B J Mann

            And Lou responded to that by trying to claim it doesn’t happen any more:-

          • Lou

            Your proof? And please explain how random acts by self styled ‘AR activists’ have any bearing on the merits or otherwise of hunting with dogs?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Ermmmmmmm, it was in those links to articles.

            Oh, and links to google searches of loads more.

          • Lou

            Yes, the Internet is full of misinformation-you really must learn to distinguish reliable sites from those crazy conspiracy theorist ones

          • Mr B J Mann

            You referring to the wikipedia links?

            News sites?!

            Or those back-firing videos you keep posting?!?!

          • Mr B J Mann

            And as for “bearing”: leading animal rights “charity” PETA fund(ed) terrorists who are happy to put hunters lives at risk (like the “protesters” in your videos) and happy to kill lots of animals (PETA put down thousands instead of re-homing them and YOUR videos show “protesters” trying to spook animals, risking death, or at least a broken leg in a ditch, afgter which they would probably have to be put down), but complain about a predator species hunting?!?!?! That’s your “argument” on the merits of hunting with dogs!

          • Lou

            Hmm, never heard of peta-(American) sending hunt Sabs to rural Britain. Appalling how people breed pets when there are so many in need of homes-what exactly do you do to help?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Who said they sent them over from the US.

            So what do you do for all those feral cats?

      • Mr B J Mann

        Hmmmmmmmmmm, so Lou “forgot” to deal with the PETA point.

        And dealt with the main point with an ad hominem attack:-

        • Lou

          No, Lou refused to be drawn into the age old ‘distract, change focus, smear’ hunters’ charter.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Says Lou, refusing to be drawn into answering the questions and addressing the issues, falling back on the age old ‘distract, change focus, smear’ sab anti-hunters’ charter.

Close