An issue of some importance?
The subject of fox hunting has risen to the top of the public agenda, as much due to the actions of the government in treating the bill as important enough to use the Parliament Act, as it is to a bunch of country yobs who became the first people to break into the House of Commons since the reign of Charles I.
The interested parties both claim to have public opinion on their sides, the Countryside Alliance have posters up on my way home from work stating “59% say keep fox hunting” and anti-hunt campaigners claim the figure is actually 74% against. Someone is having fun with statistics somewhere.
If I had to express an opinion it would be that I personally find the idea of fox hunting as a sport distasteful. As animal rights barely register in my mind, I have few problems with the idea of farmers paying the village huntsman to go out in his wellies, wax jacket and flat cap, with his dogs and his guns, for the purpose of getting rid of a few foxes. I just think the horses, horns, red coats, and general taking pleasure out of the whole thing to be a bit unnecessary.
Some may claim I'm just suffering from class prejudice, however as many pro-hunters are quick to highlight the nurses and cabbies who enjoy taking part in hunts at the weekend, so how can class prejudice come into my opinions on such a wide cross-section of society? I may not like fox hunting, but is my distaste a good enough reason to be behind a ban?
Well if society wants to ban it I won’t argue against, however I wouldn’t have shed any tears had things gone the other way.
posted by Simon @ 11:25:00
4 comments
Comment on this post
Please note, I reserve the right to delete anonymous comment.
4 Comments:
The thing that really caught my attention in whole shebang was the pitifully small number of MPs in the chamber when the protesters broke in. I was only able to count thirty-ish people in the pictures on the beeb (yes, I will do anything to avoid marking!) and, although I know that more people pitched up for the actual vote itself, it seems somehow wrong that they can make legislation without attending the debates beforehand. This was especially so because it was a free vote with no party line. Something in me is saddened by this. Anyway, enough of my "dis-illusioned politics graduate" rant... :-)
Perhaps few MPs were in the lobby because they'd already formed their voting opinions at the previous debates?
Andy
It's interesting how the "59%" posters till adorn our countryside. In June of this year the Countryside Alliance were criticised by the Advertising Standards Authority because their advert had "flawed methodology and unreliable results.".
The Market Research Society (the professional body for opinion poll researchers) also critised the NOP, the pollsters used by the Countryside Alliance. The MRS said that NOP had failed to ask objective questions of respondents and of had shown "unprofessional conduct".
Andy
I had also noticed how sparsely populated the chamber was.
Post a Comment
<< Home