Moral Arrogance

I’ve never been on a fox hunt, and I doubt I ever will. They were banned in England over 10 years ago by the then-newly-elected Labour government of Tony Blair. Which was, very arguably, the start of the modern bully state’s propensity to impose its values on everyone.

Yet despite this the fox-hunters keep riding out, if only to mostly just gallop around a bit. So I took note of this story:

Jail fox hunters for five years, says RSPCA chief

The chief executive of the RSPCA issued a stern warning to Boxing Day hunts as he claimed those who set their hounds on foxes should go to jail for up to five years.

Speaking of a renewed push to “enforce the law of the land”, he signalled that inspectors are looking into allegations involving four other hunts.

“The penalties for these offences are too light,” he said.

“I want to see people who organise themselves to go out and abuse animals for pleasure or for profit go to jail.”

Asked how long he envisaged the sentences being he replied: “Two years? Five years?.”

Under current sentencing guidelines, five years in jail is the starting point in many cases of causing death by dangerous driving. Hunting with dogs is punishable by a fine.

“We take a zero tolerance approach to animal cruelty — mice, hedgehogs, dogs, cats, badgers, cows, sheep, foxes, snakes — we are here to protect all animals,” said Mr Grant.

He added: “A civilisation is judged on how it treats the weakest — animals have no vote, no voice, no choice. A fox can’t take the Heythrop hunt to the courts, we can.

I suppose he’d have zero tolerance too for my propensity to swat flies. They don’t have a vote or a voice or a choice either. Not after I’ve snuck up on them with my fly swatter, anyway.

Foxes have been hunted in England since time immemorial, along with plenty of other animals. Foxes are predatory pests that prey on rabbits, chickens, geese. Their numbers need to be kept down.

But now these anti-foxhunters are telling us that they know what’s right and wrong, and that fox-hunting is wrong. And presumably always has been wrong. It was wrong not just 10 years ago, but 500 years ago, and 1000 years ago, and 5000 years ago.

It seems we’ve all had to wait thousands of years for the arrival of these morally enlightened anti-foxhunters to be put straight on the matter. Because they know better than anyone, even their ancestors thousands of years before them.

It’s exactly the same sort of moral arrogance that drives antismoking zealots. They also know better than everybody else what’s right and wrong, and they also set out to enforce their moral certainties with savage punishments. They have no hesitation whatsoever in employing the full force of the law.

I’m reminded of something rather striking that I read yesterday:

Why does this matter now? Because we must learn that people who want animals to be treated like humans really want humans to be treated like animals.

And this is certainly true of the antismoking zealots who demanded (and got) smoking ‘shelters’ that were more open to the elements than pens in which pigs and sheep were kept. Smokers are now treated worse than animals.

Perhaps it’s necessary, every 70 or 80 years, to let all these righteous bigots loose for a few years, and allow them to impose their certainties on everyone else, simply so that everyone can learn once again what utter bastards they all really are?

Their righteous convictions seem to be increasingly ignored, however. For the same newspaper article goes on to remark:

An estimated 300,000 people turned out to ride with or follow hunts on Boxing Day last year, a record number.

Which rather suggests that, far from adopting the moral convictions of the punitive righteous, more and more people are rejecting them.

About these ads

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Moral Arrogance

  1. Andi says:

    I’ve always imagined a debate between Save the Children and the RSPCA would probably end up with the RSPCA coming out with “Fuck the children, what about the animals?”……..and unfortunately I am pretty sure that is actually the way they think. Dickheads.

  2. cherie79 says:

    What about the £320,000 they spent on this ridiculous court case? I doubt I will be the only one saying not another penny. I have no strong feelings about hunting one way or another, I love animals, but surely the hunt took the old and sick whereas shooting or trapping will not discriminate. You are right, this was the start of the reign of the intolerant bigots imposing their self righteous views on the rest of us. I still can’t believe the way this country has accepted it all.

  3. ““We take a zero tolerance approach to animal cruelty — mice, hedgehogs, dogs, cats, badgers, cows, sheep, foxes, snakes — we are here to protect all animals,” said Mr Grant.”

    Question: what legislation have they passed, if any, prohibiting glue traps for mice? Personally that’s an area dealing with animal cruelty that I *would* like to see addressed!

    Flypaper now… hmm… that’s a bit tougher. Yes, I certainly feel sorry for the poor little flies, but I’m not sure if there are reasonably efficient kinder ways to deal with keeping the number of flies down in some situations. The Bug Zappers are pretty humane, but they really only work well on bugs that are attracted to the pretty lights: like nice moths, not mosquitoes (dunno about flies in that regard…)

    Glue traps for Antismokers? Now THERE’S something we might find a market out there for….

    Merry Christmas to All, from Santa the Reindeer lover!

    :>
    Michael

  4. Wiel Maessen says:

    Sorry, Frank. I disagree. I love animals. They cannot start lawsuits, so humans need to defend their rights. Hunting is not a fair game at all. Like fishing isn’t either.

    I am definitely for animal rights and very much against hunting and fishing.

    • Wiel Maessen says:

      I only see an arrogance when people say they hunt for animal protection. That is a viewpoint that parallels smokers prosecution.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Hunting is not a fair game at all. Like fishing isn’t either.

      We humans have been hunting and killing animals for hundreds of thousands of years. We probably wouldn’t be here now, but for our hunting ancestors. Do you condemn them also?

      I will agree that when people started going big game hunting with powerful rifles for lions and tigers which didn’t stand a hope in hell against such weapons, that it became something profoundly unnecessary and deeply ugly.

      But this has been a relatively recent development in the long history of humankind. For 99.999% of that history, we hunted and killed and ate animals because that was the only way we could survive. And by fishing too.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        We aint SAMSON,I wouldnt give a lion a fair chance either…………..

      • Wiel Maessen says:

        Killing for fun, as nowadays, is no fun at all. And no sports either.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Wiel in Pennsylvania where Mikle lives Deer cause so many car wrecks and injuries every year it out compares all others. Hunting keeps the herd culled to where the powers to be think its safe but yet not enuf to harm their ability to reproduce. I spent 2 weeks with my brother in law in uniontown pa processing deer. Just me on my saw horse I skinned over 230 deer in that 2 week period…………There were 9 of us skinning day into nite. Sorry but Im an avid hunter and firmly believe in killing animals. However I never shoot to maim but to kill and eat. Except starlings and blackbirds that carry diseases that transfer to humans or wild domestic dogs in packs or coyotes. A snake is something I KILL without hesitation as I cant tell the diference between a good one and a bad one and wont take the chance on it. Ive had 32 dogs behind my house once when I lived in town that chased my kids down and tried to maul them. Myself and the police ran a riot line across a 45 acre wood and flushed out over 23 and I killed 14 of those. We then found others down in a creek bank where they had tunneled into the bank and pupies were found. The dogs guarding the area were killed and the pups taken to the shelter for adoption. I cant stress how important it is to keep little fifi from getting loose and running with the pack. Pack mentality takes over and they go wild chasing kids,horses,cows ,sheep etc………. animal management is paramount if humanity is to be protected.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Wiel Ive also had to hunt men down before as a Brig chaser/security Police working for NATO Command while I was in Rota Spain. Out of 36 pick up orders I had, I brought back 34. Most were already apprehended while others I had to find. The point is Hunting goes on and with reason regardless if animal or man. Neither wants to be caught but the alternatives create chaos and loss to property,life and limb if not contained.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Killing for fun, as nowadays, is no fun at all. And no sports either.

          I agree with this.
          Unless it is for survival or hunger – as it happens, the Mayans must have got the date wrong, hence there is no post apocalyptic world right now – I do not see the point of shooting animals or dangling a piece of string in waters to catch a fish.
          I also do not believe we need to kill as many cows/sheep/pigs as we seem to do right now, with “the poor chiiiiildren” being unaware that their burger once was a living animal and are being “traumatized” when they find out the truth.
          We have created a surplus of food, yet we begin to discriminate the people who make use of it.
          We may not like it, various Industries keep governments alive. We already experience the impact of tobacco control and the damage of smoking bans. Now lets see if we will encounter food bans.

        • margo says:

          I agree. Hunting foxes is more akin to the big-game hunting you mention, Frank, than it is to our ancient survival needs. Hunting when you’re hungry and are going to eat what you kill is one thing. This is another.

        • Margo, you wrote, “Hunting when you’re hungry and are going to eat what you kill is one thing. This is another.”

          Soooo…. I gather you’re not a big fan of french-fried fox fricassee? Not even a la mode?

          ::ducking::

          :)
          MJM, who’d like to note that, in essence, I do have some real agreement with Margo on the subject as far as my “feelings” go — though I tend to side with Frank regarding the laws in this instance: it’s a very different kettle of fish than cock/dog-fights or general animal cruelty/neglect.

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    Animals are private property not state property! They can pass all the bloody laws they want I would ignore the animal rights wackos!

  6. I’d have to agree with Harley in that some hunting needs to be done for purposes of living reasonably. Wiel, I doubt you’d object to someone hunting a pack of wolves that had come into your yard and attacked one of your dogs. We also all take part in “the hunt” every time we eat meat. And the raising of animals in modern “meat farm” conditions for slaughter is probably far more inhumane that if the animals were running around wild and being shot for food by hunters for meat. If you’re a vegetarian, then you have a right to object to animals being killed for food. Whether you have a right to stop OTHER people from killing animals for food is a lot more questionable. Most of us would say no one has the right to make that decision for someone else: it’s a moral “gray area” that starts crossing the line between religious-type beliefs and government laws.

    I see the abortion question as being very similar: some people believe abortion is the murder of a human being. Other people believe it’s the cutting out or destruction of a piece of tissue that could become a human being but isn’t one yet. I don’t think the state has the right to come in and make a decision on something that so many people have deeply and sincerely divided beliefs about.

    On the other hand, I’d agree with Wiel that there’s something wrong with the “hunting for fun” mentality that a lot of hunters have. It’s sad that we take a living, breathing, feeling, life-enjoying animal and kill it. It’s not fun. We might decide to do it because it’s “part of nature” or because we truly believe that to be healthy we need to eat meat or because we like eating meat enough that our enjoyment overcomes our sadness or guilt, but killing something alive shouldn’t be “fun.” Heck, I even apologize to bugs when I kill them because I can’t deal with living with their particular types in my house. Mosquitoes… well… they’re fair game: part of their life cycle is attacking me so I don’t feel too bad about attacking them back. And flies not only land on my food they have a particular fondness for buzzing around my ears and landing on my forehead when I’m trying to fall asleep! :> But a lightning bug, spider or a non-cockroach-beetle? I’ll try to just get it out of my house rather than kill it in most cases.

    Heh, I’d probably BE a vegetarian if I wasn’t so skinny: as it is I’m afraid to fiddle much with my diet for fear I’ll look in the mirror and can’t see myself someday!

    :>
    MJM

    • c777 says:

      When a fox gets into a chicken coop or run it will kill every single chicken, even though it will only eat what it can.
      Foxes play with their prey like cats do.
      Should all foxes be rounded up and muzzled, penned, and fed from a bowl?

      • Frank Davis says:

        That’s true. Some people I was staying with had a chicken coop with a dozen chickens in it. They got all their eggs that way. One night a fox got into the coop and killed every single chicken. After that it was clear to me that something needed to be done.

        All the same, I was pretty anti-foxhunting up until the time when foxhunting got banned, at which time I started to think (much like Smoking Scot) that it was more driven by a class hatred thing than any love of foxes. And these days, now that anti-foxhunting seems to me to be much like antismoking, I’m in favour of foxhunting. Because I’m in favour of anyone that resists these righteous controllers. I’m in favour of people doing what they want to do, not what someone else wants them to do, even if I don’t much like what they want to do.

  7. nisakiman says:

    I too have never had an interest in hunting. Or fishing, for that matter. But hunting has been part of the human psyche for countless millenia, since the dawn of mankind. We can adopt a stance of moral posturing and denounce it as cruel, but that doesn’t alter the fact that nature is cruel. Red in tooth and claw. You only have to watch a nature documentary to see that. And foxes themselves are dispassionate (or perhaps passionate), casual killers. They don’t kill to eat, they kill for fun, for sport, if you like. This I know, having once lost all my chickens to a fox in one night some years ago. The fox didn’t eat any of them, just tore them to bloody shreds. Every one of them. And they will do the same to young lambs or any other vulnerable animal. Foxes are not cuddly little animals. They are cold-blooded killers.

    So I have no problem with hunting at all, whether it’s fox, deer or whatever. But I do have a problem with the anti-hunting mob, the animal rights zealots, most of whom have no actual interest in the wellbeing of the fox or whatever, but just want to stop other people doing what they themselves don’t like. More often than not, the anti-hunting crowd are no more than would-be class warriors who are under the mistaken impression that only “toffs” ride to hounds. When I lived in Wiltshire, all the people I knew who were passionate about foxhunting were salt-of-the-earth country folk. Just normal people.

    I don’t buy the idea that “we are civilised now, and not natural hunters any more”. If that was the case, video games makers wouldn’t be shifting hundreds of thousands of violent war / sniper / hunter computer games every year.

    • GaryK30 says:

      “the fact that nature is cruel”

      Nature is just Nature and makes no judgements either cruel or humane.
      Cruelty is a human concept and judgement.
      Tornadoes kill animals and humans, are tornadoes cruel by choice?

      Insects spread disease, is that cruelty by choice?

      Most fish get big by eating other fish and do not kill them first.

      I grew up on a farm and was not guilt ridden by the fact that the meat on our table used to be Lucy the cow.

      ‘Animal Rights’ is a concept that animals are not concerned about.

    • Frank Davis says:

      But hunting has been part of the human psyche for countless millenia

      Is there any need to invoke the human psyche? Isn’t it just that we need to eat something to stay alive?

      • Frank, I’d say needing to “eat something” isn’t sufficient. I think it’s been pretty well shown that you can live and be healthy on a vegetarian diet, particularly if it’s one that allows for milk and eggs, and possibly even one that’s purely vegan (although I’ve always thought it was a bit silly to worry about “enslaving” honeybees…)

        :>
        MJM, slightly guilt-ridden omnivore…

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Mike there was a point in about 1995 I killed deer to feed my family……………Its a long story but things were just that bad.

        • Frank Davis says:

          you can live and be healthy on a vegetarian diet,

          True. But, as I never fail to point out, plants are living things too. A vegetarian is someone who has chosen to eat one sort of living thing instead of another sort. Where’s the virtue in that?

          If anything, it’s us carnivores who are morally superior to vegetarians, because we at least eat meat after it’s been killed, whereas vegetarians eat or cook living plants alive: e.g. salads and boiled potatoes.

      • nisakiman says:

        “Is there any need to invoke the human psyche?”

        Yes, I believe there is. I think the instinctive desire to hunt is part of our DNA, and why we, as a species, are also so prone to starting wars with our neighbours. It’s all part of our inbuilt aggression. It’s a survival technique. It’s why we’re top of the food chain. And although, via the civilising influences of civic society / religion, we are to a large extent able to suppress those baser instincts, they are never far from the surface.

        • Frank Davis says:

          I think the instinctive desire to hunt is part of our DNA, and why we, as a species, are also so prone to starting wars with our neighbours. It’s all part of our inbuilt aggression. It’s a survival technique. It’s why we’re top of the food chain.

          That’s a rather larger theory about our wider political nature. I don’t see that it’s needed to explain why we eat things: We get hungry, and we’ll eat almost anything if we have to. Hunger is a powerful driving force. Far more potent than any DNA, I would suggest.

          I suppose that hunting might be regarded as ‘aggressive’, in that it involves chasing and killing things. But in the case of large animals, this extra effort is more than repaid in the form of a carcase which will feed several families for weeks. Hunters hit a food jackpot in a way that vegetarian grazers don’t. They just have to work harder to get it, running and throwing spears and stuff.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          ”vegetarian grazers” Frank thats a funny one liner,I lust it! ROFLMAO

    • margo says:

      We’re not in a position to know why foxes do what they do, are we? I’ve read that they’ll kill every chicken in a coop (one that’s not sufficiently fortified against them), and if you leave them to it they’ll come back day after day and take the dead ones one at a time (they can’t carry them all at once) back to their lair for food,so the coop’s become their larder. That’s not the same as killing for sport and fun. Neither is abattoir killing the same.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Coyotes are the same way,they attacked my kids pet pigs the chinese style that was so popular in the 90s. They killed one and went after the other but got caught in the large fishnet I had placed atop their pen enclosure. I shot the one but the other was able to escape so I waited the next nite in the dark with a shotgun and about 11 pm that one came back…………..Got 25 bucks for each hide. What we truly have here is city mentality versus country mentality. Until youve had to deal with natures and mans best friend in a country setting youve not had to endure these problems or know the losses they can inflict. Animal cruelty laws for city dwellers may work fine for them as they basically all think that way. But being raised closer to nature and its dangers will quickly avert the animal rights advocacy in anyone.

        Even horses,cows and other livestock have their inherent dangers. We have 2 bulls right now. One 2 years old and 1300 pounds and the other only a bullcalf at 500 pounds. The day will come when those 2 will face off over breeding rights of a few cows. Thats if we dont remove one of them before the small ones size puts him in a breeders position and a threat to the larger bull. Its understanding these natural charachteristics that enable us to keep safe the herd,whether it be the human herd or the animal herd.

        How do you get a bull to do what you want when their so big! Ya its a good question and each bull is diferent. Some will simply get in a pen easily while others will fight you tooth and nail and even try and kill you. Safety first and a brain that thinks trying to figure what works and quickly. Cattle prods work well for forcing a moody Bull or cow into a trailer,but watch out Ive seen them go over the tops of cattle racks in line up. Many think cattle prods are inhumane but there not. Any fool who would zap a bull or cow for fun is likely to be seen at the local ER within the hour.

        But as Frank notes in todays world animal rights have stomped human rights to the point of outright lunacy the same lunancy that drives smoking bans. Emotionalism that pushes such laws have no basis in human culture,they simply cause division and hardship with fines,jail time and the such. Hitting on the Fox ban as Frank has done touches directly on the ills in society that have endulged the lunacy to the point where everything is upside down in the world. We are watching these ”INSANE Actions” put all of our liberties on the chopping block. Such lunancy comes full circle even to the point where the advocates of other laws we despise come back around to outlaw what the advocates love to do themselves. Maintaining commonsence is paramount in a world gone upside down. We fight a common foe and sometimes we find that foe within ourselves concerning other matters. But its the insanity in us all that allows this cultural rift to grow into a monster. When we mind our own business,we dont intrude on others ways of life.

        To each his or her own and lets all relearn to respect each others lives and what we indulge in your fifi is your fifi,my smoking in my friends restaraunt is his and my business. To outlaw each others likes and dislikes is war amoung ourselves and a civilwar that nobody can win except to cause even more hatred amoung us all.

        We are all smarter than that at least when commonsence and courtesy were the rule.

        • margo says:

          Yes, I’m with you there, HR – each to his own. It’s true I’ve never lived in the country or had much to do with livestock. My view of animals is basically ‘leave them alone’

  8. smokingscot says:

    I agree with Frank’s thrust on this one. Watching one debate before the law was passed, it was mad quite obvious that many of those in favour of banning “the hunt” were in fact doing so because they do not like the class of people involved (mostly rich, upper class establishment types).

    Struck me at the time that the animal side of things was of secondary importance, simply a good excuse to get at “them”.

    I see similar parallels with smoking because while the main thrust is about “health” the reality is many people support the ban and subsequent moves like plain packaging because they “have to wash their hair / clothes. In short, they simply don’t like us.

    Unfortunately the debate about global warming has attracted people who have no real understanding of the issues; they just don’t like 4 x 4’s or the people who can afford to drive them.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      People who use the excuse we have to wash our hair and clothes are childish. These folks have deeper issues going on that drives them crazy. I mean anything would drive them with such pet peeves. In the work place they no doubt are the squeelers on other employees. In school likely the teachers pet and the first to point out somebody elses flaws or they were copying. Such people get beat-up on the playground or shot down by gangs later in life if they didnt learn to MIND HEIR OWN BUSINESS. A whislteblower is one thing. The law allows rewards on criminals or fugitives from justice to entice squeeling on the wanted. But this is a legal way of using mans own greed against himself. But when in a military unit or such where one persons screw up is detrimental to the whole group,the group will assemble a blanket party to assure common cause without ”ratting out” the culprit. Its a fine line on squeeling,rattin out someone. But once your labeled a rat your existence is social ostracizm and rightly so. No one trust you any longer. The smoking police are called as is part of many a state smoking ban law,call this number if you see someone smoking! We hate such activites………..and these hair and clothes people are such people.

      • smokingscot says:

        Same song sheet Harley and yes the types you describe can be dealt with one on one within an enclosed environment like the military.

        Unfortunately there is a sadistic streak in most of us and what happened in the case of fox hunting was indeed a mixture of class envy and sheer sadism.

        It’s happening with the smoking thing and its opened the doors to people to express their fear, their loathing and indeed their envy under the veneer of legitimacy. TCI is little more than an accumulation of the very individuals you describe, but with fancy – self appointed – titles.

        It’s this aspect, that any pack will attract opportunists that I (rather badly it seems) tried to get across.

        I know of one 80 year old woman, who has never once set foot in a public bar in her life, yet nonetheless was quite vociferous in favour of the smoking ban, feeling that all pubs should be closed.

        Unfortunately we in Scotland have a small religious order “the Wee Free’s” who don’t like anything that involves pleasure of the flesh. Ironically many Muslims, whom I may have thought had similar viewpoints, actually see the larger picture and, perhaps because they’ve been subjected to the “pack mentality”, don’t support the smoking ban, nor the loss of our social infrastructure.

      • smokervoter says:

        Harleyrider, you’re on a roll today my friend. You’ve got more downhome and useful wisdom in your little toe than all of the cityslicker know-it-alls from Harvard, Yale and UC Berkeley combined.

        Academically spawned Moral Arrogance is what is epidemic right now and it’s destroying all common sense, courtesy and fun as it fans out from the tightly packed sardine cans of New York City and urban California (San Fran and LA).

        One thing that has changed radically since I was in grade school is that the goody-two-shoe teachers pets and swots now seem to rule the roost. I think it’s the intense environmental, antismoking, and collectivist brain washing they’re getting from the iPad cradle to graduation day that’s to blame.

        What I don’t get is where has the natural anti-authoritarian rebelliousness of youth gone? Not enough animal protein in their diets perhaps?

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Not enough animal protein in their diets perhaps? lol…………vegetarian Grazers as Frank says.

  9. highstump says:

    Maybe the fox just doesn’t want to leave a witness.

  10. GaryK30 says:

    ‘Animal Rights’ is a concept that animals are not concerned about.

    People have the ‘Golden Rule’, or should have.
    The Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, in which each individual has a right to just treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others.

    A key element of the Golden Rule is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people, not just members of his or her in-group, with consideration.

    The Golden Rule has its roots in a wide range of world cultures, and is a standard which different cultures use to resolve conflicts.

    The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity states, in four forms, the following:

    1.One should treat others according to how one would like others to treat one’s self (positive, passive form)

    2.Treat others as you would like to be treated (positive, active form)

    3.One should not treat others in ways one would not like to be treated (prohibitive, passive form)

    4.Do not treat others in ways you would not like to be treated (prohibitive, active form)

    Golden Rule in Islam

    Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.
    —Muhammad, The Farewell Sermon

    The Qur’an commends:
    “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”
    —An-Nawawi’s Forty Hadith 13 (p. 56)

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    The do no harm doctrine has been created to justify criminalizing us all!

    • Andi says:

      I don’t think the do no harm doctrine is a problem for smokers, it’s more the junk science that says that second hand smoke is harmful that’s the problem.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The do no harm doctrine allows the government to justify anything on junk science. Suppose they create a study on obesity that links seeing a fat person eating can cause passive over eating in others and then they pass a law to outlaw public eating by obese folks……to cure the the over eating by others who witness it and think its ok to over eat……. Point here is that doctrine can be applied to ANYTHING! And absolutely no proof is required to make the claim or pass the law. I saw an airplane crash now I have a fear of flying this leads to me being afraid of heights,of moving vehicles faster than 30 miles an hour………..Then some mad junk scientists takes this to the next level and creates a study linking such things to passive fright created by stories of death and destruction…………such is the case with passive smoking, FEAR TACTICS! Created from nothing and justified to outlaw us or any group they so deem necissary………

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Bonfire of the fake charities
    An early Christmas present to us all from the Department for Communities and Local Government, which has released a document titled 50 Ways to Save: Examples of sensible savings in local government. At number 37 we find this…

    37. Cease funding ‘sock puppets’ and ‘fake charities’: Many pressure groups – which do not deliver services or help the vulnerable – are now funded by state bodies. In turn, these nominally ‘independent’ groups lobby and call for more state regulation and more state funding.

    A 2009 survey found that £37 million a year was spent on taxpayer-funded lobbying and political campaigning across the public sector. Many of these causes may be worthy, but why should they be funded by taxpayers? Councils should also review their memberships to regional quangos and membership bodies: such residual regional structures are redundant following the abolishing of Regional Development Agencies, Government Offices for the Regions and unelected Regional Assemblies.

    Ho, ho, ho!

    http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/bonfire-of-fake-charities.html

  13. GaryK30 says:

    “abuse animals for pleasure or for profit go to jail.”

    That would include pest/vermin exterminators wouldn’t it.

    Soooo, if the offices of the RSPCA are over-run by rats and they call exterminators to get rid of the rats, after the job is done they will try to have the exterminators put in jail?

    Does the RSPCA put out food and water for the mice that come in to infest their homes?

    Do these people never bathe? Bathing can kill hundreds of millions of the microbes that inhabit our body and microbes are also alive critters.

    Idiocy runs rampant!!!

  14. jaxthefirst says:

    This is sort of typical of the RSPCA and is a perfect example of what happens to charities when they get too big, too well-known, and thus too well funded so that their funding and their political clout becomes more important than their original aim. For years the RSPCA were conspicuously silent on the matter of foxhunting and refused to be drawn one way or the other about it. But now that they’ve been given the nod by the Big Boys in Government that being anti-hunting is the safe option then they’ve come out, all full of the big “I am” and are now trying to muscle their way to the head of the campaigning crowd and to pretend that they are going to be the ones leading the charge to “sort this despicable activity” out. Just like every little closet anti-smoker, in fact, waiting until the smoking ban was passed before they stuck their cowardly noses out and started with their pained, pinched faces, their flappy little hands and their non-smoking homes.

    To those who are opposed to foxhunting, of course, what the RSPCA are actually saying here will ring true (and I give no indication here as to what my personal stance on the matter is. I can see both the pros and the cons – usually much exaggerated by either side – of the activity). What a shame that those who have enthusiastically nodded on reading this story and muttered: “So true. So true.” haven’t at the same time asked themselves why on earth this – probably one of the best-known of all British animal charities – weren’t saying it long, long before the legislation was passed.

  15. jaxthefirst says:

    Whoops! Of course, I meant “their pained, pinched faces.” It must be getting too close to Christmas Day and the sheer excitement of it all (yawn!) is getting to me!

    Happy Smokin’ Xmas everyone!

  16. “A civilisation is judged on how it treats the weakest…”

    And our civilisation is being judged on 200,000 abortions a year. How? Life is devalued at the start and now, it’s being devalued at the end, with old folk being mistreated by their own kin by being left in homes. “Assisted suicide,” or should that be accessories to murder, will be on the increase and the scope for the killing will be widened to include people who are not even on their way out.

    It’s all good practice for Agenda 21.

    The National Hell Service that wipes 200,000 humans from history annually will continue to control everyone’s lives. I was told by a GP just yesterday about how I was to be “managed”. I told the clown I don’t want to be managed. I’m not a football team.

    And they have the nerve to put warnings on ciggie packets saying smoking could damage your unborn baby, like cutting it out and leaving it to die on a cold steel dish is perfectly healthy for it.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s