Dear All,

In addition to Paul's comments I have to admit I think T. Blair is only
going through with this AT ALL because he was asked directly and cornered
about this issue by a member of the public on the BBC 'Question Time'
programme some time ago. He'll lose (even more!) face if he doesn't go
through with it! I think there has been a lot of exaggeration on both sides
about this issue but, like Paul, I'm not into tearing furry creatures apart,
personally!

I'm not too sure about the predicted redundancy/employment figures as a
result of a ban - its not like these events are occurring over every scrap
of English countryside, all the time! That would soon get the Ramblers and
Twitchers complaining!

T.Blair is perhaps disguising his lack of green credentials with this rather
overtly emotive issue. He should just start a "Save the Fox" campaign and
concentrate on something more serious such as fuel protests and flooding
(nah...I can think of something more serious than that! How about the threat
of the encroaching lesser spotted GW Bush?!).

Regards

Emma



>From: Paul Kirby <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: "This list has been established to provide a discussion forum,
>           and information, for" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Fwd: Hunt ban within a year - Telegraph latest
>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:37:43 +0000
>
>Dear Jim and All
>
>A belated response due to heavy commitments.
>
>The banning of "hunting with dogs"  is due for government consideration but
>what is unclear is whether there is any possibility of an Act being passed.
>Setting asside the issue of the wildlife itself the debate is frequently
>discusssed in terms a polarisation between urban/rural communities and
>between upper anld lower class. (this is the UK so you would expect us too
>think in class warfare terms). Whether the sentiment of the general
>population splits along these lines is very unclear . The two sides of the
>debate seem to enlist or vilify  (through generalisations) large swaithes
>of the community in order to provide their rhetoric with some number based
>authority. The ultra cynical might suggest that the proposed ban satisfies
>one group of voters but the failure of it to be accepted will appease the
>others. (hence all content).
>
>My ethical postion is also confused. I would not go fox hunting, otter
>hunting etc and on balance I consider them rather ugly  and cruel
>passtimes. But should we regulate by law all actions that we dissaprove of?
>Is legislation the only weapon that ethics has available to deploy? Is it
>not a weapon of last resort and disproportionately powerful in relation to
>our sense of offense?
>
>I repeat the "ugly and cruel" part in case the world falls in on my head.
>
>Regards Paul K
>
>PS thanks for tips about energy use. If anything interesting comes out of
>it I will let you know.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com