UK General Election 2017

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Does killing foxes, particularly via the hunt, effectively protect livestock? I'm unfamiliar with the workings of the English countryside, but in other parts of the world, wild animals tend to keep away from humans, except for some that don't. Does the hunt actually kill the foxes that cause the trouble, or does it kill some foxes? At least shooting a fox from the undergrowth necessitates camping out in the location where the trouble is.

Well, if we had no foxes the only predators for livestock would be badgers and curs - so killing foxes is certainly advantageous, so if fencing.

However, hunting with hounds is essentially predation against foxes. Without the hunt the fox essentially becomes the apex predator in most rural environments. Possibly they are challenged by badgers, but badgers have a different diet so they don't often directly conflict.

We were discussing this in work and one of my colleagues told me the Black Torrington hunt caught 300 foxes on Dartmoor one day. How, you ask? Well, they had all been dumped there by Liverpool City Council the day before, most were sick and dying from mange and other diseases.

Hounds find the weak, the stupid, the old and the reckless. For various reasons those are more likely to pose a threat to livestock. Eliminating them is positive for the fox population and encourages them to develop a fear of humans and dogs, which helps to keep them off farmland.

Hunting disadvantaged creatures for reasons other than food is the coward's martial art. There should be no thrill in a chase unless you have delusions of grandeur. There's no athletic or moral integrity in pursuing an animal that doesn't know there is a game going on.

Do some hard sparring with a human, in a fair one, if you want to be honest with yourself.

It's not a martial art. Unlike boar hunting fox and stag hunting have nothing really martial about them.

Whilst the Tories to call Corbyn a communist and stealing everyone's money.. or more the fact you earn over 80,000 you pay a tiny bit more tax in rates lower than Winston Churchill in the 1950s, the Tories pledge they will fix spending by removing food from starving primary school children instead!

Where is the backlash? Where is the Daily Mail putting on front page that Conservatives will be removing food from kids who don't get fed properly at home.. oh wait, they advertise to the middle classes who can afford to eat thus not eligible to the free food.

Excellent question.

Have you considered that it has to do with Corbyn and McDonnall's characters, and not their policies?

In any case,5% is not a "tiny bit more" in tax, it's a lot more in tax. Also, you'll note that Churchill paid less in indirect taxes, and the basic rate at the time was over 30%, not the 20% of today. If Corbyn committed himself to reducing VAT whilst increasing tax for higher earners then his plans would be better recieved. Anyway, these aren't even the most eye-watering changes, the worst one so far is the increase in Private Medical Insurrance Tax.

So - get this - you pay NI which pays for the NHS, then you buy private insurance so you don't use the NHS, then you pay AGAIN on that private insurance. Corbyn wants to hike that one by 8%, which will likely drive people back into the NHS, negating the benefit of them opting out but still paying NI.

[Furunculus]

Just like 2015, my facebook feed is filling up with likes and shares from the usual anti-tory bile.

One I'm particularly amused by is "Nobody likes a Tory".

Amused, because it is a significant part of why the left is going to lose the election: these people do not know how to communicate. By these people, i don't just mean the vendors of this social media bile or the parties they advocate (tho it applies to them too), but the people sharing this content!

When they share such aggressive and polarising content, they are not just attacking a party, they are attacking the values of people who find themselves attracted to that party's ideas. This is beyond polite disagreement, it is a public and visceral denigration of that person's perceived moral worth.

What does someone normally do when an acquaintence treats their values with contempt? I'm willing to bet they don't roll over and say; "Fair enough, I can see your point of view, and I've reconsidered my opinion in consequence. Thanks for taking the time, appreciated!" What matters is not that it happens here and there, rather, that up and down the land everyone's social media feed is filling up with this bile. What affect do they think this has?

I mention this not because i'm feeling particularly snowflake'y today, but in anticipation of the shock and despair on June 9th from those same people: "How did this happen, again? I don't know anyone who'd vote this way!"

Really?

[Sarmatian]

And at the same time, people who share stories like that on facebook aren't really representative of the labour voters.

In fact, most of the things shared and seen on facebook have precious little to do with anything happening out there in the real world. The entire logic of facebook is written in such a way to promote the most controversial and attention grabbing content.

[Furunculus]

what can be described as representative of typical labour voters?

it does lead people into the false assumption that their outrage is normal, and that everyone else is like them.

[Pannonian]

what can be described as representative of typical labour voters?

it does lead people into the false assumption that their outrage is normal, and that everyone else is like them.

It's representative of Corbyn's supporters, so much so that it's actually official policy to concentrate on social media to build a social movement (as opposed to getting elected to Parliament, which Corbyn's faction despises). Ironically, even Corbyn himself has expressed doubts about the self-reinforcing nature of the social media bubble. Not that it's going to change his direction of course, as he's in his comfort zone there, and he's operated within his comfort zone for the whole of his career.

There are articles about the fragmentation of society due to the social media bubble, with specific reference to the Corbyn phenomenon.

[Sarmatian]

what can be described as representative of typical labour voters?

Certainly not facebook. I'm not going to go into details about typical labour voters, first and foremost because my knowledge of the subject is rather limited. I've written that not because I know labour voters, but because I know facebook.

it does lead people into the false assumption that their outrage is normal, and that everyone else is like them.

Very true. Also true for every other group, and it's a problem of modern times when media corporations worry about click-bait qualities of an article, rather than its validity, accuracy or comprehensiveness, and when social networks like facebook allow people to live in their own little bubbles which they share with their like minded individuals.

[Beskar]

In fact, most of the things shared and seen on facebook have precious little to do with anything happening out there in the real world. The entire logic of facebook is written in such a way to promote the most controversial and attention grabbing content.

Yet Facebook is apparently causing what is happening out there to the real world to be like that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39830727
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37945486
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-32590917

[Pannonian]

Yet Facebook is apparently causing what is happening out there to the real world to be like that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39830727
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37945486
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-32590917

Trump is an example of post-truth politics. So is Corbyn. So was Brexit. I've described the salient features often enough, and pointed to where their supporters demonstrated them. There's an example above.

[Gilrandir]

Yet Facebook is apparently causing what is happening out there to the real world to be like that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39830727
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37945486
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-32590917

So true:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/arti...ea_111352.html

[Elephantine]

We were discussing this in work and one of my colleagues told me the Black Torrington hunt caught 300 foxes on Dartmoor one day. How, you ask? Well, they had all been dumped there by Liverpool City Council the day before, most were sick and dying from mange and other diseases.

Hounds find the weak, the stupid, the old and the reckless. For various reasons those are more likely to pose a threat to livestock. Eliminating them is positive for the fox population and encourages them to develop a fear of humans and dogs, which helps to keep them off farmland.

Well that is earth shattering revelation.
Since you appear rather concerned on animal welfare issues I do hope you reported this very illegal act to the relevant authorities.

Though on a moments reflection some questions are raised.
Is it just complete twaddle?
If someone has to give out such obvious fabrications to support their viewpoint on a subject does there viewpoint hold any real merit?

Lets just look at the basics. shooting urban foxes can net @50 a day, a trap may catch 20~30 in a year. So did those evil northerners have a very big collection of traps or did they store the captured foxes until they had enough to illegally ship them half way across the country?
Did they pack them all into the back of a lorry for the journey or would 300 individual cages have to be loaded?
How much would such an operation cost how long would it take and how would it be accounted for since it is illegal and would have to be kept off the books?
How did the Black Torrington hunt catch so many liverpudlian foxes in a single day?

Sorry, but if you just repeat clearly false stories you heard because you think they support your viewpoint then your viewpoint is obviously not well thought out.

Fox hunting serves one purpose , its fun. Well its fun if you like riding with few restrictions on where you can go , and its fun for the followers who like to watch people riding.
Other than that there is no logical arguement which can suppoprt it, it is a highly inefficient method to achieve what it claims it wants to achieve to achieve

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well that is earth shattering revelation.
Since you appear rather concerned on animal welfare issues I do hope you reported this very illegal act to the relevant authorities.

This was some years ago before the ban, at the time it was entirely legal as the mangy foxes were being "re-homed"

[/quote]Though on a moments reflection some questions are raised.
Is it just complete twaddle?
If someone has to give out such obvious fabrications to support their viewpoint on a subject does there viewpoint hold any real merit?[/quote]

^This was unnecessary and it's going to make you look more foolish in but a moment.

Lets just look at the basics. shooting urban foxes can net @50 a day, a trap may catch 20~30 in a year. So did those evil northerners have a very big collection of traps or did they store the captured foxes until they had enough to illegally ship them half way across the country?
Did they pack them all into the back of a lorry for the journey or would 300 individual cages have to be loaded?

I've seen video of them being dumped out of the back of vans, half dead, and left by the side of the road. I think it was BBC Panarama but it was at least ten years ago and I can't find a video at the moment. as to where you get 300 from - I would assume they didn't all come from Liverppol, and also that this was a campaign to round them up, once rounded up they were probably held and just about fed until some bright spark hit on "re-homing" them. Perhaps it was not 300, perhaps it was 30, but even catching 30 foxes in a day is extra-ordinary for a hunt that would usually expect to catch two only if very lucky, and often simply none.

This isn't a story I got from someone who is pro-hunting, anyway.

How much would such an operation cost how long would it take and how would it be accounted for since it is illegal and would have to be kept off the books?

As I say, I believe this particular case was before the ban.

Having said that - here's some Cornish accounts, from just a few years ago: http://www.cornwalllive.com/urban-fo...ail/story.html

Here's a Torygraph link to the Parliamentary questions on this a few years back:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...-farmland.html

Farmer shoots ten foxes after he loses 32 lambs:

http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/28/farmer...illed-5778656/

The loss of so many lambs on Exmoor to predators, and so many foxes letting themselves get shot is extra-ordinary.

And another account from Swindon: http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/n...left_in_woods/

How did the Black Torrington hunt catch so many liverpudlian foxes in a single day?

Presumably because the fell into the categories I mentioned earlier and were easily caught? As I said, I am relaying the story to you third hand, so the number may be inflated but that doesn't make it untrue.

Sorry, but if you just repeat clearly false stories you heard because you think they support your viewpoint then your viewpoint is obviously not well thought out.

Sure, no big cats released onto the Moors either... Nope, nothing ever escaped from Dartmoor Zoo!

Fox hunting serves one purpose , its fun. Well its fun if you like riding with few restrictions on where you can go , and its fun for the followers who like to watch people riding.
Other than that there is no logical arguement which can suppoprt it, it is a highly inefficient method to achieve what it claims it wants to achieve to achieve

Fox hunting aims to control the population - all other methods of "control" are actually culling or outright extermination.

While we're on the subject of Urban Myths, here's Chris Packham telling us foxes never attack humans.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-animal.html

Here are two articles from the BBC about Urban foxes attacking babies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10251349

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-2140...fox-recovering

[Elephantine]

Did you read the links you posted?
They do not support your claim.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did you read the links you posted?
They do not support your claim.

They don't support the claim foxes are being dumped from cities to the countryside?

Yes they do. They even support the fact it's happening in Devon, on Dartmoor.

Do they support the specific case I originally quoted as having been described to me by a friend? No, they do not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39992892

Corbyn's connections to the IRA during the Troubles continue to haunt him. Whilst there's no suggestion he actively supported the Terrorism he is himself a Republican and campaigned for the "Troops Out" movement in the 1980's and for a "United Ireland"

Apparently Ulster Unionist (and former NI First Minister) Arlene Foster feels so strongly about this she is planning to attack Corbyn directly - which is highly unusual.

[Idaho]

But in the end the Northern Ireland troubles were settled peacefully by "talking to terrorists", accepting "troops out" and making concessions to a "united Ireland".