Bomb the Banners

Well, it had to happen. The ban on hunting is less than 24 hours old and the anti-hunt campaigners have moved on. They smell blood (not literally, of course) and want to ban other things. Banning hunting with hounds was always going to be their beachhead and having secured it, their tanks are rumbling on to fresh targets.

Heard on the Radio Five phone-in programme this morning (and I paraphrase.):

Caller 1: They should ban shooting birds for sport.

Caller 2:. And they should ban fishing because they don’t take the fish home for supper, but throw them back to be put through the trauma of being caught all over again.

Caller 3: They should stop animals being kept in appalling conditions just so we can eat cheaply. We should only eat meat from animals, birds and fish that have lived comfortable lives before being humanely slaughtered (ie expensive.)

Caller 4: No, we should ban eating living creatures full-stop and exist on vegetables and fruit.

Caller 5: Nonsense! Veggies are living things too — we should live on a diet of soil, fresh air and water.

Okay, so I made up the last one, but the other views were pretty much as expressed.

That’s the problem with single-issue campaigners. Having put years of their time and energy into getting their own way, their lives are suddenly empty. They can’t accept that it’s time to hang up the skeleton masks and pepper spray and get a life.

Nobody’s prefect. If you find any spelling mistakes or other errors in this post, please let me know by highlighting the text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.

6 comments… Add yours
  • Blognor Regis 18th February 2005

    Great post and well worth reading a second time>

    Reply
  • Mike 18th February 2005

    Caller 2:. And they should ban fishing because they don’t take the fish home for supper, but throw them back to be put through the trauma of being caught all over again.That should be an interesting confrontation. There are more people go fishing on a weekend than attend and play at football matches. The canals and rivers of Britain will be full of floating and/or sinking protesters. I think they might find anglers a different kettle of fish to the hunt brigade.

    Any government that attempts to ban fishing will lose any following election. Guarenteed.

    Reply
  • Shooting Parrots 18th February 2005

    You're spot on there Mike. I started replying in more detail, then realised I was blogging, so I stopped. It will appear next.

    Reply
  • Jennyta 19th February 2005

    Judging by today's news I thought all these anti-hunt campaigners were now spending their time following the hunts out today and videoing every moment just in case they managed to catch someone breaking this ridiculous, ill thought out law.

    Reply
  • Mosher 19th February 2005

    I hate(d) hunting because I regard it as cruel. I don't like fishing for the same reason. Or shooting birds. Or bullfighting, "real" pinata twatting, badger baiting, etc etc etc.

    Yet I'll happily live for weeks at a time on KFC, Burger King, McD's, Birds Eye chicken products…

    I am the world's biggest hypocrite.

    I'll admit I'm as bad as the next person, but anyone who decries any blood sport yet eats any meat not from an animal to have died of natural causes really doesn't have a leg to stand on.

    Reply
  • Jane 20th February 2005

    Couldn't have put it better myself… and, indeed, didn't.

    This morning I watched Germaine Greer's documentary on the subject (repeated by C4 last night at 4am-ish, worth catching if it's on again). I didn't agree with all she said, or the way she presented her arguments, but the crucial point came across loud and clear: it's too complicated a subject to come down obnoxiously on one side or the other.

    And, Tony, if you're going to devote 700 hours (!!) of parliamentary time to a matter of animal welfare, PLEASE make it something that really matters, like factory farming…

    Lady Muck xx

    Reply

(will not be published)

Scroll Up

Spelling error report

The following text will be sent to our editors: