Read RSS Feed


Writers are stuck in the Edwardian era

8:00am Thursday 18th March 2010 in


SIR – Luke Gregg (Letters March 5) offered a very muddled interpretation of everything about hunting.

Mr Gregg, with no idea of the Hunting Act (2004), didn’t even know it came into force on February 18, 2005.

This failed legislation has been heavily criticised by the judiciary, the Labour Government’s own inquiry into the running of Parliament and many Labour MPs who amazingly drafted the Act.

The motives behind his correspondence became clear when Mr Gregg mentioned the “upper class”. A recent anti-hunting letter from Labour councillor Alan Amos included the term “county set snobs”. While the rest of us are living in the 21st century, Luke Gregg and Councillor Amos seem stuck in a Edwardian forelock-tugging time warp. Luke Gregg finished his letter with the standard “blood lust” remark. Sticking firmly to the anti-hunting formula of phony phrases plus prejudice make perfect propaganda.

Jon Burgess
Malvern

Comments(10)

Chips020 says...
2:53pm Thu 18 Mar 10

*sigh* here we go again...

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Deviated Vocals says...
4:25pm Thu 18 Mar 10

So we won't be hearing any more from the hunting fraternity about the need to maintain tradition then Mr Burgess if you are all so 21st century now?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

luke28 says...
4:52pm Thu 18 Mar 10

Thank you Jon Burgess for responding to my letter. Firstly, I would just like to say that how can I be stuck in the Edwardian era when all I want to do is move forward with the tradition know as fox hunting? Hunting has gone on for centuries – as way way to ancient Egypt where venery involved using scent-hounds to track prey. The origins of UK hunting date back to the 16th century where royalty introduced a greater fox population for recreation. Only royals and royalty were allowed to hunt. If this isn't’t stuck in a time warp, then I stand corrected!?



Secondly, The hunting Bill was reintroduced to the Commons on 9 September 2004. It received Royal Assent on 18 November 2004. The final pass was on 18th February 2005 but is known as The Hunting Act 2004.



Lastly, I am not being prejudice, I am merely stating fact. I am aware that there is a mixed class system within a modern hunt but the very core of hunting was the upper class. It was they who made the fox population a problem. I conclude with one question: Who is the biggest pest – human or animal?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

crowquill says...
10:19am Fri 19 Mar 10

Luke more class war codswallop and truth twisting again!
"royalty introduced a greater fox population for recreation" ............utter rubbish, where is your evidence for this?
"Only royals and royalty were allowed to hunt"......It was not "only royals and royalty" and this was nothing to do with fox hunting, this was hunting in the royal forests from a much earlier date and they were predominately hunting game!
"I am aware that there is a mixed class system within a modern hunt but the very core of hunting was the upper class.".......again why this obsession with class? why not just agree that those who choose to ride to hounds come from all walks of life?
"It was they who made the fox population a problem".....utter twoddle, do you think that foxes are not capable of breeding on there own? How many do you think are living in worcestershire right now and do you think this is result of some kind of breeding program otherwise they might die out?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

luke28 says...
6:22pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Cromwell, I am just stating fact. I have researched this activity in great detail. Yes, hunting game was happening much earlier but its sole need was for food. I am not worried about that. Man and animals have a history of hunting for food – these days all the animal killings for meat are done in abattoirs in a humane way. We no longer need to hunt for food; we just walk into a supermarket or butchers shop for our produce. So why does fox hunting take place?

The feeble ‘pest control’ argument has gone out of the window for me. Where foxes are killed this merely creates a vacant territory that will quickly be filled by other foxes.

Scarcely 25 years ago, farmers and hunters had us believe that the badger and the otter were vermin and needed to be controlled. Everyone now knows this is nonsense. The law now protects both species. Badger baiting and **** fighting were considered a ‘lower class’ activity, which was soon outlawed. It doesn’t really matter about what ‘class’ does what. I was just stating that the royals introduced fox hunting a long time ago. I’m not talking about game – just the activity we know of today.

Foxes were introduced greatly into Australia and they have become a major ecological pest. It was not a breeding program. Man did this for something to hunt – but now it has become a problem. We now have to kill this innocent animal by our ancestor’s own mistake. This is what I am trying to get at.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

luke28 says...
6:36pm Fri 19 Mar 10

*male chicken fighting*. It thinks the word i used was offensive... ha!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

nebhunting says...
2:02pm Sun 28 Mar 10

How on earth can you say the Fox is an innocent animal god knows, try getting out a bit more.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Thumper666 says...
10:52pm Mon 29 Mar 10

I get out plenty thank you. But that’s an irrelevant comeback don’t you think?

You class a fox as not being innocent because it has probably caused you some personal grief, whereas for me, a fox has never been a problem. Both the Minister of Agriculture and the National Farmers’ Union also share my view.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

More Read stories


Most popular



Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses