markja 51 Posted December 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 we will continue to be classed as criminals and thugs because david cameron has no intention of overturning this ban, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chartpolski 24,453 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 we will continue to be classed as criminals and thugs because david cameron has no intention of overturning this ban, Cameron CAN'T overturn the ban; as it would need a free vote in parliament, and as the Tories don't have a majority and depend on the LibDems backing, he could never get a majority vote, as the LibDems would vote with Labour to defeat the motion, in other words, keep the ban ! Cheers. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 we will continue to be classed as criminals and thugs because david cameron has no intention of overturning this ban, Cameron CAN'T overturn the ban; as it would need a free vote in parliament, and as the Tories don't have a majority and depend on the LibDems backing, he could never get a majority vote, as the LibDems would vote with Labour to defeat the motion, in other words, keep the ban ! Cheers. better the devil you know Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chartpolski 24,453 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 I don't understand why people blame Cameron and the Tories for the ban. Now lets make it clear, if there was only two choices on the ballot card, 1,Vote Conservative, or 2, stick pins in your own eyes; I'd have no hesitation in saying pass the pins !! BUT it was the Tories who voted against the Ban, but were out voted by the LibDems and Labour !! I honestly believe that if Cameron had a majority, he would overturn the ban, but I doubt they ever will get a majority, especialy with the rise of U£ip ! Cheers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Seeker 3,048 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 we will continue to be classed as criminals and thugs because david cameron has no intention of overturning this ban, Cameron CAN'T overturn the ban; as it would need a free vote in parliament, and as the Tories don't have a majority and depend on the LibDems backing, he could never get a majority vote, as the LibDems would vote with Labour to defeat the motion, in other words, keep the ban ! Cheers. Totally agree, it was labour who introduced the ban after being funded by animal rights organisations this was the promise they made in return for the funding. The handgun ban was also a labour initiative, the Tories passed a bill to tighten up hand gun control following Dunblane three months later in come labour and overturn this ruling and enforce an outright total handgun ban. I tell you if labour get in the next thing on the cards will be driven game shooting and who knows what else. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
keepitcovert 842 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Intresting reading here so many different views, fact is the ban almost deserved to come in because of the lack of unity in different aspects of fieldsports produced the end result. All you get is sniping from different factions of fieldsports, shooting men vs lurchermen ect ect. Why all the bitching [divide and conquer] seems to have been the rule of the working mans labour party ffs. If you believe cameron and his cronies would overturn the ban then your living in cloud cuckoo land, hunting with hounds is banned [bollocks] coursing took the death blow, protect what youve got because the ban will never be overturned. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chartpolski 24,453 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) Intresting reading here so many different views, fact is the ban almost deserved to come in because of the lack of unity in different aspects of fieldsports produced the end result. All you get is sniping from different factions of fieldsports, shooting men vs lurchermen ect ect. Why all the bitching [divide and conquer] seems to have been the rule of the working mans labour party ffs. If you believe cameron and his cronies would overturn the ban then your living in cloud cuckoo land, hunting with hounds is banned [bollocks] coursing took the death blow, protect what youve got because the ban will never be overturned. Wether Cameron would overturn the ban or not is only conjecture, as he will never be in a posistion to do so;....... that Labour introduced the ban is FACT, and will only tighten it up and add to it if they get back into power. Cheers. Edited December 4, 2012 by chartpolski 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bosun11 537 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 For all that's been said on here it's this simple... The CMW is a business and built up its huge output on the backs of the lurcher & terrier folk who bought it. Back then it was our mag. Through its huge sales, it won over other field sports enthusiasts, of which it was always trying to do, though always loosing out to the tried and trusted publications but the shooters and some hunting folk now tune in, buying it as an extra to their usual. They now bite the hand that fed 'em for all these years!! The bottom line is, hit 'em where it hurts... Stop buying it and tell others the same...!! I'd bet at least 50% of its readers are still dog folk, lurcher & terrier folk... A 50% loss of business would see 'em on their knees... We are in troubled times enough without rags like this stiring more shite on us... Feck 'em and any event they have anything to do with...! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BIG G wheton machine 1,594 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 has anybody even tried to email them and ask them what theyre playing at never mind gurning on here about it, id love to hear the reply see what they say. must say i buy it cos its better than reading the weekly papers but i have to admit im getting sick of seeing that shuck dog and his wonderful adventures of bunny bashing 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
graham4877 1,181 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 has anybody even tried to email them and ask them what theyre playing at never mind gurning on here about it, id love to hear the reply see what they say. must say i buy it cos its better than reading the weekly papers but i have to admit im getting sick of seeing that shuck dog and his wonderful adventures of bunny bashing I posted on their facebook page, then they hid my post so i pulled them up on it, still never give me a reason or answered to who's side they are on! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Leveller Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Judging by today's issue I'd say The Shooting Times is the new Lurcherman's magazine how refreshing to see a mainstream shooting biased magazine showing Lurchers in a good light. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Judging by today's issue I'd say The Shooting Times is the new Lurcherman's magazine how refreshing to see a mainstream shooting biased magazine showing Lurchers in a good light. not brought The Shooting Times for years, might pick up a copy later and have a nose Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IanB 0 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 what does people exspect with farmers getting ran over etc.............. Maybe an article on how not all dog lads are criminals and those that are only represent a tiny unwanted minority, the same minority you'd find attracted to any "hobby". Coming right up! I've been working on this in my head for the last few weeks, wondering how best to word a retaliatory article without alienating anyone at all: feckin' impossible really! Ever the diplomat ,I have been finding it hard to say what I want without downright attacking certain factions within field sports: I know what it's like to be tarred with the same brush as those who are blatantly criminal in their actions, at the same time as feeling angry at our loss of freedom due to the ban. Whichever way you look at it, lurchers have been traditionally ostracised by the more 'main stream' sporting factions, but this is one instance which needs answering as bluntly as possible given the constrictions of the publication. Ostracised to the detriment on the genuine good lads who work dogs, there is far too many idiots around with them, seriously brain dead idiots, with no respect for how or what they hunt.. The good lads involved who live for working dogs, respect what they hunt and go about there business discreetly and with sense, are made out to be the same... So for the likes of the countrymans and the general public to them it just sells papers, tar them all the same, jump on the bandwagon like the rest. But ultimately how has it all came to this, how has hunting with dogs came to a poxy bill were you can only catch rabbits and rats and neigh on everyone is a poacher or a badger digger to the public... its 50/50 between the idiots with 2 brain cells and the media.. we will continue to be classed as criminals and thugs because david cameron has no intention of overturning this ban, Cameron CAN'T overturn the ban; as it would need a free vote in parliament, and as the Tories don't have a majority and depend on the LibDems backing, he could never get a majority vote, as the LibDems would vote with Labour to defeat the motion, in other words, keep the ban ! Cheers. Your banging your head against the wall on that one chartpolski....it was camerons fault, hes to blame for everything... immigrants (labour), spending all the cash (labour) , hunting ban (labour) , credit bullshit (labour) EU (labour) Greedy b*****ds who haven't done a day and feed them benefits to live and knock kids out............ehhh (labour) laziness, greed, anyway its camerons fault we will continue to be classed as criminals and thugs because david cameron has no intention of overturning this ban, Cameron CAN'T overturn the ban; as it would need a free vote in parliament, and as the Tories don't have a majority and depend on the LibDems backing, he could never get a majority vote, as the LibDems would vote with Labour to defeat the motion, in other words, keep the ban ! Cheers. Totally agree, it was labour who introduced the ban after being funded by animal rights organisations this was the promise they made in return for the funding. The handgun ban was also a labour initiative, the Tories passed a bill to tighten up hand gun control following Dunblane three months later in come labour and overturn this ruling and enforce an outright total handgun ban. I tell you if labour get in the next thing on the cards will be driven game shooting and who knows what else. Driven game shooting, yes that will be next on the cards, then some nature lover will pick on the bones that are left and want ferreting banned... until were all living in a city, watching the x-factor, and surrounded by all gods fluffy creatures on the way to McDonalds... Judging by today's issue I'd say The Shooting Times is the new Lurcherman's magazine how refreshing to see a mainstream shooting biased magazine showing Lurchers in a good light. Yes they do have regular articles, but hmmm I'm not sure of the ferreting write ups , oh and they would print the same coursing, deer poaching stuff as CMW as they have done many a time... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WILF 47,547 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Cracking post Ian. The bloke in ST today is a buffoon !.......and ever so slightly gay ! Lol lol lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
whippet 99 2,613 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Cracking post Ian. The bloke in ST today is a buffoon !.......and ever so slightly gay ! Lol lol lol what an ass lick............. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.