BBC Undercover Reporter Obituary

[J Darcy 5,871]

Well lads, the first thing on my mind is "Reginald Perrin"...

 

What better way to disappear...Everyone knew his face so he would soon be out of work grassing.......so.....what better than to vanish in a blaze of publicity, grow your hair, lie quiet for 18 months and then reappear and no one will know any different.....

 

Personally, i don't believe a word of it..... ...JD

[Guest WILF]

Well lads, the first thing on my mind is "Reginald Perrin"...

 

What better way to disappear...Everyone knew his face so he would soon be out of work grassing.......so.....what better than to vanish in a blaze of publicity, grow your hair, lie quiet for 18 months and then reappear and no one will know any different.....

 

Personally, i don't believe a word of it..... ...JD

 

I will try that.......i think an afro would be very me

[willy 63]

totally agree and the people he exposed for want of a better word invited him in

 

 

Is that right ? So how come he stitched up and lied about people he'd never met ?

 

 

If you've got inside knowledge, speak up........if your one of the sheep who watched a biased tv program and made judgements then keep your thoughts to yourself.

 

Yes some did invite him in but not all !

yes i believe it is right and so do you as you have acknowledged and yes again its my a sheeps opion after watching a tv program

[stig 2]

[quote name='gnasher16' date=

 

 

Sensible thoughts indeed...up until 5 or 6 years ago i constantly made the mistake of comparing animal fighting and animal hunting......and it wasnt until i did a little hunting with experienced folk and listened to their views that i really got my head round it....i had always considered fighting to be a fair even contest but hunting one sided bullying....if either was cruel then hunting was.......however i soon realised that you just cant compare the two....hunting isnt supposed to be fair whereas fighting is,hence they just cant be compared.......BUT.....for a hunter to say fighting is cruel,in my opinion is just as naive as i was 5 or 6 years ago !

 

 

 

Now Gnasher im really really not trying to start an argument with you as from looking at your other posts you are obviously a sound lad who knows the score on a lot of things But i do not agree with that statement

 

We hunters belive that somewhere along the line our quarry NEEDS to be killed,through the destroying of a habitat (overpopulation of deer and rabbits destroying crops or trees)or destroying of species (corvids and foxes predation of song and game birds)we are not killing for the sake of killing we are killing because we belive as humans we have this "Wildlife of today is not ours to dispose of as we please.we have it in trust.and we must account for it to those who come after"

 

So when we hunt we hunt with the intention of killing.especially when hunting with dogs we dont want fair compition we want to be able to deal our quarry a quick and humane death.We dont want to prolong things.

 

However fighting dogs is going into things with the intention of dogs being set to that are equally matched and theres no two ways about it its not humane or quick but it is the greatest challenge and test of any dog.

 

I dont belive hnting is one sided bulling its the control of a species for a very neccesry reason. were as fighting is compition and only compition there is no NEED for it.

 

Iv said my feelings and i hope i havent offended i just want two fellas swapping thoughts and opinions as men not childish handbags.

 

hope to hear from you

Edited April 26, 2009 by stig

[gnasher16 30,216]

Hello Stig.......i appreciate and understand your thoughts on a subject i make no claim to know too much about in all honesty ( hunting )....it interests me to the point where i,ll occasionally tag along with a few likeminded folk and i like to learn about anything that interests me,hence why i read a lot off this site and i certainly make no great claims as a hunter.........however,i think you have either misread....or not fully understood my post....probably my fault as my incessant drivel can often cause folk to fall asleep while reading so not your fault really.....

Now.........if you read my post again you will note my thoughts on the subject today are very different to what they was 5 or 6 years ago....hunting didnt really interest me years ago because AT THAT TIME i felt it to be bullying etc etc etc....but like ive said,when i then started going out with a few fellas who knew their stuff it began to interest me and i learned from them and from this website also that what i thought back then is actually wrong.......and Stig i totally agree with your thoughts and opinions regarding hunting......i was naive back then about hunting,but we all have to learn about something before we can make a rounded judgement and my opinions on it today are not what they were back then......so we are in fact in agreement ..........

As regards the fighting thing im not sure i could agree its not needed as you say....no i suppose as a competetive sport its not needed no....but is any animals desire to do what it was bred to do for many many years needed ?....hunters hunt....fighters fight

AS i said at the start i appreciate your thoughts and hope ive cleared a few things up ok mate....all the best.

[undisputed 1,664]

When you get right down to it it's extremely difficult to rationalise why folk hunt and how they derive pleasure from watching another animal kill another for their own gratification. It cant be explained in rational terms, yes it's something thats always been there but primarily people hunted for food not for pleasure. How do you explain to folk that it's not about the kill but more about the skill involved as both animals pit their wits against each other, one for survival the other for food. The thrill of the chase is the phrase that is most often used and for me personally sums the whole thing up. I suppose I do hunt for pleasure, not so much for the killing, I can take as much pleasure from watching a Hare, fox or rabbit twist and turn and outwit the dog as I can from seeing a spectacular catch. Hunting in my opinion is a very personal thing and means something completely different to each individual. Now to dog fighting, how do you rationalise something thats geared soley to inflicting maximum damage and suffering to another dog for pleasure and financial gain? Why is that the ultimate challenge a dog can have? How do you justify that? Have we evolved so little as a species that we cant see the brutality and barbarism involved in this? This is no gentile pastime or sport of kings or gentlemen where someone will step in and protect the animals. This more often than not is a battle to the death, even ones that quit or cant carry on face the prospect of being killed by their disapointed owner as their injuries are so severe or simply labelled a quitter. I have no sympathy whatsoever for people involved in this and in my opinion they deserve everything thats coming to them. It never ceases to amaze me how folk can be concerned about what gets posted in here in relation to pictures claiming it damages the image of hunting, yet we have folk making comments about race, ethnicity and taking pleasure from the death of someone because he exposed a dog fighting ring or some "terrier men" who were daft enough to invite him in in the first place.

Edited April 27, 2009 by undisputed

[hollands hope 1,024]

When you get right down to it it's extremely difficult to rationalise why folk hunt and how they derive pleasure from watching another animal kill another for their own gratification. It cant be explained in rational terms, yes it's something thats always been there but primarily people hunted for food not for pleasure. How do you explain to folk that it's not about the kill but more about the skill involved as both animals pit their wits against each other, one for survival the other for food. The thrill of the chase is the phrase that is most often used and for me personally sums the whole thing up. I suppose I do hunt for pleasure, not so much for the killing, I can take as much pleasure from watching a Hare, fox or rabbit twist and turn and outwit the dog as I can from seeing a spectacular catch. Hunting in my opinion is a very personal thing and means something completely different to each individual. Now to dog fighting, how do you rationalise something thats geared soley to inflicting maximum damage and suffering to another dog for pleasure and financial gain? Why is that the ultimate challenge a dog can have? How do you justify that? Have we evolved so little as a species that we cant see the brutality and barbarism involved in this? This is no gentile pastime or sport of kings or gentlemen where someone will step in and protect the animals. This more often than not is a battle to the death, even ones that quit or cant carry on face the prospect of being killed by their disapointed owner as their injuries are so severe or simply labelled a quitter. I have no sympathy whatsoever for people involved in this and in my opinion they deserve everything thats coming to them. It never ceases to amaze me how folk can be concerned about what gets posted in here in relation to pictures claiming it damages the image of hunting, yet we have folk making comments about race, ethnicity and taking pleasure from the death of someone because he exposed a dog fighting ring or some "terrier men" who were daft enough to invite him in in the first place.

An excellent and honest post, keep it up!

[Wild Boy 0]

.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Wild Boy

[Guest WILF]

I am no fan of dog fighting, but hey each to there own...........I cant help but think that once folk start all this "My killing is better than your killing" nonsense then you are on a real sticky wicket.

Killing is killing, end of...........the next argument is shooters say "Well my killing is better than a dog lads killing"......where does it all end?

 

Each to there own, as long as the dogs are looked after right and get the right treatment then let lads be.

 

The thread was about this undercover reporter, well, the rumour is that he is brown bread so feck him............KEEP TO YOUR OWN CIRCLE OF FRIENDS, TRUST NO ONE.

 

YIS,

Agent Fox Moulder

[Wild Boy 0]

.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Wild Boy

[Guest WILF]

Theres a large portion of society would say the same about you

As I said, its not my bag...........

[Wild Boy 0]

.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Wild Boy

[Guest WILF]

[BBB 7]

each to their own. just another branch of the tree. most fightin dog's are fed well , and kept well. the real cruel feckers are these you see on tv keepin dogs multiple in shit and starvin em.

[Tuzo 251]

How can you say each to their own. Have you any idea how long a dog fight goes on for. There sick to let dogs fight, ripping eack other apart all the while with big smiles on there faces drinking beer and goading on the winner for 45 minites plus.

 

 

To come to those conclusions you have done one of two things.......either attended a dogfight where this happens or watched a tv program with edited, biased footage of people who cant be described as true dogmen.....where this happened.

 

 

So your either a dogfighter with no idea or a blinkered Joe Public who has double standards.....i'm alright Jack.