Blair sanctions a deal allowing foxhunting
Discussion
Although I was loathe to post this in case in turns into another hunting thread of the same as has gone before, I thought it was an interesting snippet of news...
Interestingly it is only for about another year, which ties in nicely with the election
btw I am going to go follow a hunt next wednesday, should be interesting.
Interestingly it is only for about another year, which ties in nicely with the election
btw I am going to go follow a hunt next wednesday, should be interesting.
ananova said:
Blair sanction deal allowing foxhunting
Foxhunting is set to continue in England and Wales for another year under a deal sanctioned by Tony Blair, it has emerged.
The field sport will be outlawed from February 18 after the Parliament Act was used to force through a ban in the face of opposition from the Lords.
But the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith will not fight an application for an injunction from the Alliance, Downing Street confirmed.
That means hunting could continue until all the avenues of legal appeal are exhausted.
The move would avoid the campaign of civil disobedience threatened by pro-hunters in the run-up to the General Election, expected in May.
However, it risks infuriating Labour backbenchers, who have repeatedly voted for a ban, and many party supporters.
The Prime Minister strongly supports advice from government law officers not to oppose the injunction.
An injunction issued while the Alliance lodges appeals with the House of Lords and in Europe under human rights legislation could see the ban postponed for several months or even a year.
The Alliance is expected to apply for one when the case, which they do not expect to win, comes before the Appeal Court late next month.
A Downing Street spokesman said: "If the Countryside Alliance are mindful to take out an injunction we are mindful not to oppose that."
He really is a slimy little fecker, what I find scary is Blair thinks he can get away with letting the Hunt's people go through the courts to delay it, then they will vote Labour, cos Blair is so wonderful, and then bring in the ban anyway.
It just shows such contempt and arrogance....sigh
It just shows such contempt and arrogance....sigh
I think it's pretty disgraceful. If he wanted a period of transition he should have fought harder to get one built into the legislation. As it is, this rather seems like the huntsmen shooting themselves in the feet - I don't doubt that they want Labour out of government as much as most PH's and/or right thinking people (
) but this way they are giving up their chance to make an impact on the result by taking the matter to court, which inevitably will serve simply to prolong the coming into force of the ban.
I understand from their point of view it's very much a rock and a hard place, but I for one was looking forward to the wider impact of protests around the election.
What does rile me though is the machinations of Downing St on this. It reeks of underhanded opportunism that they would be quite happy to waste hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money on futile, frivolous court proceedings to avoid the risk of harm to their election campaign; a risk that's risen from their meddling, badly written legislation.
If this is the way they want to play it, perhaps they could fund their legal bills from the Labour campaign funds because I'd rather we didn't foot the bill.
As for Labour backbenchers getting riled, bo*locks. They've got to get re-elected too, and I can't see them kicking up too great a fuss when they realise the alternative!
) but this way they are giving up their chance to make an impact on the result by taking the matter to court, which inevitably will serve simply to prolong the coming into force of the ban. I understand from their point of view it's very much a rock and a hard place, but I for one was looking forward to the wider impact of protests around the election.
What does rile me though is the machinations of Downing St on this. It reeks of underhanded opportunism that they would be quite happy to waste hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money on futile, frivolous court proceedings to avoid the risk of harm to their election campaign; a risk that's risen from their meddling, badly written legislation.
If this is the way they want to play it, perhaps they could fund their legal bills from the Labour campaign funds because I'd rather we didn't foot the bill.
As for Labour backbenchers getting riled, bo*locks. They've got to get re-elected too, and I can't see them kicking up too great a fuss when they realise the alternative!
It's not really complicated, is it. Election coming up.
at Liar Central...
Look all you people who find fox hunting abhorrent, my party is going to ban it. [/pinnochio] I'm your friend. Vote for me!
5 minutes later...
My country friends, it seems that hunting is to be outlawed. Dunno where that came from. Do not fear though - simply raise a legal challenge and I won't fight it. [/pinnochio] I'm your friend. Vote for me!
BLIAR, YOU HAVEN'T GOT ANY FRIENDS, YOU LYING SH
T!!
at Liar Central... Look all you people who find fox hunting abhorrent, my party is going to ban it. [/pinnochio] I'm your friend. Vote for me!
5 minutes later...
My country friends, it seems that hunting is to be outlawed. Dunno where that came from. Do not fear though - simply raise a legal challenge and I won't fight it. [/pinnochio] I'm your friend. Vote for me!
BLIAR, YOU HAVEN'T GOT ANY FRIENDS, YOU LYING SHT!! I don’t think even Mr Blair is so naive as to think many hunt supporters are likely to vote Labour.
If a legal challenge is coming then it’s only right and proper the legislation is not enforced until the legal proceedings are completed.
Don’t forget it was their Lordships who forced the ban to take effect from February. The original Bill would have allowed 18 months for these things to be settled.
If a legal challenge is coming then it’s only right and proper the legislation is not enforced until the legal proceedings are completed.
Don’t forget it was their Lordships who forced the ban to take effect from February. The original Bill would have allowed 18 months for these things to be settled.
this one i am a bit unsure about, please help and correct my logic if required.
the legislation has been passed, now subject to a legal review process due to a legal action, so in the meantime, there is a general election and labour get hoofed into touch (hopefully), does the legislation require further ratification through parliament depending on the outcome of the law lords?
will it mean that we go back to square one and the hunting legislation is thrown out, hence no ban, if the law lords decree that it was an act contary to the .........rights act or whatever the action is raised against?
does it mean that the anti hunt MPs have actually been wrong footed?
the legislation has been passed, now subject to a legal review process due to a legal action, so in the meantime, there is a general election and labour get hoofed into touch (hopefully), does the legislation require further ratification through parliament depending on the outcome of the law lords?
will it mean that we go back to square one and the hunting legislation is thrown out, hence no ban, if the law lords decree that it was an act contary to the .........rights act or whatever the action is raised against?
does it mean that the anti hunt MPs have actually been wrong footed?
I don't quite understand the process either. The government (?) are saying they won't oppose a legal challenge to the ban date.
Surely the Countryside Alliance just need to keep quiet, let hunting get banned, allow lots of unrest before the election THEN launch a legal challenge? It's not up to them to decide this country's laws at the whim of government is it?
Surely the Countryside Alliance just need to keep quiet, let hunting get banned, allow lots of unrest before the election THEN launch a legal challenge? It's not up to them to decide this country's laws at the whim of government is it?
A change of government would make no different to ban as the legislation has already been passed. However how the government reacts to any legal ruling might be different depending on which party is in power at the time.
I can’t help feeling the Conservatives will be secretly pleased. Civil disobedience might just as turn public against the pro hunt lobby and by implication the Tories too.
I can’t help feeling the Conservatives will be secretly pleased. Civil disobedience might just as turn public against the pro hunt lobby and by implication the Tories too.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff