Rumours reached me a week or so ago that I would - along with some other Labour MPs - be targeted at the General Election by pro-hunt supporters. This is confirmed in an excellent piece of investigative journalism from the Independent.
Given that (a) I wasn't in Parliament in 2004 to vote for the hunting ban, although of course I would have backed it; (b) there are plenty of seats more marginal than mine; and (c) there aren't any hunts in my urban constituency, I regard this as something of a badge of honour. I can only assume I've been singled out in recognition of my support for animal welfare issues during my five years in Parliament, or my online efforts to promote http://www.backtheban.com/.
Or is it because my Tory opponent has been identified as someone who will vote to bring back fox-hunting? I've seen an email response she sent to a constituent a while ago on the topic, saying that she totally supported the Tory pledge to give MPs a free vote on the issue in the new parliament, but she 'would wait and see what her constituents thought' before deciding how to vote. (NB 75% of the British public opposes the ban).
My understanding, however, and I've seen some of the background material on this, is that Vote-OK have only given their backing to candidates who have pledged to vote for the return of fox-hunting. Perhaps someone could ask Adeela if that's true?
PS Easy way to ask - www.keepcrueltyhistory.com.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Labour Candidate for Bristol East
Trolls have decamped to Twitter...
Kerry McCarthy
Labour Candidate for Bristol East
A Future Fair for All
My blog = my rules!
As Monica says in Friends, "rules are good, rules help control the fun!"
First: if you're after a detailed response, please email or write to me. If you're a constituent (or perhaps a very special case), I'll respond; if you're not, you'll have to contact your own MP. Ditto if you want to introduce a subject which bears no relevance to my original post.
Second: I don't have a problem with trenchant criticism of me or the Government, or vociferously expressed opinions, but if I regard your comments as offensive I won't allow them to appear. (I don't like having to moderate comments, but have reluctantly come to the conclusion that people cannot be relied upon not to abuse my good nature!)
First: if you're after a detailed response, please email or write to me. If you're a constituent (or perhaps a very special case), I'll respond; if you're not, you'll have to contact your own MP. Ditto if you want to introduce a subject which bears no relevance to my original post.
Second: I don't have a problem with trenchant criticism of me or the Government, or vociferously expressed opinions, but if I regard your comments as offensive I won't allow them to appear. (I don't like having to moderate comments, but have reluctantly come to the conclusion that people cannot be relied upon not to abuse my good nature!)
Thirdly: I might just randomly delete comments from certain people because I'm getting thoroughly fed up with them and want them to go away and annoy someone else for a while. You know who you are.
That's all - although I reserve the right to create new rules as and when I feel like it. My blog = my rules!From under the floorboards
News from my website
Kerry's troll tolerance count
Trolls have decamped to Twitter...
Labour List
If you're bored with me...
- A Blog from the Backroom (Hopi Sen)
- Alastair Campbell
- And Another Thing... (Tom Harris MP)
- Ben Brogan
- Bloggers4Labour
- Bristol West Paul
- Chris Paul: Labour of Love
- Cllr Tim
- Conservative Home
- Don Paskini
- Fair Deal Phil
- Grace Fletcher Hackwood
- Guardian politics blogs
- Guardian: Comment is Free
- House of Twits
- Ian Cawsey MP
- Kerron Cross
- Kevin Maguire (The Mirror)
- Labour List
- Labour Outlook
- LabourHome
- Liam Byrne
- Luke Akehurst
- Mrs Blogs blogs
- New Statesman: Best of the Politics Blogs
- New Statesman: Bright's Blog
- Nick Robinson
- Olly's Onions
- Open House (the Independent)
- Paul Flynn MP
- Political Betting
- Politics Home
- Progress
- Red Box (The Times)
- Richard Corbett MEP
- Sadie's Tavern
- Spectator Coffee House
- Stuart Bruce
- The Audacity of Pope
- The Bristol Blogger
- The Daily Mash
- The Stilettoed Socialist
- Tom Watson MP
If you're not bored with me...
- May (7)
- April (26)
- March (31)
- February (18)
- January (28)
- December (41)
- November (34)
- October (36)
- September (20)
- August (49)
- July (44)
- June (34)
- May (26)
- April (65)
- March (71)
- February (59)
- January (62)
- December (103)
- November (84)
- October (59)
- September (58)
- August (71)
- July (72)
- June (60)
- May (38)
- April (42)
- March (22)
- February (6)
- December (8)
- November (29)
- October (21)
- September (4)
- August (17)
- July (2)
7 comments:
There's a definite problem with the Hunting Act. Under the law wild animals can only be flushed out if they are then shot.
This makes a certain amount of sense with foxes which are territorial animals and would simply return once the dogs have gone.
However when free roaming herding Red Deer are flushed out to protect timber there is often no need to kill them.
Would you support a change in the Hunting Act to remove the requirement for animals to be killed?
Total red herring, put about by pro-hunting lobby to discredit current legislation, as previously discussed on this blog.
Ps where is it discussed previously? I would love to have a read ta
Oh cool.
Could you explain though?
It says that flushing out of cover is exempt hunting unless conditions are met and one of those conditions is that the animal is shot.
I've been debating with someone on facebook and LACS and I am convinced that they are correct with respect to deer.
There's no need to shoot them at all.
I'd be interested to know if you support the shooting condition being in the law.
This is indeed a red herring. Flushed out animals have to be shot immediately in order to prevent them from being chased by the dogs.
The Hunting Act is not about shooting it is about animals being chased by dogs so the law is entirely consistent.
The shooting stipulation only affects a tiny number of people who now have to shoot animals rather than dispersing them.
It really is not relevant and from what I understand is not enforced anyhow.
If you search against fox or hunting on this blog, you will find it.
Post a Comment