Letter From The Countryside Alliance

[argyll]

Pointing out the fact that you see things that the rest of us dont, is absolutely critical to this thread. In fact it forms a major part of it.

I'm genuinely sorry that my style of comment pains you so much and I'm also a little confused since I learned that style from a master. perhaps you've turned over a new leaf or made a new year resolution to be more amiable in your criticism of all things 'Charlie' Bob James and Predator People(to name a few). In which case I shall try in future to be more like this new model Peter Waller.

[Peter M]

trent.barbeler:

In comes the fog. Why does the vast majority of our nations 60 odd million residents KNOW who the CA are? FACT.  No one knows FACT exists.

They know who thay are all right most people say "countryside alliance" thats the fox hunting toffs who don't respect the rule of law.

 

Here is a fact for you lee in fact here are a few facts.

Fact 1. The vast majority of people in this country had strong views on fox hunting and are now glad it is banned.

Fact 2 the vast majority of people in this country know who the CA are and don’t support them.

Fact 3 the vast majority of people are pretty neutral about fishing.

Fact 4 that is why they don’t know who FACT are.

Fact 5 the public’s apathy towards fishing works in our favour.

 

 

By the way for all your country folk here is another fact Fishing is not an exclusively country sport most fishing takes place in towns and cities i.e. urban or suburban environments. so what have the countryside alliance got to do with it as they are not going to campaign for urban issues now are they.

[argyll]

'Fact 1. The vast majority of people in this country had strong views on fox hunting and are now glad it is banned'

 

The Mori Poll of 1999 had only 52% strongly supporting a ban. Of those polled 69% lived in Cities or suburbs. Coloured or what? I can't remember the date and exact figures so I'm not going to project it as cold certain fact, but I recall a more recent wider ranging ITV poll which only had 40% in favour of a ban. most didnt give toss. 'Apathy' as you call it.

 

 

'Fact 2 the vast majority of people in this country know who the CA are and don’t support them'

 

The vast majority of people in this country know even less about FACT, NAA, PAC etc and therefore support them even less (Thats a FACT)

 

 

'Fact 3 the vast majority of people are pretty neutral about fishing'

 

Possibly right, but only until its stuck in their face and made an issue.

 

 

'Fact 4 that is why they don’t know who FACT are'

 

Who cares whether the public at large know who FACT is ? its not an issue. Its more of concern that the two million plus anglers in the UK dont know who FACT is, whereas its odds on that most of them know who the CA are.

 

 

'Fact 5 the public’s apathy towards fishing works in our favour'

 

Apathy NEVER works in our favour. Apathetic people can be easily turned with grusesome pictures of fish on hooks etc.

 

 

so Peter these are not in fact FACTS, just your opinion.

[*Ant*]

Spin it how you wish but it would seem pretty clear that the majority are more against than for.

 

mori poll

 

Q2 And now some questions about hunting wild mammals with dogs (eg fox hunting and stag hunting). To what extent do you support or oppose a ban on hunting with dogs in Britain?

 

%

Strongly support a ban 52

Tend to support a ban 11

Neither support nor oppose a ban 11

Tend to oppose a ban 10

Strongly oppose a ban 14

Don't know/no opinion 2

 

[ 16. March 2005, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: *Anthony* ]

[Peter M]

The people who live in towns and citys have more important things to worry about than fishing things like crime schools rising house prices, of course the non fishing public don't give a toss about FACt because they don't give a toss about fishing, Fox hunting was hugly unpopular in the country which is why the govt. were prepared to ban it, the CA with there general mis behaviour are now as unpopular as the fox hunting they wanted to support. As Anthony pointed our a 52% to strongly support a ban is a huge mandate considering only 14% strongly opposed a ban most govt.s don;t get such a mandate. And i think you will find Apathy rules, for something to succeed it just means no one ( well almost no one) opposes it. and as i say most people have more iportant things to worry about than fishing.

[argyll]

Ant, to use your expression 'spin it how you want' 63% might be a majority , but its hardly

'the vast majority' How many in that poll? about 880 as I remember and only 31% were from country areas.

 

Whilst we're sitting here debating toffs in red jackets, the NHS, law and order and immigration policies go further down the pan. Heres a poll that says it all. Only 2% of the population in the NOP poll of 2003 thought that the issue of fox hunting was important enough to deal with rather than the real issues that this government should have been dealing with. So congratulations to those applauding Bliar for his stupendous victory on foxes. It is however 'fiddling whilst the UK burns'

 

Answer me this Ant. Do you think that this govenment should have prioritised the real issues and dealt with transport, hospitals, appalling crime statistics, immigration etc before going for a soft target like a few dead foxes ? Just a simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.

[Guest sslatter]

If an umbrella organisation were created, ostensibly to represent angling, and the CA were asked to join, I for one would want nothing whatsoever to do with it. They are NOT like-minded individuals, as far as this long time angler goes.

 

Subscribe to an organisation that embraces a small extremist group like the CA? An extremist group that supports foxhunting, harecoursing, and bashing salmon and trout over the head? AND killing coarse fish if they get in the way of the salmon fishing?

 

Not on your nelly.

 

Such anachronistic people are so far removed from modern-day angling as to be almost in the next solar system..

 

..and no amount of hot air windbagging by them and their ilk will make any difference..

[*Ant*]

Argyll - of course I agree with you, but I was just interested in the mori poll findings so did a search and posted it here, not having a dig at anyone.

 

"the vast majority", nope didn't quote that mate.

 

Simply put, 63% were for the ban and only 24% opposed it. Looks like a majority to me.

[argyll]

It also depends on the kind of questions you ask and how you project the answers. People are quite prepared to say this or that at the drop of a hat, but their answers can sometimes be totally meaningless. For example take this classic Gallop poll of 1997

 

Three questions and the percentage answers

 

81% of those canvassed said they disapproved of hunting with hounds. Yeeessss.......big result for the antis. Not so fast though

 

only 63% said they would approve of Parliament making a law to ban fox-hunting. Ah well smaller number...but the figures are still on your side however

 

59% said it should be up to landowners -not politicians - to decide whether or not to allow hunting on their land.

 

So what happened to the 81% who were opposed to fox hunting. Not so opposed that they wanted to see it stopped it seems, since suddenly 59% are saying that the decision should be down to landowners and whilst 63% responded yes to parliamentary intervention, by default following question three we suddenly find that figure might actually be 41% and that includes the 'dont knows' and those that 'couldnt care less'

 

[ 16. March 2005, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]

[argyll]

"the vast majority", nope didn't quote that mate.

I know you didn't Ant, but Peter did

 

Fact 1. The 'vast majority' of people in this country had strong views on fox hunting and are now glad it is banned