UK General Election 2017 Megathread

[-:Undertaker:-]

The anti-fox hunting lot are doing my head in. Day after day there's a post about how the Tories are evil for wanting to legalise it again as though that even matters as the hunts have continued regardless. Townies going on about something they haven't a clue about - fox numbers have to be controlled because of the damage and mutilation they do not just to property but to livestock.

Just as deer numbers in this country are controlled because of the lack of natural predators which would mean overbreeding leading to damage and mass starvation of deer every autumn/winter. Not a pretty sight. Can we please stop believing we're living in some outback where we can stand back and let nature do its work? The British countryside has been managed for hundreds of years by the people living there: it's nothing like what it was originally like over a thousand years ago.

I replied to one on FB posting pictures of dead foxes with pictures of dead lambs (via foxes). Removal in 3.. 2.. 1..

[FlyingJesus]

It's a really weird goal for them to have stated though, not something hugely important (because how many hunters vote Labour) and has alienated a large number of people who were otherwise geared up to vote blue. Makes almost as little sense as Corbyn's manifesto

[dbgtz]

Maybe you should actually read the legislation. It does not outright ban the hunting of foxes, rather it bans hunting with the use of dogs (with exceptions). It also extends beyond foxes.

A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless his hunting is exempt.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/section/1

Maybe you should read up on that you so passionately defend.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Maybe you should actually read the legislation. It does not outright ban the hunting of foxes, rather it bans hunting with the use of dogs (with exceptions). It also extends beyond foxes.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/section/1

Maybe you should read up on that you so passionately defend.

When we talk of the Fox Hunting ban circa 2005 we know that is referring to hounds, yeah.

Maybe you should read up on what context means?

[dbgtz]

When we talk of the Fox Hunting ban circa 2005 we know that is referring to hounds, yeah.

Maybe you should read up on what context means?

The Conservatives will renew a pledge to hold a free vote on overturning 2004 ban

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7726506.html

What other context do I need?

Maybe we should just put it to a referendum.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7726506.html

What other context do I need?

Maybe we should just put it to a referendum.

I'll go for a referendum on fox hunting in return for a referendum on restoring the death penalty, sure.

[hungryfront]

I'll go for a referendum on fox hunting in return for a referendum on restoring the death penalty, sure.

Death penalty is a terrible idea UNLESS you absolutely 100% know the person's done it and they've admitted it. Otherwise a bunch of innocent people would be killed. Since 1973, 155 people have been released from death row because of proving they're innocent, let alone those who were already dead and those who didn't get the death sentence.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Death penalty is a terrible idea UNLESS you absolutely 100% know the person's done it and they've admitted it. Otherwise a bunch of innocent people would be killed. Since 1973, 155 people have been released from death row because of proving they're innocent, let alone those who were already dead and those who didn't get the death sentence.

That's a very silly argument against the death penalty. It's like saying don't go to war or launch airstrikes against terror camps because statistically there could be innocent people killed. With any system there exists the scope for error. That said, in the modern day with DNA, video and appeals we can often now know for certain - and we certainly did with Brady and Hindley. Both of them should have been hanged as should murderers such as Ian Huntley, Michael Adebolajo, Michael Adebowale and Mark Bridger.

And if Her Majesty's Government ever needs someone to pull the trapdoor i'll do it for free.

[hungryfront]

That's a very silly argument against the death penalty. It's like saying don't go to war or launch airstrikes against terror camps because statistically there could be innocent people killed. With any system there exists the scope for error. That said, in the modern day with DNA, video and appeals we can often now know for certain - and we certainly did with Brady and Hindley. Both of them should have been hanged as should murderers such as Ian Huntley, Michael Adebolajo, Michael Adebowale and Mark Bridger.

And if Her Majesty's Government ever needs someone to pull the trapdoor i'll do it for free.

It isn't a "silly" argument. If it is according to you, I sincerely hope you have to experience it first hand, then maybe you'll realise it's an awful idea. If I am innocent I'm not going to be sentenced for a crime I did not commit and then die.

Also, I know how much you conservatives hate statistics so I did some maths (it's not that hard, you know), and it's above 10% of people sentenced since 1976 in the US that have been released due to innocence proven in the United States. That's it being PROVEN whilst they're ALIVE.

Not all of them will have been proven and some will have been proven after they're dead, so it's well over 10% innocence of people sentenced.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It isn't a "silly" argument. If it is according to you, I sincerely hope you have to experience it first hand, then maybe you'll realise it's an awful idea. If I am innocent I'm not going to be sentenced for a crime I did not commit and then die.

Well you haven't answered my comparison/moral dilemma regarding war and innocents so I assume you are not a pacifist in which case your moral objection regarding the possible executions of innocents doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

But you *hope* I experience it? In that case I say I sincerely hope you do *not* have to experience what the families of the victims of Brady and Hindley have suffered through years of torments from this evil demon. No family should have to go through that *after* a murder which is bad enough in itself, and no nation should go through it either. He along with her should have been hanged back in the early 1970s. But you think he should have lived?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/13...ears-favoured/

I think restoring the death penalty would win over 60% of the vote. For the campaign, we'd simply have to screen the pictures of Brady, Hindley and the rest of them over the country with the words 'JUSTICE' printed underneath. It's about time we had some.

Also, I know how much you conservatives hate statistics so I did some maths (it's not that hard, you know), and it's above 10% of people sentenced since 1976 in the US that have been released due to innocence proven in the United States. That's it being PROVEN whilst they're ALIVE.

I'm not talking about the United States' justice system. I'm talking about the British Injustice system.

I want Brady et el hanged by the neck until dead and I would do it myself. No doubt in my mind on this topic just as there's no doubt in my mind that I would launch airstrikes against enemy targets even with the knowledge that innocent people may well die.