The reality is, the illiberal elite blunder around making up lies against people and the actions they despise then turn these lies into poorly thought out laws. Then, after time, it’s inevitable the law plays out its already known shortcomings and the law of unintended consequences rears its head. Subsequently they ‘rinse and repeat’ by creating one of more new laws to compensate for their failure. This sums up a Progressive.
Hence, we as a nation, go around in circles wasting time and huge amounts of money while Progressive’s objectives and narcissism are satisfied with bans and restrictions on personal freedom while no discernible improvement is ever made to the object of their concern.
Take the hunting law, it first reached parliament for debate in 1951. An inquiry was held, politicians were better informed and it was rightfully booted out. Even the RSPCA agreed that although some of its members were against hunting they thought overall that foxes were better off and less cruelly treated than the likely outcome of a ban would be. That outcome being – shooting would increase leading to higher efficiency in the kill ratio and thus leading to potentially wounded foxes.
It took nearly 47 years to properly return to Parliament and within 6 years the traditional chase of hunting foxes with a pack of hounds was banned in England, Wales and Scotland.
However, nothing had changed, the concern over the poorer welfare of foxes in the event of a ban remained the same. Back to my comment:
“…no discernible improvement is ever made to the object of their concern.”
Ironically the man chosen (Professor Stephen Harris), and funded at considerable expense by the RSPCA and IFAW to skew fox/hunting reviews in their favour to obtain the ban, claimed not to like hunting because it wasn’t efficient or effective.
In other words his dislike of hunting was the exact reason why the RSPCA supported hunting with hounds in 1951.
So nothing changes in his information, it’s the same old stuff presented differently but ultimately you end up with the same result.
“…no discernible improvement is ever made to the object of their concern.”
Roll on to early 2002 and the Scottish Parliament has been devolved and has a Labour majority. They fall into line with Professor Harris’ thinking and are insistent hunting with hounds must be efficient and effective as possible because they recognise its importance as a pest control method on the lambing hills of Scotland.
So they banned the sporting element of hunting, i.e. the chance of escape, and made it law hunts shot the fox after it is flushed, this had the result of turning traditional mounted packs into gun packs.
The irony, a man claiming to love foxes and studied them his entire life wants more killed? No me neither.
Enter the SNP in 2015 to replace Labour as the dominating power in the Scottish parliament. They fall for the LACS spin doctors and look to further impose restrictions on hunting like reducing the numbers of hounds in a pack to just 2 for flushing. This after one of their long term CEOs described the use of just two hounds as futile and ineffective.
The LACS immediately set about trying to prove hunts are breaking the law and deploy a monitor to constantly follow them. His name is Terry Hill and in 2018 CSM magazine exposed his somewhat dubious past under a pseudonym of Spike Stocker. They failed miserably in their quest obtaining one highly dodgy conviction in 2017 using Spike before his previously incarnation was known about.
They also used our friend Professor Harris to write a review for them called “The utility of killing foxes in Scotland” and this was passed around the Scottish Parliament.
But guess what? Professor Harris discovered the previous assertions made by the RSPCA in 1951 were in fact correct, fox numbers throughout the UK had dropped since the ban had come into force.
He also found his concern for effectiveness and efficiency of traditional hunting severely diminished as in his review he preferred the use of two dogs to flush out foxes?
So we have a situation where Scotland played its part in supporting the RSPCA’s 1951 objections to a hunt ban by insisting more foxes are killed from 2002 onwards.
Now they are looking to make it inefficient as possible so fox numbers increase, the Scots government have launched yet another consultation this time into the potential of using just two hounds.
They no longer want to take us back 70 years but 261 years. How very progressive!
From Accounts by Sir John Sinclair (1)
“ln the united Parishes of Lochgoilhead and Kilmorich Argyleshire foxes were formerly very numerous but since the land has been chiefly stocked with sheep the destruction of the red for has become an object of great attention. ”
“For this purpose three or more Parishes according to their extent joined in supporting a Fox Hunter and – ‘a pack of dogs’. A Foxhunter from then on, right into the middle of the 19th Century would contract a fixed salary, he would then be continually perambulating the country in his Parish and live upon his Employers: every Tacksman and Tenant being obliged to lodge and entertain him and his dogs, a specified number of days in the year, and according to the extend of land which he possesses, would set a fixture list for the season”
“In the Parish of Weem Perthshire “the foxes before the year 1760 made great havoc among the sheep goat and poultry stocks but from that time on it was recorded that regular Foxhunters have been employed at fixed salaries, by whose diligence and skill, vast numbers of foxes have been accounted for so that the inflated population is now greatly reduced. ”
However in Golspie, Kirkpatrick and Lochlee Forfarshire “upwards of £100.00 sterling is expended yearly for the purpose of extirpating the noxious animal. ”
And as the two hounds only becomes law and fox numbers increase and so folk turn to snares and good honest hard working men waste their lives out on a cold wet winter hillsides at night with rifle in hand remember:
“…no discernible improvement is ever made to the object of their concern.”
What a futile waste of taxpayer’s time and money.
thealdenham 
When we are presented with both logic and reason, then it must seem curious that the truly obstinate continue with their pointless, ill-informed and futile argument ……..
There is a section (a growing section) of our society who refuse the accept the simple concept that 2+2 = 4, which must lead us to question Why ……..
It was that certain writer, he who struck out with Mein Kampf who realised that the way to create social control was through the gradual curtailing of Privilege and Right, and that to achieve compliance, so he would need social obedience ……..
How I wish that Orwell was alive today, How I would like to explore his thoughts and further, which centre around the furtherance of social control.
Yet again, we are being led down a road with our hands bound together and whilst blind-folded. WHEN will we wake up to reality? ……..
LikeLike