“Oh dear, Exeter Resident, it seems rather a strange law, doesn¿t it, when you can say that all those nice cuddly people on your side of the argument prove the moral superiority of it, but nobody is allowed to point out anyone nasty connected to your argument, as it would rather dispel that assumed mantel of moral superiority? Isn¿t there a name for that kind of stance, where you only allow one side of argument to be heard and when you can¿t stop the other sides from making it, then smear them anyway? Yes, I¿m afraid the answer to that question still has a connection with Hitler. It¿s called fascism.
During the war, all types of activities and civil liberties were stopped, as we were fighting for survival and freedom, including the so-called upper classes. And millions died, including the sons and daughters of that upper class, for the freedom to live life like you want to live it, without undue interference. It seems like certain sections can¿t stand not having all things their own way, and have banned and/or want to ban every small thing they personally disagree with. Remember, nobody has ever been forced to take part in hunting, the same as nobody has ever forced vegetarians to stop eating meat. It¿s called personal freedom and it has been purchased by millions of deaths, and shouldn¿t ever be given away on personal whims and prejudice.”

“Isn't there a law that anyone who resorts to comparison with Hitler in an arguement has lost it?

For the record Winston Churchill also banned hunting - for the duration of the war, so that the upper classes would not be seen to be enjoying themselves when there was a war on. No mention of pest control in his arguement either.”

“It is also a fact that hunting was banned in Nazi Germany, as Hitler was vehemently anti-hunting. So, far from being a good indicator of character or humanity, being for or against hunting doesn't make you trustworthy or not trustworthy in Government. However, only one camp wants to force other people to live by their rules, and with the conviction of religious zealots, cannot abide to allow any other point of view to exist, which rather puts me off them.”

“Paul from Alphington - regarding "trust"... well I am sure most people would trust Winston Churchill the Prime Minister who saved this nation and who was a keen hunting man! I have met many dear and good hard working people through hunting - people far more trustworthy than most! This is why most landowners, including the forestry commission, national trust and even Natural England all allow hunts on their land. Good, honest, local people trying to keep communities together and our keep countryside going! People who work in the countryside see life and death everyday and have a little perspective on these issues. Rather than, if i may be so bold, people who have a "chocolate box" idea of how the countrside and nature works, from the perspective of only seeing it on sunny Sunday afternoons when walking off, or buidling up an appetite for, the lambs, cattle, pigs, or chickens - killed and roasted for their pleasure.

Exonian from Exeter - 2 of those 5 are perfectly legal and widely done. (Crows and rats for the avoidance of doubt).”

“You sound like a thoroughly nasty piece of work! Hunting is a social day out? I think you'll find, in the real world and not the fantasy world people like you invent, most people are against hunting. People like you are just barbaric thugs who still think it's the 16th century. Do you beat your wife too? And send your kids up the chimney?”

“it would appear that myth and poppycock are evident on both sides of this issue Tony”

“Of course hunting should not be a major issue, but we expect ALL potential political parties to recognize that there are areas into which they should not venture. Campaigns run by the anti hunting organizations are so blatantly full of myth and poppycock that they should be ignored. Hunting is the most natutral and humanre method of control of deer and fox populations, as well as being a part of our English identity. Any party which represents England should support it, surely?”

“With regard to the hunting issue can you trust a party that will allow terrified animals to chased over many miles by a pack of hounds to the point of exhaustion and then let them be ripped to pieces all observed by a group of cheering hunt supporters.

Is this the action of a civilised country?

To allow such behaviour makes me think that lying or being devious about say VAT increases will come easy.

I do believe that many Tory candidates and voters must be revolted by the pledge in the Conservative manifesto that the Hunting Act will be revoked.

Cameron has not changed the party from the same nasty party of old.

The sooner that Cameron spends more time with his family and Osborne goes back to making wallpaper the better.”

“DH - suggest your family use a bit of plain old common sence and take steps to look after their poultry properly! If you want to eliminate all natural killers presumably you also want to see crow hunting, badger hunting, rat hunting, osprey hunting, and man hunting!”

“Well said Colin Richey, we have had more than enough about the wretched fox, a natural killer. My daughter in Broadclyst has lost another batch of chickens in the last few weeks and my son at Newton Poppleford also.
No doubt this will not concern Mr. Hendry in the slightest. Enjoy your eggs Mr.H, I expect they have plenty for sale in the EC!”