Labours Angling Charter

As one of the protagonists in the pre-election Labour bashing spree, I?m delighted to make your acquaintance, Kevin. But first, who are you? A Labour apparatchik cruising specialist forums? An angler who?s a Labour activist? My personal details are on my FM member profile, but details about you are scant.

Anyhow, to business; the Angling charter may well be a fine piece of work. It looks like Labour?s policy makers went to angling?s governing/representative bodies and said ?give us your wish list?, and lo! the Charter was born. I have no problem with that, nor its contents.

My fascination is in the politics around mans? relationship with animals, and included in that is where animal issues fit within established party politics. I do not believe that Labour has joined-up thinking on this issue. Here are three questions for any Labour politician who claim that our sport is safe with them in the long term.

1) Why is it morally wrong to recreationally hunt foxes, a pest species that needs controlling one way or another, but not morally wrong to repeatedly hook, play, land and return fish, which are neither pests, nor for the most part, required for food. Whatever the arguments about fish and pain, I can?t believe that being caught is the best thing that happens to a fish in a day.

2) Early in Labour?s first term, the Government banned the farming of fur, not on animal welfare grounds (all Labour would have needed to do was to legislate on the details of husbandry to make fur farming uneconomic, were animal welfare the issue) but on moral grounds. We no more need meat to survive, than we need to wear fur. What logic is at work here? And if you ban one allegedly abusive animal activity on moral grounds, what?s to stop you banning others?

3) It its attempt to dishonestly ban hunting by the back door by means of the duplicitous Alun Michael?s so-called compromise Bill that would have allegedly licensed some hunting, the Minister created the twin tests of ?cruelty and utility?. Was it not Labour?s own Martin Salter MP who pointed out that angling would fail these tests, were they ever applied to the sport? Where is the consistency here?

My election posting touched on the emotional territory that helps shape our political allegiances. Do you deny that words like ?liberation? and ?rights? tend to come from the lexicon of the left? OK the animal people have appropriated them, but I?ll bet the words push buttons for those on the Left, way more than they do for those on the Right. And look at the USA where those in the firing line of animal rights activism are starting to agressively fight back. Most of the fight is being driven by organisations we in the UK would identify with the Republican Right.

A thought; our relationship with animals is so compromised, not least because whilst we don?t need to eat them, we do (in their millions), that the only intellectually clear position is to exclude animals from our moral universe. Perhaps morality should be exclusively human-centred. Hard, I know, but it has the advantage of honesty and clarity.

Come on Kev. I'm waiting.

Dave, click on Kevin's name on the article and you'll find more information about him via that route.

There's not all that much Graham, except that Kevin lives in London.

As Dave says, New Labour certainly lack joined up thinking.

I wrote previously setting out how regardless of what New Labour say they will go down the route of allowing and enacting legislation which ends up with what will be in effect a ban on angling.

It won't be called that but their hypocritical use of the use of phrases such as 'animal welfare' and 'cruelty' coupled with their having sold out financially to the animal rights lobby will bring it about.

Don't rely on Labour's phrases (quoted by Kevin) as being prepared to use the law to its fullest extent. When a government employee sold names addresses and contact details of country people to animal rights activists for the sole purposes of carrying out terrorist attacks against them he got just 6 months in prison. David Blunkett as Home Secretary wrote to me following my complaints about the leniency and differential treatment between this and others merely 'suspected' of terrorist connections being subject to imprisonment without trial pledged to review the sentence. But surprise surprise he didn't. I wonder if that had anything to do with the million pound plus funds pumped into New Labour by the animal rights activist organisations.

Joined up thinking from New Labour - don't hold your breath.

I'm just waiting for the new Act of Parliament which makes incitement to religious hatred an offence.

Why ? Very simple, like many other countrysports people I am a member of the Free Church of Countrysports, (see www.saint-hubert.org) and the next time a Labour Politician or an animal rights activist or the RSPCA issue a single condemnatory comment about any country sport I shall view this as an incitement to religious hatred against myself and my church and insist they are prosecuted under this new Act.

Britain will take at least 10-20 years to recover from the deep damage that New Labour has inflicted on our country, its people and its economy.

how do you damage a countries economy through record levels of employment then, most people would say that wasn't damaging the economy at all.
on the other hand consistantly providing record levels of unemployment, 15% interest rates, housing reposessions most people would i think agree that this does cause long term and often nigh on irreperable damage to a countries infrasrtucture, it's people and it's economy.

but you are after all either a member of the coutry side alliance or the tory party and once more you are trying to take our site for your tedious political diatribes.
the pair of you only ever seem to make any contribution in some sort of anti labour tirade and as such to be brutally honest we can do without you.

Ron we will listen to and debate with endlessly partly because he is entertaining and at times is most certainly a shining wit.
on the other hand you are most definitely a pair of utterly tedious whining shits who i wish would just go away.
if you don't i may well have to as i don't feel i can continue to contribute to a branch of the tory party propaganda machine.

Not sure I get that. But as for a propaganda machine, it looks like we've been reached by Labour's! Note reference to 'us anglers' in Kevin's post, yet I'm assuming none of us know who he is. And yes, Graham, I did have a look, for his details before posting.

I'm not sure the Conservatives have particularly joined-up thinking either. Old school Tories have huntin' and shootin' and fishin' in their DNA, but if quizzed about their philosophical view on man and the animals which underpins their policies where animals are concerned, I suspect they might struggle to articulate a coherent position.

Jason, do you think that the Greens are a party broadly of the right or the left? My view is that they're a party of the left. Which party have all their animal policies under the banner of 'animal rights' on their website? Answer, the Greens.

I didn't really want this to be a party political debate. I'm interested in the philosophy. Labour's Angling Charter is fine, but the kind of bleeding-heart do-gooding liberals who feel guilty about everything, and want to extend 'compassion' everywhere to anyone or anything having a hard time could really be a soft touch for the pro-animal brigade.

And can we stop going on about fishing as frigging social work. I know Mick Watson a bit, and he's a good guy. But for chrissakes fishing is fun and we ought to just want to share it because it's great, not because it delivers 'social good'.

What I meant Dave was that if you click on Kevin's name in the article, and then click on the 'my articles' and 'my forum' tabs, you'll get a better idea about him and hs angling.

Am I drawing the wrong conclusions or is teh Dave and the David in these threads suggesting that kevin Thornton might be a pro-activict Labour Party supporter?

If so, then I suggest you do as Graham suggests. Click on his name in the article, that takes you to his profile and true as Ron says, not much there, but click on his "My Articles". Then read some of them.

I have read them at the times they were published and the last thing I ever thought was that Kevin was a Labour supporter. Far from it, read his suggested letter that he wrote to Tony Banks.

He may have some socialist leanings, but there's nothing wrong with that. What he is, as far as I can judge, is a fighter for some common sense on all manner of environmental issues. What he seems to have found in the new Angler's Charter are some messages of hope.

Again, there's nothing wrong with that. I reviewed the first Anglers Charter for Anglers Mail in 1995 and interviewed the MP mostly responsible for it, Tom Pendry, now Lord Pendry. I have liked Tom over many years not because he is a socialist, but because he deeply loves all sports and is a caring and concerned individual.

Why must people always think that because a person writes glowingly about a political statement they are on the party's payroll. In Kevin's case, I do not think so at all.

My apologies. I only looked at his basic profile and found nothing. I'll read Kevin's stuff in due course. As I've said before, I'm not against the Charter, and I don't think that a Labour Government would ban angling. Nonetheless, a discussion is always worth having.

what i'm suggesting is that dave and david have got beyond the point of boring with their tory propaganda.

kevin has made many contributions to the site, where as the other 2 only ever seem to post protory propaganda.

I've gone back over Kevin's previous stuff and in particularly liked his piece on writing to MP's etc.

And as for you Jason, I'm sorry to bore you. Perhaps I can redeem myself by suggesting that you go cook yourself my Malaysian Prawn Curry posted under 'food glorious food'

Curry -- glorious food ??? I don't think so --Just because you like curry doesn't mean everyone else does .
I find that boring too!!!

Cripes! Do you like my films on the favourite movies thread? Ever considered what it means to say I caught a fish (another thread)? I'll post a best way to cook broccolli thread, if curry bores you.

Dear Mr Stocker,

I don?t know you but I feel I do. You?re the guy I hear in every pub; the boring bigot at the bar. Without doubt you are a most fatuous, self-opinionated individual, who much prefers to talk rather than listen. Your recent posting confirms that you are one who engages his mouth before engaging his brain and that is foolish Mr Stocker.

You asked about my politics. I confirm that before I read your words I didn?t have any strong political leaning. I can say now though, that I certainly wouldn?t vote for any party that would have you as a member. Unlike you, I did take the trouble to read your articles and postings before I penned this note. There?s a heck of a lot there about you Mr Stocker.

Finally, you attacked me because you thought I represented a threat. You were wrong Mr Stocker. I?ll repeat that for you, YOU WERE WRONG. Only when others, who are more sensible, considerate and compassionate pointed out your error did you relent, though not repent. No apology has been offered.

I?m reminded of something that Billy Connolly once said to a heckler in his audience. ?Keep on shouting out pal, it makes it easier for the bouncers to find you?.

I believe a lot of this readership has found you Mr Stocker.

Hang on Kevin! I?m relatively new to these forums, and didn?t know I could access your earlier posts etc. via the side bar, and had I done so would certainly not have cast doubts about your identity and motivation. This was never an attempt to attack you, but simply to engage you early on in the tread. This was a genuine mistake, and I'm sorry if you felt you were being got at. But I don?t do repentance. And nor, for that matter, do I do bigotry.

"This was a genuine mistake, and I'm sorry if you felt you were being got at"

No Dave! Just like some others on this forum, you simply jumped on someone you thought of as a 'Labour'supporter/activist.

As usual, Ron (Both Feet First)Clay had to get in on the act.

Please Dave, if you can, advise us of the Conservative policy on angling, other than the real vote winners, banning barbed hooks and scrapping the rod licence of course. Some really joined up thinking there.

I'm more interested in the issue/argument, and less in the messenger. And I don't 'jump' on people. Let me suggest that the FM forums are a good place for robust debate, the spirit in which I try to engage in them. I entirely agree with you about Conservative policy on angling. But why do you have to equate my being suspicious of the political left as a statement of allegiance to the Tory party? Do you know what the Tories stand for at the moment. I'm sure I don't. In my view politicians of all castes are more flakey and perhaps less principled than they ever used to be, and would probably sell any group or cause down the river if they thought there were votes to be won by so doing.

Dave. Dont bother on the food. Nigella does it better.
Like you she "likes a bit of Tongue-Action", and she does that better than you as well.

There are plenty of adults on this site capable on forming their own judgement on Kevin's Thread, and thus have little need of subjective pontification based on assumption, arrogance and political bias.
Particularly when it is merely reiteration of old diatribe couched in pseudo-intellectualism.

Anyone who has to ask the difference between, catching a fish on rod and line, and taking vicarious pleasure from watching a pack of dogs ripping a fox apart, does not understand the point of moral philosophy.

Philosophy, albeit a 'soft' science, is still subject to academic strictures if it is to have any validity, and the most important of these is keeping an objective viewpoint. Something sadly missing here.

Having a debate on the above is to be welcomed, but if you start your post with accusation based on inaccuracy then you will get an adverse reaction.

As for Mr Myles and his looney-tunes church, well, more a case of lacking joined-up brain-cells, rather than "lacking joined-up thinking".

On a personal note, Andrew, I loved the 'Feet-of-Clay' crack. Do send more.
Lol