Fox News: You're still all going to die

Some of the many articles I've read on the subject of Fox-Hunting over the last seven years have suggested that the "sport" is a sort of displacement activity, a connection with the visceral that many upper class people would otherwise lack in their lives.

One typically arrogant, right-wing hunter, Roger Scruton argues that's it's the things that repel other people about the "sport"; the blood, gore, and suffering, that draw him to the sport, as he sees little of this in his career as a right-wing "philosopher". I can see where he's coming from as he obviously lives in a world where there's so little excitement or danger, but he'd have more of a point if there was any danger in the "sport" to anyone other than the fox.

Perhaps Scruton should give a torque wrench to some eco-warriors and agree to let him have a two minute head start to be chased around South London. Then he'd enjoy a real sense of danger, I'm pretty sure.

Scruton is a "philosopher" who thinks that people shouldn't have sex before marraige as it weakens what he percieves to be traditional roles for males and females. He thinks the sexual freedom of our age is responsible for a breakdown in western values, etc, etc.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to think that while killing a small, defenceless, animal is a "connection to the visceral" while having promiscuous sex is morally indefensible.
He also argues that the rituals around hunting are another tradition worth preserving as they represent a bond with the nation's past as if the "sport" has achieved legitimacy just by being old and having the state's seal of approval. Perhaps he thinks promiscuous sex is alright in the context of a arab harem as well.

Our own Fox-Hunting advocate, Kevin Myers seems to come from a similar position.

It would be flippant to say that some people enjoy the viscerality of sex while others get the same adreniline rush from violence, as if the issue of consent never arose.
Yet it's undoubtedly true that fox hunting is still popular among the British upper classes, a set of people with a reputation for prudishness and anal retentivity that's not totally undeserved.
Milan Kundera has a joke in one of his books where an English Lord says to the wife: "I do hope you're pregnat my dear. I'd hate to go through those bizarre motions again."
So perhaps many English foxes have died because English aristocrats weren't at ease with their sexuality, having been handed over to wet nurses while their mothers agonised over what time of day to have tea.

The irony is, by killing foxes, they push up the rabbit population, and, as we all know, rabbits fuck like... um, I'm lost for similes.

More importantly, though, what are we to make of Prince Charles current engagement? He's a traditional English upper-class sort and it's possible that he's never had sex with a woman that he's not married to, though when you see some of the things that his kids get up to, you wish he never had sex within marraige either. He's also been a keen hunter, though he acknowleges that parliment is the legitimate government of the country and has agreed to obey the law. Yet only a week before it comes into "force", he gets engaged.
The ironic thing was that he caught a fox 25 years ago when he married Diana but never seemed to appriciate how lucky he was to married to such a babe. Now that the dogs can't go out hunting any more, he's had to take one of them home with him.

I'd hate to be the royal photogarpher that has to capture Camilla Parker Bowles' inner beauty. I'd hate to be a father who used to call his daugther "princess" as this may have been a compliment when Diana was his wife but in future it may be considered libelous.

The odd thing is that while Al-Quaeda await the date of the wedding - actually, Osama, I think you're past it, you're scared of the British security forces and you're going to let the chance to kill loads of patriotic brits gathered in one place pass you by - Prince Charles could probably get away with hunting all along, as the Police have declared it a "low priority" and argue that it would be impossible to enforce. Call me a sceptic if you like, but it seems to me that they manage to apprehend a huge amount of illegal drugs which are detectable only by the most sophisticated survelliance techniques, they have so many security cameras around the place that the average Londoner is filmed 1000 times a day, yet they say they can't be expected to locate a huge convoy of horses, dogs, and oh, guns?

This latest development is a serious kick in the teeth for labour supporters, many of whom are genuine humanitarians, though some are motivated by mere class hatred, which I have no issue with. They've waited nearly eight years for the government to give them this one scrap and when they do it's not even to be enforced properly.

This is desperatly dissaponting to me. I was looking forward to seeing English aristos crushed by the same jackboot that's persecuted miners, eco-warriors and anti-globalistion protestors in the past. The fact that they show such deference to the upper classes shows that they're a nation locked in the past no matter how the government tries to portray the country as being modern and enlightened. I hope that enough Labour supporters in Britain will be dissapointed enough to register their anger at the ballot box in May.

This course of action isn't available to us here, as Fianna Fail have never shown any interest in the issue and the only alternative is..... Fine Gael.

But at least the hunt sabateours who're so experienced at breaking up hunts might come over here and help us to end this barbaric practice.