Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ NWN Promoting "Traditional" Blood Sport
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 26 2014, 11:31 AM
NWN continue their tradition of promoting blood sports. http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/lambourn-vine-and-craven-hunt-today-friday
Posted by: gel Dec 26 2014, 11:48 AM
Those that follow/participate must have flawed DNA in my opinion 
Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 26 2014, 11:54 AM
I see no promotion of any blood sport.
Which element of a drag hunt involves blood?
Posted by: x2lls Dec 26 2014, 11:57 AM
But the article specifically states 'follow a scent laid out for the hounds, rather than a fox, which is known as drag hunting.'.
Posted by: JeffG Dec 26 2014, 12:02 PM
Which element of a drag hunt involves blood?
So the participants would refuse to hunt foxes if the act was repealed? They are only drag hunting because if they want to follow their "sport" they are forced by law to do so.
Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 26 2014, 12:18 PM
and....?
If someone modifies their lifestyle to comply with the law they are still 'bad'?
Posted by: Strafin Dec 26 2014, 01:50 PM
All seems a bit weird to me, but each to their own.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 26 2014, 04:39 PM
It's just a bit of fun for the middle classes, what's wrong with that.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 26 2014, 05:58 PM
Today, across Britain, huntsmen and women are showcasing their call for the Hunting Act to be repealed and for the cruelty of hunting with dogs for sport to be legalised again.
To thwart the cruel call of the hunters a new national ad campaign has been launched to portray the cruelty of hunting with dogs for sport. The hard-hitting film asks the question; what if it was you? and shows the terror and cruelty of hunting from the hunted animal’s perspective.
Also the latest round of public opinion polling has been released conducted for the League Against Cruel Sports by Ipsos MORI.
This annual survey, which began in 2008, asks around 2,000 people in different parts of Britain whether they thought hunting should remain illegal.
The results showed 80 per cent of the public think that fox hunting should not be made legal again. The figure was 86 per cent against deer hunting, 88 per cent against hare hunting/coursing, 95 per cent against badger baiting and 98 per cent against dog fighting.
The results, which were the same in both rural and urban areas, are the highest figures since the polling began and prove that that the pro hunt lobby are completely out of touch with modern British society. It is now time for the pro hunt lobby to respect the law, respect our wildlife and respect the will of the British people.
Sorry Simon, but the NWN have always done it. Another reason for being a "tight wad" non purchaser.
As for voting UKIP..........http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fox-hunting-nigel-farage-shows-2961931
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 26 2014, 06:13 PM
What a load of cobblers and a reason not to believe everything Simon says. As for tight wads, if the free-loaders keep it up, there won't be any press soon.
Posted by: spartacus Dec 26 2014, 06:13 PM
There's a certain reverse snobbery attached to being 'anti-hunt'... some of which is just the fact 'they' can afford horses and 'they' wear red jackets. So let's protest...
I wonder how many fair-weather anti-hunters are happy enough to sit in the pub where they might have Sky Sports going on in the background, with some good old-fashioned blood sports attracting the punters?
But boxing's different innit.... Small furry animals ain't getting hurt and the blokes doing the blood-letting are 'one of us'. I reckon there's more blood sport involved than you'd find on a typical drag hunt mind...
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 26 2014, 06:55 PM
Good argument AC!!
Better no press than ones promoting the return of banned bloodsports.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 26 2014, 06:55 PM
But boxing's different innit.... Small furry animals ain't getting hurt and the blokes doing the blood-letting are 'one of us'. I reckon there's more blood sport involved than you'd find on a typical drag hunt mind...
Yes, boxing is VERY different.
Their choice.
(By the way I would NEVER sit in a pub with Sky Sports going on in the background.
)
Posted by: JeffG Dec 26 2014, 07:46 PM
People watching boxing matches remind me of the tricoteuses doing their knitting at the foot of the guillotine. Similar mentality, IMO.
Posted by: spartacus Dec 26 2014, 07:57 PM
So...knitting is your sport of choice?
Posted by: Gazzadp Dec 26 2014, 08:02 PM
I don't like boxing, but to use that as an analogy is pretty dumb. For one thing those people who do boxing as a sport do so knowing full well the risks, likewise the anal retentives who watch boxing. Boxers have a choice of whether or not they climb into the ring. Where as a wild fox does not have any choice of whether it pack of rich snobs on horseback with a pack hounds chase that fox to the point of physical exhaustion, then ripped to pieces by those hounds.
As for those who believe the pro hunt crap about chasing a scent laid by person, well that is the epitomy of f**kwittery.
The fact is once the hounds get a scent of a live fox, that is when those toffs enjoy their so called sport.
|
Posted by: spartacus Dec 26 2014, 09:00 PM
.....those toffs enjoy their so called sport.
ahh yes...the endless struggle of the Class War. Toffs and rich snobs vs the plebs.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 26 2014, 10:23 PM
I don't like fox hunting
I don't like animals killed in cold blood
114 million animals killed by halal - 12% without stunning (according to the GUARDIAN) - before I'm accused of being all "Daily Mail". That's Approximately 15 million.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/08/what-does-halal-method-animal-slaughter-involve
Why do you not comment on this? Because its for meat instead of sport? It is still cruel.
Foxes? 50 by the hounds at a guess.
Just a thought.....???? 
Posted by: x2lls Dec 26 2014, 10:30 PM
I don't like animals killed in cold blood
114 million animals killed by halal - 12% without stunning (according to the GUARDIAN) - before I'm accused of being all "Daily Mail". That's Approximately 15 million.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/08/what-does-halal-method-animal-slaughter-involve
Why do you not comment on this? Because its for meat instead of sport? It is still cruel.
Foxes? 50 by the hounds at a guess.
Just a thought.....????
We did:- http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1662&hl=halal
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 26 2014, 10:32 PM
Well I stand corrected and am glad you had already raised the issue.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 26 2014, 10:33 PM
Quite agree. In both cases, it simply demonstrates a lack of respect. It's also rather ironic that the 'hunters' are generally supposed to be our betters - those that exoect us to keep the law......I was going to say and not try to bend them, but, of course, that's just what they do with their taxes. Yep, there ain't no truce in the class war!
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 27 2014, 11:31 AM
Better no press than ones promoting the return of banned bloodsports.
That's a 'free' society for you, but I draw the line at people who do exactly that which they complain of and Simon is one of those.
Also, perhaps if more free-loaders were prepared to patronise their local paper there would be other groups of people that they would hope to attract.
Posted by: JeffG Dec 27 2014, 12:58 PM
What exactly do you define as a free-loader? I don't buy the local paper, nor do I buy any other newspaper (I do indulge in one magazine - the Radio Times). I don't rely on any newspaper or its web sites to get my news and I like to think I am pretty much abreast of current affairs. So, what am I?
Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2014, 01:27 PM
You are actually patronising the local paper every time you go onto the web site. It's the advertisers wot pay. I take the Metro and the Evening Standard hard copy once a week when I go to town, they seem to think I patronise their paper too. The only party loosing out is the Newsagent.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 27 2014, 04:31 PM
Advertisers only pay if they think there is traffic (readers/viewers).
At the end of the day, the NWN is entitled to promote its own articles to its potential audience. Notwithstanding drag hunting is not a blood sport.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 27 2014, 06:08 PM
Absolutely, but we, as the potential buying public, also have the choice not to buy if we dislike that promotion.
But the campaign, which the NWN has in the past promoted in it's articles on the matter, is to have the hunting with dogs bloodsports re-introduced.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2014, 10:08 PM
NWN can publish what it likes and its advertisers can choose if they wish to pay for adverts and we can choose to look at the online service. If we don't, the advertisers won't want to pay and NWN won't have a business.
So, in essence, all Simon is doing is giving feedback. NWN can look at the result and decide which way to go...their choice!
We can respond with our own views - market forces in action; customer is King. Make no mistake, you are still 'paying' even if only with your time having a look.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 28 2014, 01:16 AM
That's fine but I can spot a lie when I read one and I now have doubt in the integrity of the complainant.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 28 2014, 01:18 AM
But the campaign, which the NWN has in the past promoted in it's articles on the matter, is to have the hunting with dogs bloodsports re-introduced.
The head line and the story have nothing in common. More propaganda in my view. If the welfare of animals were of any concern I'd have thought a drag hunt would be something to celebrate! What I resent is Simon's apparent attempt to bully the NWN from going about it's legal business.
I don't support recreational hunting in any form. If I wanted to post a thread it would read: 2014 Vine and Craven Drag Hunt: Another year free from barbarism!
It is not Simon's sentiment I disagree with, it is the method.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 28 2014, 07:37 AM
Which if you had, using those words, would have given even more support to the propaganda view, simply by using (in this context) emotive words.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 28 2014, 10:37 AM
You seem to have missed my point. Notwithstanding that most anti-hunt people believe fox hunting is barbarism.
Posted by: user23 Dec 28 2014, 10:52 AM
If NWN published details of a burglary, would you say they were supporting crime, or just reporting it?
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 28 2014, 04:01 PM
Depends on whether they were glorifying or supporting it in some way.
If the NWN just published details of the event just as a "drag hunt" (yeah right) then fine.
Lets see how it appears in the next NWN shall we?
(I shall have to wait a bit (up to a week) longer along with other "tight wads" until it appears on here
.)
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 28 2014, 04:59 PM
Like Biker says.
The NWN don't just report on this "traditional" blood sport, they promote it through deliberate editorial bias, and the positive presentation of this repugnant blood sport keeps alive the possibility of a repeal of the ban.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 28 2014, 05:01 PM
The NWN don't just report on this "traditional" blood sport, they promote it through deliberate editorial bias, and the positive presentation of this repugnant blood sport keeps alive the possibility of a repeal of the ban.
I usually put the word "sport" in inverted commas because it isn't is it??
Posted by: user23 Dec 28 2014, 05:24 PM
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/lambourn-vine-and-craven-hunt-today-friday
and the only thing it's promoting is the NWN at the end, so I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about.
Posted by: Strafin Dec 28 2014, 07:09 PM
This is drag hunting so the fox has to wear a dress as well. Even worse.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 28 2014, 07:46 PM
The NWN don't just report on this "traditional" blood sport, they promote it through deliberate editorial bias, and the positive presentation of this repugnant blood sport keeps alive the possibility of a repeal of the ban.
Are there any other lies you have propagated on this forum? I trust you as much as a NTC councillor.
Posted by: Mr Brown Dec 28 2014, 08:40 PM
As a self confessed townie, I don't mind admitting I'm against blood sports. However, as its circulation area is quite rural, I'm not surprised that a local paper should support it. There is still a pretty strong rural pro lobby but I don't think expressing an opinion can be construed as telling lies.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 28 2014, 10:40 PM
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/lambourn-vine-and-craven-hunt-today-friday
and the only thing it's promoting is the NWN at the end, so I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about.
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/anti-hunt-monitors-at-boxing-day-meet last year's User.
Analyse that!
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 29 2014, 11:49 AM
I think a paper should report what happens and leave prejudiced at the door; however, I see nothing wrong in a paper reporting about a drag hunt. The 'lie' is that it is reported as NWN promoting "Traditional" blood sport.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 29 2014, 12:54 PM
Analyse that!
Nice one Biker
They'll be telling us the Daily Telegraph isn't a Tory paper next!
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 29 2014, 01:31 PM
They'll be telling us the Daily Telegraph isn't a Tory paper next!It reports a quote from a huntsman; so-what? It's a news item. I'm not saying the NWN is not pro hunting, only that Simon Kirby's OP is presented in the same deceitful manner he often complains of.
I see no problem reporting a popular local event. I would be upset of they refused to report similarly popular anti hunt meetings on the grounds of bias, but that hasn't been the case I believe. I certainly object to personal prejudice deciding what is reported by attempting to exploit the power of social networks and fora. That is every bit and ugly and unwelcome as a 'drag hunt'.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 30 2014, 08:08 AM
I see no problem reporting a popular local event. I would be upset of they refused to report similarly popular anti hunt meetings on the grounds of bias, but that hasn't been the case I believe.
No comment or interview with the "less welcome" anti-hunt people they said were there though is there?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 30 2014, 09:48 AM
The NWN demonstrate a particular editorial bias in support of the "traditional" blood sport of fox hunting, gushing over the hunt like it was some children's panto and shielding the pro-blood sport narrative from any balancing opinion - if indeed there is anyone of standing within the Newbury establishment who would speak up.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 30 2014, 10:21 AM
So what? The comment was a reference to a quote. Can you bee sure there was not any other comment in any other column? I know they have done before; when the antis used to turn out in numbers.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 30 2014, 10:23 AM
I'll give him his due, David Rendal always stood up for the anti's - no matter what was thrown at him by the Country lobby. Indeed, I seem to remember there was more than a whisper that he actually lost the seat because of the rural vote, which went even more heavily to blue than the last time he stood. In purely commercial terms, as I'd suspect NWN would have a much bigger 'paying' following in it's areas, it's likely to pander to that audience. It's made its reputation as a not campaigning traditional shires weekly. It's not so much campaigning as education that's needed. Perhaps the recent editor appointment may herald change! Nonetheless, the cynic in me feels we'd see the Daily Mail ardently supporting green energy first!!
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 30 2014, 10:40 AM
[irony]I'm sure a paper run by you would have no bias[/irony]
Yes, there is an element of truth to your hyperbole, but your OP was misleading and obfuscated the truth, rather like the NWN?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 30 2014, 11:34 AM
I almost mentioned David Rendel myself. He made a principled stand against fox hunting in a town where that was bound to lose him votes and he won my admiration for that, and I would have been very pleased to vote for him again as my MP pretty much on this issue alone. We now have a generation of politicians who believe in nothing lest they alienate voters.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 30 2014, 11:43 AM
Someone who created a reputation of sitting on the fence on many issues that were politically sensitive, and a person who naively misinformed the public on the suitability of the western bypass route. Not to mention the vanity projects that were instigated under his 'reign'. His politics were as such that he didn't lose votes, more that he may have inspired the rural constituents to come out and vote against him after their previous election sulk.
Posted by: user23 Dec 30 2014, 01:15 PM
I think some might be under the impression that a newspaper's first aim is to present a fair and balanced story, when actually it's to sell papers and make money.
This might range from repeating the same rumour over and over again, for example the Express and it's weather headlines:
to selective reporting of the facts based on what they think their readership might like to hear.
In other cases it's actually to manipulate the views of their readers to those of their benefactors. Anyone who thinks this doesn't happen should read http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stick-It-Your-Punter-Newspaper/dp/0571299709, The Story of the Sun Newspaper.
This is much more prevalent in national newspapers, of course.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 30 2014, 05:29 PM
Correct. He did this because he had no power or influence over the route anyway so jumped on the popularity bandwagon despite the LibDems being a so called "green agenda" party.
Right again.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 30 2014, 05:31 PM
This might range from repeating the same rumour over and over again, for example the Express and it's weather headlines, to selective reporting of the facts based on what they think their readership might like to hear.
In other cases it's actually to manipulate the views of their readers to those of their benefactors.
All correct, which is why it was highlighted in the first place in this thread by the OP
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 30 2014, 07:13 PM
Except the OP was cobblers and bias and has made me doubt the integrity of the poster. Not that's important of course.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)