Talk:Hunting Act 2004
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is the full text of the Act strictly necessary? To me, it seems like article-padding, and the full text of the act is already on the hmso.gov.uk website, which is linked to at the bottom of the article. --RDevz 22:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reversion of User:MikeHobday's edits
In this edit, User:Computerjoe reverted all of User:MikeHobday's edits to the article. It is far from obvious to me why they should be reverted - they seemed to me like useful edits that improved the article. I don't want to just re-revert without discussion, so I hope we can discuss how best to move the article forward here. — ciphergoth 13:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've restored the reverted edits after this discussion with User:Computerjoe. I do not find stylistic problems in them so great that a revert is the only way forward; style issues are easily fixed, and I think this is the right path to the best article.
- I don't want to kick off a revert war; if things get hairy I'll defer to other users on what the best way forward is. — ciphergoth 13:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 2004 Bill
I have removed the following text:
- with many newspapers and broadcasters condemning Tony Blair's Labour administration for giving in to what they perceived as the prejudicial views of anti-hunting Labour backbenchers. MPs of all parties voting for the legislation asserted that hunting caused unnecessary suffering and said that they represented the majority of the public who favoured a ban on hunting with dogs. Their assertion of majority support for the thrust of the legislation seems to have some basis in evidence, a September 2002 survey commissioned by the Daily Telegraph [1] indicated that a narrow majority of people (57%) agreed with the statement that 'hunting with dogs is never acceptable'. However, a survey by MORI for the BBC [2] carried out in February 2005 found that there was no majority (47%) of support for the new legislation
because, legitimate information as it may be, it is relevant to fox hunting or fox hunting legislation rather than this article. MikeHobday 14:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Only Mike Hobday of the League Against Cruel Sports could argue that a poll showing that there is no majority of support for the Hunting Act is not relevant to Hunting Act 2004. Bit embarrassed about public attitudes towards your Act Mike? Tim Bonner, Countryside Alliance.
- Are you going to add in the information that you removed from Parliament Act? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Have done. On first sight, I thought this article included the key material, but on reading your note, realise that there is some extra information to include. Well spotted. MikeHobday 07:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] loophole stuff
this seems to border on POV at times, and definitely needs sourcing. where are we getting the "intent" of Parliament from? Morwen - Talk 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I hope not, though I am very open to the suggestion that the wording can be improved. I think the specifics are justified by the fact that the legislation was written to achieve purposes as endlessly debated in Parliament (over 400 hours, so I am not keen to re-read it all!). What I was struggling with was how to explain in a reasonably analytical way a debate which says (on one hand) "the legislation is nonsense". MikeHobday 07:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Mike Hobday's interpretation of the Hunting Act is obviously skewed and as Morwen suggests based on his own views. I could add a list of things a mile long which the ban "does not stop" most of which involve killing things using methods no more humane than hunting with dogs. Mike would have been better off writing his Bill a bit better in the first place rather than trying to creatively rewrite it here. Tim Bonner
