UKC

The poster boy of the idiot left revealed his true colours in yesterday's Grauniad . Apparently hunting should be banned not because it is cruel to animals but because it is a symbol of the feudal system which has dominated this country for 900 years . It is simply a class war (his words) .He doesn't like people who wear green wellies so wants to ban their pastimes .

So , football is a symbol of the yob class : ban it .Climbing is symbolic of the upwardly mobile lower middle class :ban it . George Monbiot is symbol of the intolerant left : ban him .

Rant over .

Ps.Sorry , I know this subject has been done to death and normally I can't be bothered with it but this guy is an arse.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Ethically I am against hunting.

I do however resent any attempt to sanitise this country, so therefore oppose the ban on higher grounds.

Fex.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It the only thing the true middle classes have left that isn't a part of any of other class. of course he's right.

In reply to Black Heart Billy:

So anything that you happen not to like because you associate it with people you don't like and a defunct social srtucture you don't like should be banned ?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Agree with the fact that it is more an attempt to homogenise our society than any moral stance on the ethics of hunting.

I am opposed to hunting for other reasons i had a crush on a girl who took part in the village hunt and she broke my heart

In reply to Postmanpat:

Angling without the intent to have the catch eaten is pretty indefensible but they aren't going to ban that.

Nor the grouse shooters.

It's New Labour doing what the Conservatives did to the Miners, hunting for sport.

While not wishing to hunt or angle (or indeed kill defenceless foetuses) I accept these as a matter of personal conscience

In reply to Fex Wazner: there is no morally higher ground than ethics...

In reply to Postmanpat:

He was on Radio 4 this morning. Was almost throwing things at the radio. Jesus, lets ban Barbour jackets while we're at it.

We rush into idiot legislation too cheaply now - if we like something we have to send out 'signals' to the idiot public by making it compulsory (watch out for cycle helmets....) if we don't like someting we have to send out 'signals' by banning it.

I for one think hunting is a bit wierd & sick but I wouldn't ban it on the grounds of basic liberalism - I don't like it but I should just learn to tolerate it.

In reply to Postmanpat: I`d love to see the Right`s finest scum like Hitchen, Littlejohn and Bushell, the great triumvirate of intolerance, all chased by fat men on horseback and ripped to pieces by dogs, but you can`t always get what you want, can you ?

In reply to Postmanpat: I have always had the greatest admiration for Monbiot. I think what he wrote was unfortunate. He has gone from being a brilliant thinker to a nearly always brilliant thinker.

Still think he is right on the nail about everything else I've read of his though.

In reply to Ian Hill:

Good point.

There or some that matter more than others.

fex.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I heard some idiotic opinions from both sides on a R4 phone-in last Saturday. Worst of all though, was some twittering middle-class fox-lover; who in her rant managed to betray a both naked racism and a deep ignorance of the English language.

Which reminded me of the quote (can't remember who by):

I love animals. I just don't like 'animal lovers'.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Such an old argument and certinly not one of his own.

James

In reply to SiHo:
It perhaps reveals where he is really coming from ? Had an unhappy time being buggered by older boys in green wellies at school and has dedicted the rest of his life to revenge . The intellectual veneer is just that .

In reply to Not Foz:


Hardly. It's taken 50 years of campaigning, numerous 'yes' votes in the commons, various different private members bills, and 7 years of political handwringing by the government to finally get to the point where it might be banned. Whether you agree with it or not, you can't say it's been rushed into.

In reply to Postmanpat:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/hunt/Story/0,2763,1303818,00.html
for others who haven't read George Monbiot's article in the Guardian. Interesting reading. Particularly as he went to the same school as the Financial Director of The Countryside Alliance, and has some feel for other "Old Stoics" and their attitude to both animal welfare and us commoners.

In reply to Dominion:

So f**king what ? They may all be armed robbers but it is not a justification for banning their pastime . There may be a case for banning it on animal wlefare grounds .Disliking the attitudes or attire of people is never an excuse for banning something .

How can he call himself a "liberal" with a bigotted stance like this for God's sake ??

In reply to Postmanpat:

Absolutely.

I hold a similar stance and would absolutely hate to be called liberal.

james

In reply to MichaelAW:


You what ? care to ellaborate on that ?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think the gist of the article was that the The Countryside Alliance regard Hunting as a class issue and the preserve of the Aristocracy, in much the same way as he does. It's just that he admits it, and they deny it.

In reply to Daz H:

bad choice of words on my part. Ok - we pass idiot legislation too easily: Parliament exists to legislate and hey, that's what it tends to do, for right or wrong. There should be a strong presumption against legsilating in any area, but culturally this isn't going to be taken on board by any class of professional legislators - it would deny their own self-worth.

And sometimes they legislate too quickly too (remember the Dangerous Dogs Bill??)

In reply to Dominion: there were those posters though - i thought all hunters were nurses and that

In reply to Rothermere:

Bloody liberal.

In reply to Clauso:

http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2004/07/21/prnewswire2004...

James

In reply to Dominion:
I'll give him that .At least he's being honest .

In reply to Not Foz:

So would you rather have a system with so much red tape that passing any new laws would be nigh on impossible? If we want to re-engage the public in politics and ultimately improve democracy, then it need to be easier to pass new legislation, not more difficult. Or is it that you just think it's too easy to pass legislation which you don't agree with?


Of course all new legislation should come under the proper scrutiny and review, but this process shouldn't be used as a blocking tactic by those who oppose the legislation as has happened numerous times with the hunting bill.

In reply to Rothermere:

Do you mind? I was trying to keep that quiet. I'll be in for the high-jump if they find out that I'm moonlighting as a milkman, as well as trying to revive my ailing Scottish international football career.

In reply to Not Foz:

Out of the things to get het up about, this one ended up to symbolic. Of what though, the bloomin class struggle? Grief, I thought that had been done to death already.

Its sickening to think that it has wasted so much time in the courts, but at least the little foxes are safe to squeal under my window at night.

Well if it is illegal, I hope that farmers don't take it into their own hands and start using more snares and, if anyone does get caught hunting, they suffer the same punishment deserved by the badger baiters and get their gonads nailed to a plank.

Fex.

In reply to Daz H:

I just think that there should be a cultural change amongst legistlators, not necessarily procedural ones.

In reply to Not Foz:

Possibly, but I don't think that the hunting ban has come about purely because the lawmakers have nothing better to do. Exactly the opposite in fact, one of the reasons it is being pushed through is precisely because there is more important things for legislators to be doing, and the hunting issue has already wasted far too much parliamentary time.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not his most incisive piece of reasoning ever, but compared to most of the bilge being printed and eagerly read every day in the British press it’s a masterpiece.

In reply to Daz H:

this is where we differ - you think they should just shove it through as a matter of pragmatism. I think you don't infringe freedoms that casually, especially where there is no clear societal consensus.

In reply to Witkacy:

I'd almost rather read about David Beckham's sex life . Actuall I definately would...

In reply to Postmanpat: He was bullied at school and is probably a bedwetter. End of.

In reply to Not Foz:

This is another case of the people who are emotional enough to want their views public have an extremist view, one way or the other. So for the majority of ‘swing voters’ who have to wade through the quagmire of hot air and rhetoric will never be able to arrive at a balanced opinion.

Anybody who thinks that the whole fabric of the countryside will collapse if hunting was banned is clearly deluded.

Conversely, anybody who thinks that a fox’s life is so important that its worth throwing themselves in front of a galloping horse deserves to be kicked in the head.

Personally, I am ambivalent, but am 100% convinced that there is more important matters at hand for out legislature than Basil f’ing Brush!

In reply to TopOut:

As i said earlier, I don't like it but I have no desire to see everthing i don't like banned.

A lot of people don't like/understand what climbers do....

In reply to Postmanpat:

I have just read the Grauniad article (have all of you at least done so?) and I agree with just about all he says. It's always seemed to me that hunting and other blood sports, bull fighting for example, harm those involved and spectators drawing pleasure from the brutality as much as the animals being harmed.

Many farmers who refuse "the hunt" access to their land, and there are some, are looked upon with great scorn by their fellows. Class, and the desire to dominate, has a lot to do with the unpleasant side of fox hunting.

After the French revolution, the ordinary people gained the right to hunt, which had always been denied them and were quick to make use of it. The result now is that in the countryside hunting with guns is so popular that crossing France is a major problem for many species of birds.

Go into a 'local' village cafe on a Sunday afternoon during the hunting season and look around you at the red nosed men (mostly men) and you will see another fine example of the dehumanising and brutalising effect of killing (or trying to kill) small animals. Not a pretty sight!

In reply to Not Foz:

Its about time we concentrated on everybody's freedoms, rather than removing them one at a time.

Fex.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

That is one of the problems of repealing laws - everybody goes to town. So it is dangerous to introduce a law that does not have a massive concensus behind it.

Not that I agree with it, but I don't believe that fox hunting here is not threatening the species and is not likely to.

Fex.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So , you would ban soccer because it attracts , and arguably is defined by , a hooligan element whose propensity for violence , drunkeness and generally unsocial behavoiur pervades the whole sport ?

What have you said except that you do not like what you believe to be the attitudes of people who hunt ( or at least ,as Monbiot emphasises, a proportion of them )and therefore would ban hunting ???

In reply to Fex Wazner:

The point of the article was, if I understand correctly, that the most important reason to ban fox hunting was not the harm done to the animal but the nature of the sport in human terms - a last remaining vestige of the feudal, Norman, mentality. This was considered as unacceptable in modern Britain.

I would go along with the author on this one. A bit like the House of Lords - another reminder of a past that belongs only in history books.

In reply to GrahamD:
Hunting down the miners after the strike by destroying the industry became an end in itself for the Conservatives, ie a "sport"

That is what is happening in New Labour, as this cause is all about demonising a lawful pursuit and those engaged in it for reasons of class.

the anglers are of course working class and are honourable drinking and gambling folk, and of course gambling is to be esteemed, furthermore promoted, in the new order.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Mahatma Ghandi quote:

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated."

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

His analysis of the social background and ethos of hunting may (or may not) be correct . How can you possibly use this as a justification for banning it ??? A liberal democracy simply doesn't ban sports on the grounds of social engineering . It's almost on a level with book burning .

The House of Lords issue is completely different .It is/was a political structure specifically designed to maintain the authority of the aristicracy and was thus a legitimate target for change . Do you really believe that changing this is the same as banning a pastime because it has ancient and vague assocoaition in your mind with a defunct social system .

In reply to Postmanpat:

Our posts crossed. I can't stand spectator sports myself but that doesn't mean I think they should all be banned. It's true that spectator football attracts (and perhaps encourages) hooligans and the effect of crowds can be very unhealthy - they always remind me of Nurenberg rallies every time I see a football crowd rumbling in unison on the news - but the players are volunteers so if they hurt themselves they have only themselves to blame. The same cannot be said for foxes and bulls.

As human beings we have a duty not to abuse the power over other species that our intelligence (!) has given us. For me the fact that the hunter derives pleasure from hunting down and killing another living creature is the other major problem. It's hardly going in the direction that I would like human society to be going... but thats not what the Guardian article is on about.

Control of the already high fox population would (and is already) clearly be required anyway, but one that is less painfull for the fox and less damaging for society as a whole and the hunter in particular shouldn't be too hard to find.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>another reminder of a past that belongs only in history books.

Fine. So hold them in comtempt by all means. But why the need to criminalise them?

In reply to Dominion:

What, as in 'honey-roast' or 'applewood cured'?

I agree with him wholeheartedly in that case.

James

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Well now you've just gone back to the animal welfare justification (sort of ) . Does that mean that you disagree with Monbiot's justification for baning purely on class war grounds ?

In reply to Bruce Hooker

blimey i actually agree with you!

maybe foxes in some areas (and there arent many) need to be culled but it doesnt need to be done by 150+ strong bloodthirsty voyuers !

the alternatives to hunting are just as sickening though. what about the young lad shot by the trigger happy idiots while they were lamping.

lamping is vile and should most def be banned.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You talk complete sense.

I am from the ultra conservative school that can't stand to see all the idiosyncrasies get left to the history books. I feel comfortable in the old world and not too keen on the way things are going. I am a totally deluded sad git for trying to cling on to a time (in my lifetime) where I thought everyone had a little more freedom.

Fex.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Not so sure I'd agree. Shooting has dangers that have been highlighted only reccently. Poisioning would be dificult to not be indiscriminate. You often hear about bans, but I can't recall many (if indeed any) swerious suggestions to what it would be replaced with, and indeed where the funding for it would come from.

In reply to Postmanpat:
.

I would say the article argues quite convincingly that fox hunting too "is/was a political structure specifically designed to maintain the authority of the aristicracy" as you aptly put it and is therefore, to quote (out of context, I admit) you again: "a legitimate target for change".

In reply to Dominion:

Once again Ghandi shows the way. The way we treat animals, and innocent creatures under our power in general, says a lot about whether we can consider ourselves "civilized" or not.

In reply to D Berry:

This has been argued before but I don't think you can seriously say that fox hunting with hounds and horses is a cost efficent way of keeping the fox population down!

That's definitely a red herring. If I remember correctly the last discussion a few months ago, contraception (with pills, silly!) was reckoned to be an easy and cheap way of controlling things. It doesn't actually kill the foxes, nor even stop them having their bit of fun, but it prevents conception.

Or will some catholic bishop pick me up on this one?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Of course one differnce is that (although to me not crucial) is that the country landowners no longer wield power whereas the House of Lords did . either way , you would presumably knock down all country houses , ban green wellies , ban the Anglican Church , ban tweed jackets with patches , ban all Henrys , Percys , Johns , Richards (Anglo Norman names ) , modern eventing , dressage and any other symbols that reminded you of a currently virtually powerless class ?

Welcome to the upside down world of the modern liberal intelligentsia !

Incidentally , it is my firm belief that rugby is primarily a game of the middle class Thatcherite classes .Should we ban that ?

In reply to Not Foz:

Quite the opposite. I don't see what's so pragmatic about passing a bill which will in all likelihood cause widespread civil disobediance, and overshadow an election campaign with an issue which is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The pragmatic thing to do would have been to forget about it or leave it until after the election.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
1) People who fish or shoot are more directly involved in gaining pleasure or satisfaction from the act of catching, molesting or killing an animal.

2) People who follow a hunt may well be gaining a lot of incidental pleasure (social, physical, sensual - eg enjoyment of the countryside etc) which is not derived primarily from the kill itself.

3) Why does cost effective matter if people whose recreation costs money and fulfils a purpose subscribe to keep it going?


4) Why have you not mentioned fishing?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Almost definitely!

In reply to Daz H:



So rushing it through is neither principled NOR pragmatic!! So it has absolutely nothing going for it!! Arrrrgggghhhhh

In reply to Postmanpat: What does morality say about causing suffery by banning a way of life?

If you ban an activity which is part of what makes people tick then where do you stop.

Imagine mountaineering/climbing being banned because it was immoral for people to expect treating for self inflicted injuries or putting rescuers at risk?

Think how much of your life might feel as if it is being taken away.

Imagine the same for people whose sport is participating in hunting (and not necessarily killing).

The same prescriptive values allow you to walk into another weaker country by force of arms to stop something you choose not to like, and cause many deaths in the process

In reply to Postmanpat:

But unless I'm mistaken, rugby rarely kills small creatures.

Apart from asking what the Anglican church is doing in your list, I'm sure you realise that this line of argument is not relevant. If there is a debate and the strong (I hope) possibility of a law to ban or limit fox hunting, it is because a large number of people feel strongly that this is necessary.

The day the same thing happens for Percys and "modern eventing" (whatever that is!) then these activities may well come under scrutiny. Extrapolating absurdly is more a sign that you are short of good arguments than anything else.

My second christian name is William, as is my son's first one: I'm not proposing my auto-destruction. Some things from the past are positive or harmless, others are not and need to be dealt with by legislation when persuasion fails.

In reply to MichaelAW:

This has become a class issue and it's the sheer hypocrisy that gets me. Either they are against blood sports or they are not. What is indefensible is to say that some types are OK whereas others aren't.

In reply to Daz H:

Ahh,another class warrior comes out of the woodwork !

In reply to MichaelAW:

As a method for controlling the fox population if hunting were banned? Must admit I hadn't thought of that!

In reply to Trangia:

Once again, the point is that all this is part of the democratic system. When enough people feel strongly about something it becomes an issue, then a debate and finally, after years and years of arguing for and against it may rise to Parliament and, if the majority of democratically elected members think one way or another the something may become a new law.

It's hardly an overnight change! Surely a similar activity could be devised that would satisfy the sporting desires of horsey people?

In reply to MichaelAW:


So why do they say they'll stop doing it, and have to put down all the dogs and horses, and farriers etc would go out of business because of the lack of horses to equip - when they could extract all the same social, physical and sensual enjoyment from drag-hunting?

Presumably banning "hunting with dogs" doesn't apply to drag-hunting - although it may do so. Also drag-hunting wouldn't have to have a "close" season - to allow more foxes to breed - so there is potential for even more enjoyment, and work for farriers etc.

In reply to Not Foz:


As I said earlier, it hasn't been rushed through, it's taken years. I wouldn't say it was pragmatic either from a political point of view for the reason I gave before. As for it being principled, that's open to debate. Animal welfare/rights and class struggle issues aside, it comes down to whether preserving the freedoms of a minority group is more important than the right of parliament to pass laws which it has been empowered to do.

And on a separate point. If banning hunting is an issue of personal freedom, then where were the countryside alliance when David Blunkett was introducing lots of new anti-terrorist laws which infringe on the very basic freedoms of all of us, and not just a minority?

In reply to Daz H:



They could have been against both. Who knows?

Fex.

In reply to Fex Wazner:


You reckon? Honestly?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Football,not soccer ( you aren`t a rightwing Yank, are you?) has not been "defined by a hooligan element" for at least ten years, at least in this country- other than in the reactionary press.Do you attend many football matches upon which to make this judgement ?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

And lets not forget that an election is coming up, so the pro-hunters have an ideal and early opportunity to stop the ban before it even starts.

In reply to lummox: Do you attend many hunts to make your judgement?

In reply to Lewis climber:

I haven`t commented on hunting, as far as I`m aware. Merely rightwing hacks. Unless you can enlighten me otherwise ?

In reply to Daz H:

I can't speak for them (as a non hunter) but I am certainly against both

In reply to lummox:
Do you attend many football matches upon which to make this judgement ?

Very seldom but I don't suppose many labour MPS go fox hunting . You are probably right , although the crude racist , tribal element appears to be alive judging from the chants and well and the violent underbelly is less well reported than twenty years ago because it has migrated to the lower divisions .

That is not really the point .The point is ,were my characterisation to be true would it be a justifaction for banning the game ?

In reply to Postmanpat: a confession: i got a perverse pleasure at watching the police laying into the no-chin sloperesque protesters...

In reply to MichaelAW:

Actually this reminds me of the time when the countryside alliance first start using the civil liberties/oppressed minority line of argument (as opposed to the animal welfare/countryside management arguments). A delegation of the Cheshire Forest Foxhunt, The Forest & District Beagles and the Sharston Terrier Club went down to Canal St in Manchester equipped with a horse, a few hounds and dressed up in all their hunting regalia. The idea was to rally support from a fellow minority who were also oppressed (the gay scene, if anyone doesn't know about Canal St in Manc). It was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Needless to say solidarity was in short supply.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I was not nessessarily supporting the horsey camp, I just get annoyed when only one sector of blood sports is targeted. For or against I think society needs to be consistent.

I agree that there there must be, in fact there is, an alternative EG Drag Hunting, but I suppose following a scent laid by another human being lacks the spontanuity of that set by a wild animal.

Maybe today's technology can devise a method of laying a trail with all the uncertainty, thrills and spills of a chase?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

BUT THIS IS NOT MONBIOTS POINT IS IT ?? you keep going back to the animal welfare point .

"The Tory party at parayer" .It was quintisentially part of the hierachical power structure for 900 years .

>

The extrapolation is perfectly fair .If you ignore the animal wefare argument then , as Monbiot says , hunting is wrong as a "symbol" not physical part of a feudal powere structure as are most vestiges of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy ,examples of which I list (all country sports could of course be included0 Isn't modern eventing that thing Princess anne did ?

In reply to all:

how do we feel about peer-baiting?

In reply to Tobs at work:

There's nothing perverse in that. From a class war point of view there's nothing better, the Police v Rightwing Tory Inbreds. What could be better?

In reply to Daz H:

Where is bloody Sloper when we need him anyway ? At the protest ?

In reply to Postmanpat:
I don't think you'll find the anglican church has been around for 900 years! but lets not let facts get into this!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Good point,you know what I mean ! Actually , it just supports the point .Henry parted with Rome to confirm his own authority at the pyramid of the power structure .

In reply to MichaelAW:


Well, thats one view of events. No doubt there was sport to be had when they stopped building steam engines as well - or maybe that was just an obsolete industry ?

You may or may not agree with the free market principal, but that is what the miners were a victim of, not 'sport'. Their plight was made worse because an uneconomic industry had been propped up for far too long, rather than allowing it to move with the times. The crash, when it inevitably happened, was always going to be spectacular and, on a personal level, tragic.

In reply to all:

or toff-tracking, how about that? aaahh takes me back to crunching through the frost to smoke out my first chinless nob on a crisp winter's morning with me da.

In reply to GrahamD:

Oh my God . Do you know what you're doing going here on this board ? The wrath of Hampstead will descend upon your head . Berlieve me mate , it's not worth it .

In reply to Postmanpat:
Dude have u read any of his books...and do u have a naked effigy of Margaret Thatcher in your pad?

In reply to mowgster:

Yes and no (and I'm not a dude ,thankyou)

In reply to Bruce Hooker: The Tax payer dosen't subsidise hunts, poisioning or shooting would have to be. And I have difficulty recalling the last time hunting killed anyone.

The pill for foxes likewise for the subsidy and would not weed out weaker foxes as hunting does.

In reply to D Berry:


If you can cast your mind back to Monday

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1074732004

"13-YEAR-OLD boy may have been mistaken for a fox when he was shot dead during a hunting expedition"

In reply to DougG: Sorry. That would be 'hunting' foxes by shooting them. An alternative to hunting with hounds. Though after that hopefully one not pursed too vigourously.

In reply to GrahamD:


Ah yes, that must be why we import tomns of coal from the former eastern block today then? And such a shame that when the oil runs out all those pits will be unworkably flooded. Bollocks, mate, it had nothing to do with economics and everything to do with the Ridley Plan. This was a central plank of Tory Strategy in the 80s which spelt out a plan to reduce trade union power by taking on, one at a time, powerful groups of organised workers. The widespread drug use in the devastated former mining communities today is just one of the outcomes. The country side alliance whinge on about the destruction of their way of life. Bollocks. If you want to see what the destruction of a way of life means, look at what thatcher did to the mining communities.

In reply to Vertically_Challenged: personally i am proud enough to not want to live in a subsidised community. the crime was not in closing the mines but not paying the communities their fair share of the profit from the previous 100 years of mining. she should have redistributed this in proper retraining and investment though.

In reply to Vertically_Challenged:

And there was me thinking that you were against the burning of fossil fuels.

In reply to Vertically_Challenged: I know I should be going here but whatever..

British coal has a)the wrong sulphur content b) was and is largely uneconomic to extract c)The intial closure plan presented in the early 80s to the NUM was on much the same terms as closure plans by Tory and labour governemtns for the previous twenty years .The NUM chose to refuse the terms .

In reply to D Berry:

That's debateable, but as hunters themselves point out they don't often catch the fox. There must be someone with the figures but I bet the real job of controlling the fox population is already done by other means.

Why not accept democracy, there has been a very long debate, both sides, including on the pro-hunting side some of the richest and most influential people in the country, have done all they could to sway things one way or another and now the vote has taken place in Parliament and that's it.

If you really find it a major issue you know exactly what to do in coming elections, but until then accept democracy as other people have to do every day - hunters aren't a "special case".

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yeah gathered that bit Tory boy

In reply to mowgster:
Nor,unlike you, am I a boy ,sunshine.