On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:33:04 +0100, "Derek.Moody"
wrote:

In article , Norman
wrote:

House of Lords was reformed recently it always had a conservative
majority as the "Lords", who were not elected by the people, mostly
supported the Conservative principles.

Tony Blair has created the House of Lords that -he- wanted - and stuffed it
with appointees yet still they won't pass this one.

To introduce a licence or sea fishing tax the government/local council
etc would have to go through the procedure of making legislation to
make it legal.

Yes

All the two million + anglers would have to do is to
vote for the party that opposed this.

Hmmmm. The CA got 400K people to march in London. How many do you think
would actually turn up if the NFSA asked them..?

Sea fishing has a lot more support from ordinary people which
contrasts that of fox hunting which is primarily an activity rich
people indulge in.

You're wrong there I'm afraid.

A year's hunt membership costs about the same as a football season ticket.
A day's wrecking costs more than a day's hunting. It's cheaper if you
folllow on foot - the majority follow on foot.

Of course if you want to spend more you can - just like certain angling
tackle-junkies.

Outside the home counties the great majority of hunters are 'working' class.
(One of the checkout girls in my local supermarket for eg.)

Of course the Anti's don't bother to tell you any of this. It's no secret
that fishing is due for a lot more anti pressure once this one has gone
through, are you ready?
What you are talking about is a collection of people who following
hunting for its traditional aspects and are mearly observers.
It costs about £200 per week to keep a horse and thousands more to buy
all the regalia, horse equipment and transport.
It cost nothing to watch someone fishing and there is no comparison in
the financial outlay needed for the two activities. Notice I do not
use the term "sport" as neither activity conforms to the definition
"an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition "

The House of Lords is another relic of English history and hangs on to
credibility only because the people with all the power in this country
support it.
In May 2000 a change was made to the way in which non-party-political
members of the House of Lords were appointed. The Appointments
Commission was given the key role of recommending to Her Majesty The
Queen the names of individuals they think should be appointed on
merit. As you can see Mr Blair is not involved in the selection of
members. If he was I am sure the voting in the House of Lords would be
different to what it is.
If you recall King Charles 1 tried interferring in the running of
parliament and ended up causing a civil war, which he lost, and
eventually having his head chopped off.

Every other western country in the world has elected representatives
in the various seats of government. The interim situation that exists
in the "Lords" there today will be replaced hopefully with a more
democratic setup in the none too distant future.
Why Tony Blair should come in for such hostility over the issue is
beyond me. He is the elected leader of the Labour Party (Prime
Minister now they are in government). The decision to ban hunting with
dogs was taken by parliament just as the decision to close coal mines,
steel works and ship building was in the 80s.

Sea fishing was traditionally done to supplement the food supply for
the people who lived in the coastal areas of the country. Fox hunting
was never undertaken by the common people. The faithful "retainers"
looked after the dogs, horses and cleaned the gentry's boots gripping
their forelocks if their "Lords" glanced in their direction.

The moral of all this is that the "people" will decide what happens in
this country and since Queen Victoria's era the landed gentry are
getting less influential and the commonality more influential.

Norman