Faking it - Parliament deceived, say MPs
Friday, July 27, 2007 
Just fancy that! Hardly had the words "prostitution of science" appeared on this blog (see below) than a press release landed in my inbox. A report produced jointly by the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group and the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (and published this morning) claims there is no valid scientific evidence to justify the hunting ban.
The report, The Use, Misuse and Abuse of Science in support of the Hunting Act 2004, argues that government, the media and the public have all been "duped by fake and twisted science". According to the press release:
This document provides the first opportunity to scrutinise the reports, submissions and statements made by anti-hunting groups, some scientists and others during the process which led to the passing of the Hunting Act 2004. It shows that the “large body of scientific evidence”, a claim made by the RSPCA, simply does not exist.
Dr Lewis Thomas for the VAWM, which represents over 550 veterinary surgeons, says, "This carefully compiled document comprehensively puts the scientific record straight in respect of the hunting debate and demonstrates that there are not and never were any scientific grounds for banning hunting on the grounds of cruelty.”
The co-chairs of the Middle Way Group (Baroness Golding - Labour, Peter Luff MP - Conservative, and Lembit Öpik MP - Liberal Democrat) - say, "Parliament does not make judgements based purely on science, but science can guide and inform those who create our laws. To invent, deliberately misinterpret or ignore evidence, the results of which are then fed into the legislative process, is a serious charge. This examination of the so-called science put forward to justify the Hunting Act, demonstrates that Parliament, the media and the public were deceived."
Sound familar?
Reader Comments (14)
Very familiar Simon.
Whilst I'm no fan of fox hunting, during the whole debate I couldn't help but think "it's a FOX!!!". So what if it gets killed by dogs? the species isn't in any danger and has anyone seen what a fox will do if it gets inside a henhouse.
Oh please, won't someone think of the chickens!!
Yes Simon, it does sound very familiar. You say the report produced jointly by the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group and the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (and published this morning) claims there is no valid scientific evidence to justify the hunting ban.
Tell me, was it the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group who actually instigated this report, and if so, what do they intend doing with it, and can the law on banning fox hunting be repealed because of it?
If, hopefully, the answers to above are what I hope and expect, then can we, i.e. Forest and all the other smokers groups throughout the UK instigate a report of our own into the legality of the smoking ban, being that it was also based upon false scientific evidence?
Please let us have an answer from you Simon?
I hope tha passive smoking is proved to be false information and the law is adjusted in accordsnce with their findings. And MP's are not once again taken in by scare mongers.
Even though Parliament was similarly deceived with the use, misuse and abuse of science over the smoking ban, I won't hold my breath while hoping for an investigation. There are too many billions of dollars invested in the anti-smoking crusade, too many scientific careers and too many over-inflated egos at stake for the truth of the matter to be independently established in the public domain anytime soon.
It is also said that the ban will not affect pubs. I have just read in the Bury Free Press that the landlord and landlady of the Elephant and Castle in Bury St Edmunds have given in their notice, before they go bankrupt, as since the ban they are losing about £500 per week.
How many other pubs are suffering? It is never mentioned that hundreds of pubs in Ireland have closed.
I have to agree with ali
first hunting then smoking nobody knows what
happens to the fox or these dogooders except
what some boffin wants to tell them to justify
his or her own job the day this country drops
this PC rubbish and the goverment minds its own
this country will be a lot better place
And the MORAL of the story ?
Surely, that people - even in this Enlightened Age ('Education, Education, Education') will do what they've always done in the past: believe what it SUITS them to believe, and bugger any evidence to the contrary !
It is rather ironic, though, that the very people who are so vociferous in their defence of Animal Rights are so silent when it comes to defending the rights (though I prefer the word 'freedom') of smokers. Perhaps they assume that we all don red tunics at the weekend.....?
Tally Ho !!
Slightly off the debate concerning this topic, but I do wish I had the skill and courage to go fox hunting (is it still legal in Ireland?). I started learning to horse ride 2 years ago and have made good progress but hunting skills would be the cherry on the cake.
Our Labour government will not be in power forever and when the Conservatives return I'm sure that fox hunting will be legalised once more. In the meantime we just have to respect the will of parliament.
Robert, you'd kick elderly people out into the cold for a smoke, and hunt animals just for fun.Yes, that would be the cherry on the cake. What a awful prat you really are.
I agree, Zitori.
I am against bans and always have been. The fox-hunting ban really tore me in two, since I've always thought it an incredibly vile practice. I'm certain that fox-hunting turned my stomach far more than smoking could turn the stomach of even the most rabid anti, and yet I didn't support the ban. Why? Because I knew that one ban would open the door to others, and also because I felt it was far better for the human race if such practices came to a natural end through the evolution of the human mind. Certain as I was then that the Western mindset was naturally reaching toward a kinder place.
Of course, now that bans are the order of the day - now that a 'divide and rule' mentality has reasserted it's ugly head. Now that more people feel disenfranchised and disregarded. Now that people who used to rub along perfectly well in a spirit of tolerance have been pitted against eachother by divisive policy, we're back to "every man for himself". Screw thy neighbour.
The perfect psychological environment for those who say they 'enjoy' hunting. I imagine they're the same types that 'enjoy' using snitch lines.
Obviously it has nothing to do with 'enjoyment'. It's some strange, perverted power game as far as I can see.
Yes Gerry,for some it is power. Power over animals, seen as an inferior species, tailor made for the cowardly bully, power over smokers, also seen by these cretins as inferior, ripe for bullying, ASH springs to mind. Their cowardice is plain to see in the fact they have avoided ANY public debate, and we all know why, because nothing they say can be supported by real science, and would be exposed.I can't wait for that day.
I must add that there are many hunters who are against the smoking ban,on the grounds of freedom no doubt, and I personally am against a hunting ban, because I don't believe it makes any difference,and could possibly lead to more pain for the animals,not because I agree with hunting, because I don't.
No doubt, Zitori. I'm sure there are hunters who are against the smoking ban. But that's partly the point. In a mature society we can disagree vehemently with another on one point, yet laugh and share agreement on another. As things are today it seems you're either wholeheartedly 'with' the social engineering agenda, or you're abnormal.
People are far richer, deeper, more multifaceted and more interesting than that. They've just become entirely two-dimensional to fit the (fabricated) zeitgeist.
I am as vociferous about the rights of animals not to be persecuted by hunters (who,from my observations of them, are people who enjoy exercising power over defenceless animals and birds in the safe knowledge that these creatures can't physically hurt them back),as I am about the rights of smokers not to be persecuted by non-smoking humans who have "ganged-up" with one another to make the lives of smokers as miserable as they possibly can make it. We humans can fight our own battles as we have the power of speech to do so, animals and birds can't fight back in that way against their human tormentors because they can't put their suffering at the hands of their human tormentors into words. The RSPCA and other animal rights groups have provided ample evidence on film and from eye-witness accounts that wild animals do suffer from intolerable levels of stress and more often than not an agonising death when after they've been chased for miles by the hunters' viciously trained dogs are then ripped to pieces at the end of it when from sheer exhaustion they can run no more. It's also not rocket science to know how a human would feel if they were put in that position, is it? Oh, haven't we already had that from those unfortunate people and children who have been attacked by out of control vicious dogs and lived to tell the tale of what they experienced, fear and pain, after it.