Avoiding the questions, the Cameron way

David Cameron says little when it comes to substance on most issues. Labour have rightly shown up his lack of ability to deal with policy, even on hunting he is deceptive over his true intentions. He hides his passion for bringing back animal cruelty by hiding it behind words such as “a Free Vote”.

His favourite ploy, when challenged to explain his support for animal cruelty, is to claim hunting is traditional and a way of life. He will also imply all rural people support hunting despite knowing full well this is not true. If he was to succeed it would be horrendous for our wildlife.

Yet does Cameron care? No, for in repealing the ban he would be the first British Prime Minister to ever scrap an animal welfare law, yet Cameron is less keen to be associated with the reality. He knows its cruel. He and all hunters know that, yet he wants you to believe it’s not as bad as this campaign and others will tell you.

Below is how he responds to people opposed to his plan.  The reply is not from Cameron directly, but instead from his office. This is a standard response that goes out to all that oppose his view.  It’s more than likely that Cameron has never taken the time to read one letter that disagrees with him.

His response however is not really good enough for replying in this way. It shows the typical arrogance we have come to know from him. Where is the level of understanding as to why people are so upset with him. Where is any response to concerns about the suffering of animals that is meaningful and true. Where is his understanding that democracy has spoken and society does not want hunting with dogs back?

Truth is, that regardless of whether you have been a Tory for 30 years, have campaigned for animals or are a constituent who will now back Labour because of his view, Cameron will not be interested unless of course you support animal cruelty.

To add insult to injury his office provides a link to a Telegraph article in which Shadow DEFRA Minister Nick Herbert professes his belief that the ban must go. While doing so, of course, he forgets to tell the readers that he was the Head of Communications for the most pro bloodsport group there was; The British Field Sport Society (BFSS) which is now, of course, The Countryside Alliance…?

The article also fails to mention that Nick Herbert is, or has been, part of a Beagle Hunt Pack…? So, in short, how is a biased article from another one of Camerons bloodsport chums meant to give any balance in response?

We have added an original letter that would receive such a reply… If you compare the two letters you will see how little thought goes into Cameron’s response.


We have removed the names of the sender and receiver of this e-mail to help protect peoples identity.

From: CAMERON, David
To: “‘@@@@@@@@'”
Date: ^^^^, ++++, 2010, +++++

Dear **********

I am writing on behalf of David Cameron to thank you for your  recent e-mail about the Hunting Act.

Even though we may not be in agreement, David does appreciate your taking the trouble to get in touch and set out your thoughts. Hunting is one of those issues that arouse very strong feelings, and we understand your concern to ensure the welfare of all animals – that is a concern which we share. 

In our view, however, the Hunting Act actually does very little to protect wild animals and, in many cases, is actually detrimental to animal welfare. This is particularly true when other methods of control are deployed, a number of which can be indiscriminate. In addition to this, the Act itself has proved extremely impractical to implement.

That is why David has said that, if we win the election, we will offer a free vote on the repeal of the Act in Government time. If a majority of MPs are in favour of repealing the Act, we will act on the will of the House.

I am sorry if this was not the answer you were hoping to receive. David does appreciate that many people have sincerely held concerns about hunting and we respect their views.

In case it is of interest, I am attaching a recent article by our Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment and Rural Affairs, Nick H erbert MP, which sets out his thoughts on some of the issues which are affected by the Act. I hope this is helpful.


Thank you, again, for getting in touch with David and setting out your thoughts.

Yours sincerely

***** ******

Office of David Cameron MP

House of Commons

London   SW1A 0AA


We have removed the address of the sender to protect thier privacy.

 24 January, 2010

Mr. David Cameron, MP

House of Commons,

London, SW1A 0AA


Dear Mr. Cameron,

I hope you will have the courtesy to read my entire letter.   Your reading it will take less time than my writing it.

Neither I nor any member of my family will be voting Conservative in the next election because of The Hunting Act. Late last year you made a statement on television “that a Conservative Government will be a government that listens to the people should you win the next election”.

Please explain this statement.

It is my understanding that although we are a monarchy we also believe in the democratic process i.e  Democracy. 

I believe the word democracy comes from the Greek “DEMOS” ‘the people’ plus “KRATIA”  ‘power, rule’.  The concept originating in certain city states of ancient Greece in which power was exercised directly by the whole citizen body rather than indirectly by voting for a representative.

If you and the Tory Party believe in the democratic process and if you plan to abide by your statement, you have no option but to listen to the citizen body (electorate) the majority of whom wish to retain The Hunting with Dogs Act.  May I refresh your memory. Sir?

  • Polling figures by Ipsos MORI released on the 3rd anniversary of the ban on hunting with dogs revealed that a vast majority of the people do not want hunting wild animals (foxes, deer, hare, mink) with dogs to be made legal again.
  • Exact figures indicated 73% do not want fox hunting to be made legal again. 81% did not want deer hunting to be made legal again.  82% did not want hare coursing or hunting to be made legal again.  I don’t have the figure for mink.

It is my understanding that surveys conducted by Ipsos MORI in 2009 reflected virtually the same support FOR the Hunting Act.  Can you not accept, Mr. Cameron,

That we, the majority, do NOT want a return to the Dark Ages where animals are pursued for miles by dogs (hounds) and then ripped apart or, in the case of deer who often instinctively seek water when exhausted, are drowned to “save a bullet”.

Naturally, you are aware, the second attempt by those who believe in traditional countryside. cruelties who sought judgement in The European Court of Human Rights using the lame excuse, along with other drivel, that The Hunting Act denied their Human Rights and should be overturned, failed again.  Failed by a unanimous vote for many reasons among which were: 

  • Hunting bans had not created serious difficulties for earning one’s living.    The hunting bans in Scotland, Wales and England did not prevent or restrict the right to assemble with other huntsmen. As they remained free to engage in many alternatives to hunting such as drag or trail hunting. Which did not involve live quarry. 
  • The bans had been designed to eliminate hunting and killing for sport in a manner causing suffering as well as being morally objectionable.  

I would like to add, Mr. Cameron,that last November I talked with a lady who told me “she preferred trail hunting not only because of the moral issue but it provided more riding and less hanging about”.   She was obviously intelligent.  What’s wrong with your lot?

We are all aware the present economic situation will require cutbacks across the board including funding for police forces.  Prior to The Ban police forces around the country spent many thousands of pounds attending hunt meets in case of possible trouble. 

Why should decent, compassionate tax payers foot the bill again in order to allow a minority of degenerates to gallop across the countryside searching for victims on which to commit acts of cruelty?  

Finally, as a member of a Christian church I would like to ask how you have the temerity to support evil?  I ask you, Mr. Cameron, can you envisage Jesus astride a horse in pursuit of a traumatized animal, hallooing and clapping when the blooded corpse of the victim is triumphantly displayed?  

If this vision is offensive how can you possibly consider re-introducing cruelty back into our land if you hold Christian beliefs?

Please do not hide behind the excuse of “A free vote in the House of Commons”.  With the integrity and morality of many MP’s in question, how can we, the electorate, trust our own M.P. to vote according to the democratic process and not for a minority of favoured constituents? 

My own M.P. states he supports “traditional countryside pursuits (blood sports if you wish clarity) as a matter of  conscience. I presume this would be the same “conscience” that diverted £9,000 of tax payers money to pay for gardening expenses at his second home. 

This is the same M.P. who, in September of 1997, instructed a member of his London office “to bin anything that was anti-hunt”.  I remember it well. 

I had just mailed him a petition containing 1,000 signatures from people living in two market towns (Woodbridge and Framlingham) supporting Michael Foster’s Private Members Hunting Bill. 

Public support for a ban was so great I had to buy five more clipboards to supplement the two in operation in order to cope with the queue of people patiently waiting to sign their support for a Ban.

The Petition and covering letter were not acknowledged.   After 3 weeks I phoned my MP’s London office but was informed he was unavailable, or whatever that means in the jargon of a politician.  I asked the gentleman at the other end why my Petition had not received the courtesy of a reply and I was met with a long silence. 

I then asked if he could give me an approximate percentage of what pro hunt correspondence my MP had received since Mr. Foster’s Bill vs. an approximate percentage of anti-hunt correspondence.  He said he could not.  I asked why?  “Because” said the gentleman in my M.P’s office, “I have been instructed to bin everything that is anti-hunt.”

So much for democracy, integrity, morality and honesty!  A Free vote in the House of Commons on The Hunting Act would be a total sham.  How many will have the integrity to vote according to the wishes of the majority of their constituents?   What a scam.

Finally, please do not hide behind the excuse for a repeal “because The Ban is unenforceable”.  Name one enforced law that prevents 100% of crime?  Should we repeal laws against burglary, rape, shop lifting, drug dealing, murder, mugging, terrorism, money laundering, credit fraud, to name just a few, because they are constantly being broken?  Of course, not! 

Without  laws there would be no base for arrest and/or prosecutions and we would have anarchy. The Hunting with Dogs Act is enforceable and as you are aware. There have already been a number of successful prosecutions against those who feel they are above the law and who also suffer from a Morals Bypass Syndrome.

Kind regards from someone who was raised in the countryside by land owning parents. I enjoyed a Public School education too; all the qualifications required by the Blood Sports Brigade if one is wealthy enough to own a horse.

Mrs. ***********


4 Responses to “Avoiding the questions, the Cameron way”

  1. 1 mhayworth
    February 13, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    Most of the pro-hunt Tory response letters been copied from one central statement and all boast of being concerned about animal welfare which is ludicrous considering their zeal to get back to the kill.

    I wonder what Cameron thought of this comment posted by one of his bloodsports friends in the news on Jan.21st:

    ‘David Cameron was selected to lead the conservative party by the Countryside Alliance when Michael Howard stood down.
    He is a member of the countryside set and understands the joys of hunting. It is a minority sport and we do not expect the general public to understand it.
    It will not be a big election issue as people are more worried about their jobs and public services.

    Rest assure hunting will return to normal next season and no one will stop us!
    Hugo Forbes-Grey, Wells
    commented on 21-Jan-2010 20:07

  2. February 15, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    It is a very good qoute, not for the hunters or for Cameron. It dose however highlight what many have felt for some time. That Camerons rise up the ranks had more to do with his love of hunting then he commitment to real issues afecting society.

    The term the Countrysdie Alliance Party has new meaning since Cameron became leader. We are seeing a man driven by the need to kill for fun. For there can be few people in the world who would aspire to such deliberate animal cruelty.

    It seems however that Cameron has a natural lover of all things dead. For its clear he would enjoy the company of Shara Palin…You can see the night of Obhama’s win…Cameron with his pro hunting chums desperatly thinking that McCain could still win.

    Not because Cameron thought much of McCain…No, yet when it come to Palin well its almost if they were long lost sweathearts. These two are so alike its uncanny. Both are incompetant. Both have little to no grasp on the real world, unless someone tells them. While worst of all both assume that animal cruelty is such fun and right.

    Whatever the reason why Cameron got to the top of the Tory Party it was not about society. Well just a little, for it is about those that kill for fun. For they seem to warrent the UKs resources in protection to ensure they can carry on regardless.

    Forget decent society and democracy. Cameron’s coming through and he cares not a jot what you think. Well people do care about our widlife and its one of the reasons why Cameron will lose the election.

    • 3 saynototories
      February 17, 2010 at 9:36 pm

      Exactly right. Labour is the only party that will protect the hunt ban and improve it. There is no such as a safe Tory vote. If you value a future for animal welfare vote Labour. Dont let deluded and naive people tell you the Tories are safe to flirt with.

  3. 4 saynototories
    February 17, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    Thre bottom line is that if Cameron and his bloodsports cronies win the election it will be curtains for our wildlife. The Tory hierarchy from top to bottom will do the bidding of the Countryside Alliance bloodsports organisation.
    Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking it is safe to vote Tory, it certainly is not!

    Chris Gale

    anti-hunt campaigner

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Catch up zone

What’s hot

Fox in Parliament on Twitter

RSS News from the Leuage Against Cruel Sports

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Fox in Parliament Stats

  • 50,691 hits & views

Flickr Photos


February 2010
« Jan   Apr »

Top Clicks

  • None



%d bloggers like this: