Bloodsports body ‘will hit tourism’

0
Have your say

From: Chris Gale, Chippenham, Wiltshire.

I WAS shocked to learn that Welcome to Yorkshire has recently made the Countryside Alliance (CA) bloodsports organisation an official member.

You will be aware that the CA is a lobby organisation dedicated to seeking the re-legalisation of fox hunting, hare coursing and stag hunting. Polls consistently show that most British people oppose bringing back these cruel “sports” to our countryside.

It is very disturbing that the official tourist body of Yorkshire should grant membership status to an organisation which actively supports cruelty to British wildlife.

It is damaging to the image of Yorkshire and from a marketing angle a huge own goal. I have spoken to many people who feel, as I do, that our perceptions of Yorkshire are damaged through this formal relationship with the CA. It will also certainly influence holiday and purchasing decisions.

I find it appalling that, in the 21st century, the image of Yorkshire should be one where the tourist authority is entering into an alliance with people who represent cruelty to wild animals.

I hope the decision to grant membership to this overtly political bloodsports lobby group is reconsidered.

From: JW Smith, Sutton-on-Sea, Lincolnshire.

YOUR Editorial and article (Yorkshire Post, December 27) repeat the claim that increased numbers of people turning out to watch hunts shows support for the return of fox hunting.

As this increase has come about since the ban was introduced, is it not possible that many people now enjoy seeing the spectacle of meets without the ritual slaughter of one of God’s creatures?

The thought of a pack of blood-thirsty trained killers cheered on and encouraged by another blood-thirsty band on horseback appals most people. Supporters claim it is a quick kill, but how do they know the fox has no fear or feelings?

Let one of them be chased for miles to exhaustion by a bunch of thugs brandishing clubs and he or she will die a thousand deaths before the final blow is struck. I wonder how many of these pious individuals next time on their knees in church pray for forgiveness.

Is it not a sad reflection on life in England today when, after all the doom and gloom forecasts when the ban was introduced, while millions are unemployed and the majority are struggling to made ends meet, not one hunt has ceased to exist and farriers are flourishing?

Many people think killing foxes is justified; so do I, but the ban is against hunting any animals with dogs. Foxes can be killed by other methods.

You say MPs must have another vote, and then conclude that “the country must be allowed to have its say”. Which one is it?

I think it should be put to the people, too many MPs have vested interests.

Paying price of treatment

From: Paul Emsley, Hellifield, North Yorkshire.

I BELIEVE that any corrective surgery or treatment, required as a result of defective materials or procedures used to correct a medical condition and authorised by the NHS, should be considered as a liability against the NHS.

However, where the treatment was performed solely for cosmetic purposes – at the request of the recipient – then they should seek compensation direct from the surgeon or private practice delivering the treatment, not from the public purse.

As with most compensation cases, if the public are seen to be footing the bill, there will be little or no incentive to change and improve such procedures, even when many of us see them as non-essential. The expression “warts and all” comes to mind, but I am aware of some of the social pressures that certain members of the human race might be under, to change their bodies.

However, because of the costs of medical treatment, and the correct priorities for NHS expenditure; this should only be possible where individuals have the money to pay.

If the original surgery is paid for by individuals, then they should have invested in some form of medical insurance, to protect themselves.

Most of us are imperfect, but that is Nature’s way of balancing the species. If we choose to change Nature for personal vanity, then it should be at our own cost and our own risk.

Why should I help to pay for breast implants, or other such procedures, when the money would be better spent helping a paraplegic to get a bionic limb, or for an elderly person to have their cataracts removed?

Back to the top of the page