|
Post by daniwithchester on Oct 28, 2009 11:03:07 GMT 1
|
|
Bay Mare
Grand Prix Poster
Olympic Poster
Speak to the hoof
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by Bay Mare on Oct 28, 2009 11:08:22 GMT 1
It's not so much that they're anti hunting (I wouldn't expect anything less from Lush) but the fact that they're supporting the HSA, who use less than peaceful tactics, that I have an issue with. Lush obviously haven't researched the HSA other than taking their party political statements at face value. There have been enough people protesting at Lush's stance but they simply don't want to listen. It isn't just pro-hunting people who are boycotting Lush, it is the antis who don't agree with the tactics of the HSA too.
|
|
|
Post by cbc on Oct 28, 2009 11:13:02 GMT 1
Couldnt have put it better myself Baymare.
|
|
|
Post by donnalex on Oct 28, 2009 11:15:34 GMT 1
Wonder if they know they are paying for people to physically attack others? And maybe for the diesel to drive around the country terrorising law abiding hunts?
|
|
tamzin
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 247
|
Post by tamzin on Oct 28, 2009 11:34:38 GMT 1
I think they do know exactly what these people do and they are probably also invovled in what these people do. Again Hunting is not the issue here its abuse methods as everyone has said. There are other ways to deal with this matter and abuse is not one of them, otherwise everyone would be physically fighting with each other because they didnt agree with what they were doing.
|
|
|
Post by portiabuzz on Oct 28, 2009 12:39:49 GMT 1
i've never heard of HSA so cant comment on them...however if hadn't seen the link on here i would have bought them as am anti....but violence doesnt solve anything
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Oct 28, 2009 13:20:14 GMT 1
The HSA claim to use peaceful and non violent means. Are we sure we aren't guilty of a dollop of brush tarring here just because some hunt saboteurs don't?
No different to assuming that all hunters are arrogant, bloodthirsty and stuck up is it?
|
|
|
Post by jonswager on Oct 28, 2009 13:35:59 GMT 1
The HSA claim to use peaceful and non violent means. Are we sure we aren't guilty of a dollop of brush tarring here just because some hunt saboteurs don't? No different to assuming that all hunters are arrogant, bloodthirsty and stuck up is it? Thats very true. The HSA is run by volunteers and most members are peacefull and non violent and are trying to put a stop to animal cruelty with direct (NON VIOLENT) action ie using the horn to confuse the hounds, covering up the scent of the fox and in some cases standing in front of a fox gone to ground to prevent terrier men from digging it out .
|
|
|
Post by pinkpony on Oct 28, 2009 13:59:41 GMT 1
Good comment Yann, couldnt have put it better my self! And maybe for the diesel to drive around the country terrorising law abiding hunts? Sorry, but whats that go to do with anything??
|
|
|
Post by amelia on Oct 28, 2009 14:11:47 GMT 1
Yes most members of the HSA are peaceful and non volient in their methods but NOT all. There have been many cases of jumps being saboutaged with barbed wire so that the horses will cut their legs, and one member physically attacked a man in front of his children. The HSA have caused injury to humans, horses and hounds and I think it is absolutely disgusting that Lush is supporting this
|
|
|
Post by lawyerbunny on Oct 28, 2009 14:38:22 GMT 1
Now, feelings are strong on both sides of the hunting argument here, but I think the point for discussion is whether Lush, as a high street chain, should publically back - of all the anti-hunting groups out there - the HSA. That obviously goes beyond standing against fox-hunting, and places them behind a particular organisation. It implicitly condones their actions.
There has been a fair bit in the press about the HSA having been involved in 'less-than-peaceful' incidents in the past. I entirely accept that not all their members have been, and probably (hopefully!) only a small minority. Perhaps as a decent-sized retailer, Lush could have made it clear that they in no way supported such actions. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by thewondersquirrel on Oct 28, 2009 14:45:05 GMT 1
The point to me is entirely separate from the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of hunting but about violence - the HSA are, by reputation, an organisation that supports 'violent' means to achieve its ends. They should not be supported by a high street chain, IMHO. The means and actions of the organisation deserve far more scrutiny than the average person who buys smellies on the high street is likely to give them, IMHO. Considering many view some aspects of horsemanship involving what others might see as mild forms of contact as 'violent' can we assume the bar should be drawn in a similar position for humans' behaviour towards each other..? Not meaning to set hares running with that, btw (and apologies for the couple of puns etc in the above, not intended, honest! one of those moods today...!)
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Oct 28, 2009 14:50:54 GMT 1
And who has a vested interest in promoting that 'reputation'? Not a lobby group with an awful lot of money and influence by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by thewondersquirrel on Oct 28, 2009 14:59:02 GMT 1
Not necessarily exclusively promoted by any group of people/lobby group I don't think, Yann. I haven't the time to research it, though, so that's pure speculation on my part. Feel free to launch into the facts and figures if you'd like
|
|
|
Post by apachepony on Oct 28, 2009 15:03:11 GMT 1
Agree with Yann's comments. I would buy the soap as a fox lover To me this is no different from buying a newspaper that supports a particular political party. mta; hunting is a violent bloodsport, that should not be forgotton when the HSA is also being labelled violent.
|
|