Morning:
18°c
Johnny Depp has become, in his young middle age, like a star of the movies’ golden period
The full story of the rescue operation was told as it emerged that plastic windows fitted at the block two years ago melted in the intense heat, effectively acting as fuel for the blaze
More...
Countryside Alliance accused over Radio 4 hunting vote
Last updated at 12:37pm on 01.01.07Listeners to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme have voted overwhelmingly for the repeal of the 2004 act which banned the hunting of foxes with dogs, it was announced.
But questions were raised over the 52.8% vote for the repeal of the Hunting Act after the Countryside Alliance confirmed that it had conducted a drive to encourage pro-hunting activists to vote.
And it was revealed that the panel which selected five Acts to be included in Today's end-of-year poll considered excluding the hunting ban even though it received more nominations than any other law, because of evidence of a concerted campaign to skew the result.
The Hunting Act took more than half of the votes in the Christmas Repeal poll, well ahead of the European Communities Act of 1972 which took Britain into the Common Market, with 29.7%.
However, presenter Ed Stourton said there were "suspicions that there was an organised campaign at work".
And Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe, an opponent of hunting and member of the panel which assessed nominations for the poll, told Today: "Undeniably, the Countryside Alliance pulled out every last stop to get this result.
"We did hesitate on the panel to put this one forward because there was already evidence of links from the Countryside Alliance - encouragement etc - and of course we had the Boxing Day meets, when just about everybody who actively supports hunting would have been out and could have been reminded."
Countryside Alliance president Baroness Mallalieu told the programme: "What we did was to notify people on the website that this vote was taking place and suggest that they vote.
"The truth of the matter is that, of all the Acts on the list, this is the one that no case can possibly be made for retaining, because it has been a total failure all round.
"Whatever your views on hunting one way or the other, this Act is a fiasco and it is not surprising that it received a mass vote."
Since December 22, visitors to the Countryside Alliance website have seen an appeal to vote in the poll, along with a link to the Today site to make it easier for them to take part.
A message from chief executive Simon Hart read: "Of course this Government is not going to admit the gross error of allowing the Hunting Act on to the statute book by legislating for its removal, but winning this vote will add to the growing momentum for a future Parliament to scrap it."
Other votes in the poll went to provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act which require police permission for protests in Parliament Square (6.2%) and the Human Rights Act (6.1%).
Just 3.6% voted to overturn the 1701 Act of Settlement which bars Catholics from taking the throne and 1.6% to repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
Reader views (4)
Here's a sample of the latest views published.
You could campaign all you like on the Acto of succession and you still would not get the support that is out there for the repeal of the Hunting bill. I mean, no-one has been co-erced here.
- David Davidson, Osgathorpe UK
This is the same way that the Countryside Alliance got its pro-hunt majority on the National Trust AGM in November 2006.
This is the democratic process being hijacked by an active pro-hunt minority.
- Graham Forsyth, Chard, Somerset
I don't understand what the objection is here. If there's a large group of people passionately concerned about a subject, is it somehow wrong for them to communicate with each other when a vote like this comes up? There was a "concerted campaign" to ban hunting in the first place after all, with the RSPCA and other organisations touring the country raising petitions and handing out postcards to send to MPs. There's something very wrong with political discourse in this country when the "correct" procedure is for a small elite - in this case the panel - to decide what the rest of us are allowed to be interested in, and then permitting us to vote only on the subjects they consider suitable. And something very wrong, when they throw up their hands in horror when the "great unwashed" dares to come forward with its own agenda.
The Countryside Alliance did not "engineer" this vote. They do not control their membership, we control it. They work for us and not the other way round. We expect them to tell us about these opportunities to put our case forward, after that it's up to us whether we vote or not, and in this case we did.
- Sarah, Dorking, Surrey
Did the Countryside Alliance do anything that politicans don't do. I think any organization would do the same if their issue can up for a vote.
- T A Paul, West Palm Beach,Fl.USA
