Talk:Countryside Alliance

Improvements

I've made this article a stub until more information can be included to fill it out and inform people about the CA. There are a number of improvements that I'd like to suggest for this article:

• "Some critics of the CA say that it exists only as a pro-hunting group." - which critics? I'm removing this statement. Please feel free to replace this once clarification is given on who says this.
• "Other campaigns try to preserve rural life in other ways, such as encouraging tourism (particularly important after the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease), encouraging consumption of local, seasonal food, and trying to keep rural Post Offices and pubs open." - this is a one sentence paragraph. There should be no such thing on Wikipedia, IMO. I feel that more information should be added to this because it begs the question: what campaigns, and what are we comparing against? To flesh out the article these need to be detailed.
• I coalesced several one sentence paragraphs about the CA's response to the fact that they are accused of being merely a "pro-hunting" organisation into a single paragraph. As a 3rd-party who has no real opinions on this organisation one way or the other I would like to know whether this has any basis in fact.
• The history of the organisation would be a valuable addition to this article.
• the organisational structure would be excellent and would give us some idea of how the CA ticks.
• what significant events have they been involved in?

These are only a few suggestions to improve the article, if someone wants to give it a shot. Ta bu shi da yu 11:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

"Observers have noted that this may have been an attempt to 'wrap the ugliness of cruelty in the cotton wool of the countryside'."

What observers, please give a reputable source? Cruelty issue of hunting vs alternate methods is far from proved, and is being debated both in the courts, and here - see "fox hunting" entry. --62.255.64.6 09:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Many people from the media and just in general life have commented that the countryside alliance's name is a PR excercise. Several of the founding members have been recorded on TV saying it was pro-fox hunting organisation, with a cuddly name. Noting that all the Sports and Hunting bit have been removed from the new title, is also important.--Jirate 13:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

This article does need NPOVing. We always need to say who said something. People have been adding very pro POV which I've reverted but currently this is too anti. If the source is the media then we need to know who and when. People in "general life" may just be quoting the media.. Secretlondon 19:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

"However, petulant and ridiculous leftwing elements who should be thoroughly and methodically purged from British society claim that despite the name, the aims of the CA are at odds with the majority of countryside dwellers for whom less stupidly restrictive firearms legislation, the right to a reasonable degree of privacy, and the restitution of a slim chance of actually being able to make a modest living from farming without relying on government handouts, all supposedly impact negatively on the quality of rural life. This so-called majority of country people in question, of course, are the kind of recent interloper in the hitherto relatively unspoiled British countryside who consider plaguing genuine rural people with their obnoxious hippie political correctness is somehow "Progressive", and who quite frankly couldn't tell one end of a fox from the other. Probably don't keep chickens either. "

"Of course, this latter observation was made by the same kind of vapid, gormless, go-with-the-crowd leftie who hates seeing truth appear in Wikipedia articles and who presumably does not have their livelihood depending on the whims of a self-appointed urban elite."

"However, as the opponents of the CA are helped by a left-wing media which unquestioningly parrots their art-school view of the world to the public and despite a clear majority of people in Britain who oppose the meddling of self-righteous hippie fools in things which are none of their business, the real challenge to those who would like to see at least a tiny amount of what used to be Britain survive into the future seems to boil down to a simple question of fashion. Also, whether enough foxes willl actually survive being poisoned and shot during the ban on fox-hunting to make a return to this ancient, harmless and time-honoured pastime even possible. In the words of the leftie: "We had to destroy it in order to save it from the fascist phallocentic fox-murdering meat-eating hegemony". Yeah, nice one, lefties, something else you've destroyed."

" Which is still 190,000 better than their hippie opponents ever managed."

If you are going to use wikipedia as a platform to advance your political opinions, please learn to do it with a bit more subtlety (although I must admit that I think wikipedia is highly ineffective at doing so).

Focus of campaigning

To say that fox hunting has been the focus of campaigning "of late" suggests that there was a time when it wasn't, which I don't think anyone would argue (if you would, please provide dates). I'm OK with wording that says that it so happens that since their inception fox hunting has been their priority but that could change with events, but if anything the CA are less focussed on hunting than they were in the past, especially with issues like shooting coming onto the agenda. — ciphergoth 10:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Countryside Alliance has played a big part in other issues, but - maybe as you say - not as much as hunting. Recently however(2000 onwards) hunting has swamped the organisation and the focus on other issues has been reduced a lot and I think that people can thus assume that the CA has only ever "really" focussed on hutning - which it hasn't. The wording as of now I think is ok. --TFoxton 18:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The BFSS was certainly much more broadly focused than a mere hunting body but because the BFSS/CA takes a "domino theory" approach to field sports they have in recent years focused heavily on hunting because that's the issue that's been at the forefront the most. There's also the traditional problem of getting the media to pay attention to campaigns. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline?

My impression (viewed from outside the UK) is that the Alliance went into some sort of decline after 2001. Their plans for a second march on London had to be abandoned because of foot and mouth, and in the same year their predictions that "rural (parliamentary) constituencies" would reject Labour and at least dent their parliamentary majority, were confounded. If that is the case, it should appear in the article. Millbanks (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The march went ahead the following the year. As for election predictions, these should always be tempered, particularly as elections are rarely swung on single issues. A lot of the voters who cared the most weren't voting Labour anyway. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Blatant bias in this article

I have edited a lot of Wikipedia articles, but I do not think I have yet encountered one which is so full of fawning adulation for the subject matter. Please remember that this is not the website of the Countryside Alliance - it is supposed to be an impartial encylopedia. I have removed most of the previous "campaigns" section because none of it is sourced and it is blatant POV. It merely consisted of a series of propaganda statements (e.g. claiming that the CA "champions" certain things) without the provision of any citation at all. Disgraceful. Multiculturalist (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Your user name says it all!--92.16.63.172 (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No where near as much as you comment.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias - First person plural

This article has clearly been written/edited by members of the Countryside Alliance and its supporters. Most of the article is written using "we", "us" and "our" therefore very little of it can be treated as fair and unweighted and should be flagged as such. I thought Wiki was supposed to provide a balanced view of topics and organisations, not just a free advertising page.

University of Cambridge hypocrisy accusation

I don't think this section is really one of the countryside alliance's key campaigns and I think it ought to be deleted or moved to a more relevant page, such as the national farmers union who appear to have had a bigger involvement in it. The only connection to the CA is that they submitted a freedom of information request and wrote a letter to revoke the ban, which is only referenced by their own website. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? User:AustinRedd007 —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a major campaign of theirs and should be reinstated. They've been vocal about bans on meat and dairy for years now. 86.18.73.235 (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Far-right?

Shouldn't the opening paragraph describe this organisation as a far-right organisation and this be included under an "Ideology" section in the infobox, given their long-standing links with other far-right organisations and that they consist of an overwhelmingly racist and homophobic membership obsessed with fighting a perceived "metropolitan elite"?

https://infacts.org/tories-vulnerable-far-right-entryism/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/farright-groups-set-to-hijack-rural-rally-1147269.html https://www.monbiot.com/1999/06/10/stirring-up-hatred-in-the-countryside/

Sbiki (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Nah. Much as you and I both might disagree with their politics and aims, the Countryside Alliance is essentially a landowner/farming/hunting lobby group. Right-wing, mostly, but not far right. There aren't really "long-standing links" with the groups in your citations, they're just hangers-on. CA marches were well-attended and you're always going to get fringe groups hanging on the coat-tails of such events, just as the SWP turn up at more moderate left-wing events and rallies. WP:NPOV. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Propaganda article

This article has been written by someone from within Countryside Alliance with a bias towards them. It does not mentioned the controversies or the POV of all the reputable organisations like RSPCA, RSPB, Wildlife Trust, etc against the activities of CA & their hidden agenda of hunting with a facade of rural themed crusades. 90.255.21.20 (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

COI tag (December 2022)

Per looking at the edit history, prior revisions of the article, and comments on this talk page, it is clear that there are multiple COI contributors. The article may need to be checked for any copyright issue with their website, and/or pervasive WP:SELFPUB. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)