# RSPCA originally formed by pro hunt Conservative MP



## Hunters (1 February 2013)

It is confirmed that the independent Charities Commission have written to the RSPCA regarding their concerns for the amount spent prosecuting a hunt.

The RSPCA seems to have come a long way from it's conception 189 years ago formed by Conservative MP Richard Martin. I should imagine he'd be non too impressed..,?


----------



## Moomin1 (1 February 2013)

Where have you been the last week? The CC wrote and said they had NO concerns over what was spent.


----------



## Alec Swan (1 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			....... The CC wrote and said they had NO concerns over what was spent.
		
Click to expand...

Presumably you have evidence to support your claim.  If you have,  would you care to provide it?  By evidence,  I don't mean the _rspca's response_ to being interviewed and cautioned,  but the Charity Commission's written response. 

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (1 February 2013)

Interviewed and cautioned?! Alec you are priceless!  Did you listen to the debate?  The details were in there.  The CC said they had NO further need to investigate and were satisfied with the rspca's actions.


----------



## Moomin1 (1 February 2013)

And on that note Alec, given that you appear so sure of yourself, do you have the written response?


----------



## SarahColeman (1 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			And on that note Alec, given that you appear so sure of yourself, do you have the written response?
		
Click to expand...

I guess given what little I have seen of Alec's posts it will be a long wait with nothing at the end of it. I thought all of the Dinosaurs had died out!


----------



## Alec Swan (1 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			....... Did you listen to the debate?  The details were in there.  The CC said they had NO further need to investigate and were satisfied with the rspca's actions.
		
Click to expand...

Before you point the finger of ridicule,  I'd first consider your claims.  The Commons debate was a different matter.  It was a debate.  Prosecuting authorities rarely debate. 

_"The RSPCA was reported to the Charity Commission by MPs and peers last month for controversially funding the successful prosecution against the Heythrop Hunt. Mr Cameron is a local MP in the area where the Heythrop hunts.
Now it has emerged that the charity's senior executives have been called in by William Shawcross, the Commission's chairman, for "an early meeting" to discuss its "prosecutions in general and the case in particular"._

Again,  and whilst your understanding of the English language may be lacking,  I'd point out the use of the word "Summoned".  It's a world away from the word "Debate".

_"RSPCA summoned to meet head of charity watchdog after controversial David Cameron hunt prosecution
Senior figures at the RSPCA have been summoned to see the charity watchdog to defend their decision to spend £326,000 on prosecuting David Cameron&#8217;s local hunt,"._

The ethics and standing of the rspca have been heavily criticised by a Judge and called to account by the Charities Commission.  Could you explain why?  

Despite your wistful claims that there is no case to answer,  I'd suggest that you'd best wait for the CC's report,  before you crow too loudly.  

It would be highly unlikely that a High Court Judge,  the Charities Commission,  or a substantial and respected group of MPs would be so quick to denigrate a charity,  which currently enjoys royal patronage,  were there not sufficient grounds,  for such criticism.  That isn't how you see,  obviously,  but then from your apparent and all admiring stance,  any criticism of a body which is simply not fit for purpose,  would have little by way of substance to support it.

SarahColeman,  I apologise for the delay.

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (1 February 2013)

Oh Alec I actually feel a bit sorry for you!  Bless


----------



## Moomin1 (1 February 2013)

You are as bad as the daily fail Alec.  Now would you like to post the rest of the article?  You know, the bit which says the CC found trustees HAD NOT breached rules by prosecuting the heythrop? Ta.


----------



## Springy (1 February 2013)

FFS not another bliddy RSPCA post.....


----------



## combat_claire (1 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Where have you been the last week? The CC wrote and said they had NO concerns over what was spent.
		
Click to expand...

Sam Younger, the Charity Commissions chief executive, told RSPCA chief executive Gavin Grant in a letter today that his trustees had to review the charity's prosecution policies given the amount of adverse publicity and the allegations of political bias that the charity has attracted as a result of the case.


----------



## combat_claire (1 February 2013)

Incidentally I am waiting for Moomin's response to the Panorama film and Gavin Grant's incitement to harass farmers and those involved in any badger cull. I have posted a link to the video on the other thread, but here it is again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01p03qh/Panorama_Badgers_Dodging_the_Bullet/


----------



## Moomin1 (1 February 2013)

He said that the charity should bear in mind that they may face criticism when taking on sensitive subjects.  They said no breaches were made.  The rest is purely generic advice pointing out what every charity who prosecute should consider before prosecuting.  It is not a warning, it is advice.  No more, no less.  The simple fact is, they are taking no further action with the rspca.  
It may smart a little folks, but I'm sure you will get over it soon enough.


----------



## Hunters (1 February 2013)

Interesting article in The Spectator - 'Is the RSPCA the new FBI?' by Melissa Kite 'The RSPCA seems to have become a political animal.'

Who was it once said, 'There's no such thing as bad press.' 

I suppose one will just have to wait to see the accounts before anyone can tell whether the costs of the Heythrop prosecution & subsequent press reports caused the RSPCA any serious loss in donations.


----------



## 4x4 (1 February 2013)

IMO they should stick to rescuing sea birds from slimy sticky substances!


----------



## MillyMoomie (1 February 2013)

Also in the spectator. By Rod Liddle. "The law doesn't change just because you're on horseback".


----------



## Moomin1 (1 February 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			Also in the spectator. By Rod Liddle. "The law doesn't change just because you're on horseback".
		
Click to expand...

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnis...oesnt-change-just-because-youre-on-horseback/


----------



## Hunters (1 February 2013)

4 x 4 Totally agree


----------



## Alec Swan (1 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Before you point the finger of ridicule,  .......

The ethics and standing of the rspca have been heavily criticised by a Judge and called to account by the Charities Commission.  Could you explain why?  

.......

Alec.
		
Click to expand...




Moomin1 said:



			Oh Alec I actually feel a bit sorry for you!  Bless
		
Click to expand...

How kind,  thoughtful almost, though probably the response of someone with no reasoned or responsible repost.  None the less,  would you care to answer the question?

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (1 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			How kind,  thoughtful almost, though probably the response of someone with no reasoned or responsible repost.  None the less,  would you care to answer the question?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Yes Alec.

They were called for a meeting with the charity commission because PEOPLE ASKED FOR IT, namely the pro hunt supporting Tory MP's.  Therefore (if you can get your head around this concept), the CC have a duty to look into it.  The outcome was that the RSPCA HAD acted within it's rights as a prosecuting charity, and that trustees had not broken rules.

Seemingly, of course, the pro hunt anti-RSPCA are not content with the CC's findings however.


----------



## Alec Swan (1 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Yes Alec.

They were called for a meeting with the charity commission because PEOPLE ASKED FOR IT, namely the pro hunt supporting Tory MP's.  Therefore (if you can get your head around this concept), the CC have a duty to look into it.  The outcome was that the RSPCA HAD acted within it's rights as a prosecuting charity, and that trustees had not broken rules.

Seemingly, of course, the pro hunt anti-RSPCA are not content with the CC's findings however.

Click to expand...

So we're to assume from your claim,  that both a High Court Judge,  AND The Charities Commission,  have been swayed because  "PEOPLE ASKED FOR IT",  are we?  Nonsense.

I can assure you,  that neither of those two august bodies would drift with the breeze of any form of flimsy public opinion.  They asked valid questions,  questions,  which despite your claims have yet to be answered,  with any degree of honesty.  History will show,  I feel certain,  that considering the massive sway of public opinion,  that your favoured charity may well be a little more circumspect in the future,  when they consider how they fritter away such huge amounts of public donations,  and upon such political and worthless aims.

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (1 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			So we're to assume from your claim,  that both a High Court Judge,  AND The Charities Commission,  have been swayed because  "PEOPLE ASKED FOR IT",  are we?  Nonsense.

I can assure you,  that neither of those two august bodies would drift with the breeze of any form of flimsy public opinion.  They asked valid questions,  questions,  which despite your claims have yet to be answered,  with any degree of honesty.  History will show,  I feel certain,  that considering the massive sway of public opinion,  that your favoured charity may well be a little more circumspect in the future,  when they consider how they fritter away such huge amounts of public donations,  and upon such political and worthless aims.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Seriously Alec, you really need to get out more.


----------



## Alec Swan (1 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Seriously Alec, you really need to get out more.
		
Click to expand...

Attempt to insult me in a puerile fashion if you wish,  such thoughts are of little consequence.  I was hoping for a constructive response.  Never mind.

a.


----------



## Moomin1 (1 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Attempt to insult me in a puerile fashion if you wish,  such thoughts are of little consequence.  I was hoping for a constructive response.  Never mind.

a.
		
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I can't be bothered anymore.


----------



## Alec Swan (1 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Quite frankly, I can't be bothered anymore.
		
Click to expand...



Nor I dear,  nor I!!

See?  Common ground,  at last! 

Alec. x (not that it's welcome!)


----------



## Moomin1 (1 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:





Nor I dear,  nor I!!

See?  Common ground,  at last! 

Alec. x (not that it's welcome!) 

Click to expand...

Does that mean I can get back to drinking my red wine now then?


----------



## Alec Swan (1 February 2013)

Wine is the cure of many ills,  but perhaps the start of a few others,  too!  

Of course,  enjoy your wine and your evening.

Alec.


----------



## Hunters (1 February 2013)

Bravo - And so whilst wine is consumed, do we wait the outcome.


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

Alec Swan, you accuse the RSPCA of 'frittering away', money. I would like to ask you a simple question please if I may. The RSPCA was handed video evidence of illegal hunting by hunt monitors. Whenever the RSPCA is provided with evidence of lawbreaking regarding the welfare of animals it will investigate and if evidence proven it will prosecute. This started out as an every day situation for the RSPCA so what do you suggest they should have done as I will be very interested to hear your thoughts on the matter unless you believe laws in this land should not be enforced?


----------



## oakash (2 February 2013)

SarahC, I come at this from a slightly different perspective. We all agree(probably) that cas4es such as Spindles farm were justified. But where hunting is concerned, those of us 'in touch' with wildlife and the natural world, KNOW that hunting is not 'cruel' in any real sense of the word. Many years ago the veteran left winger Tony Benn made a speech in which he pointed out that most progress in this country has been made by people deciding to break absurd laws. Well, I know nothing about the Heythrop case,and it does seem extremely unlikely that they were breaking the law, knowing, as they did, that a bunch of fascist 'monitor' thugs were filming them, but the Hunting Act most certainly comes under the category of 'absurd law'!


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

Given that the judge, the convicted and the defence team ALL stated that there was 15 mins video footage showing them ILLEGALY hunting may I suggest things in future you may believe seem "extremely unlikely", are equally 'very possible', Oakash.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Given that the judge, the convicted and the defence team ALL stated that there was 15 mins video footage showing them ILLEGALY hunting ........
		
Click to expand...

Could you supply irrefutable evidence,  to support your rather expansive claims?

Alec.


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Could you supply irrefutable evidence,  to support your rather expansive claims?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

It would depend on ones definition of 'irrefutable', or ones desire to ignore the truth is my guess. We could start with this.... Philip Mott QC "What you have here is unlawful hunting, shown and admitted, of no more than 15 minutes in total," 

Although to be fair he did say they really were just following a trail at other times


----------



## Hunters (2 February 2013)

Has the Hethrop case saved a single fox? I seriously doubt it..

Could the money have been better spent..... But of course.

When MP's at the tIme of the ban were asked why the wanted a ban, one admitted to me that it was a political decision to 'bloody' Conservative noses, for what had been previously done under Thatchers government.  

It never was or about the fox. Treble the amount of foxes get killed by cars.  

Wake up people, politics is a big poker game, where sport is had & having been very involved with politics I should know.


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

Barnfield said so outside the courtroom to all the waiting press as reported here.....Outside court, Barnfield said that he had only pleaded guilty because he could not afford to fight the £327,000 case the RSPCA had mounted.
He claimed that of the 500 hours of footage only 15 minutes was unlawful and that the hunt followed legal trail hunting, where a fox scent it laid down for the hounds to follow.

I am looking for the judges comments and will post when I find them for you Alec or are we done on this matter and your disbelief fully addressed?


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Has the Hethrop case saved a single fox? I seriously doubt it..

Could the money have been better spent..... But of course.

When MP's at the tIme of the ban were asked why the wanted a ban, one admitted to me that it was a political decision to 'bloody' Conservative noses, for what had been previously done under Thatchers government.  

It never was or about the fox. Treble the amount of foxes get killed by cars.  

Wake up people, politics is a big poker game, where sport is had & having been very involved with politics I should know.
		
Click to expand...

Men were not hung for stealing horses but to stop horses being stolen. If this prosecution prevents others from acting in the way the Heythrop did then foxes will be saved from such hunting. Who cares what one or more MP's wanted from this ban the public want it and MP's represent us and our views! Nor does it matter about road kills the law is to ban the killing of foxes with dogs and the Heythrop conviction proves absolutely the law is a success. As hunts refuse to abide by the law time will bring a ban on the smokescreen of trail hunting I have no doubt. they had their chance to comply and when caught not doing so actually attack the RSPCA. Hilarious!


----------



## Hunters (2 February 2013)

SarahColeman

Forgive me my dear, for if you think MP's are about representing your views, for you, there is no hope.

Politicians need votes to stay in power. Labour thought the ban was a vote wInner & used it also to hurt the Tories for what Thatcher had done to the miners.

Open up your eyes


----------



## Countryman (2 February 2013)

In my opinion, the monitors who monitor the Heythrop, who I've had the misfortune to come across, don't actually care about animals. They pretend they do when they're cameras are running, and pretend they're polite middle class people interested in animal welfare, but when they turn their cameras off the verbal abuse begins, as does the old lines about how all hunters are toffs etc


----------



## Alec Swan (2 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Barnfield said so outside the courtroom to all the waiting press as reported here.....Outside court, Barnfield said that he had only pleaded guilty because he could not afford to fight the £327,000 case the RSPCA had mounted.
He claimed that of the 500 hours of footage only 15 minutes was unlawful and that the hunt followed legal trail hunting, where a fox scent it laid down for the hounds to follow.

I am looking for the judges comments and will post when I find them for you Alec or are we done on this matter and your disbelief fully addressed?
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for reinforcing my argument.  "Barnfield said that he had only pleaded guilty because he couldn't afford the £327k case the rspca had mounted".  *FINALLY*,  an rspca supporter who has accepted the reason for Barnfield's guilty plea.  His *15 minute aberration*,  which stepped outside the *500 HOURS* of footage,  is the straw to which you,  and your ilk,  cling.  

You've accepted that his plea was made through his inability to face the prosecution costs,  and nothing to do with his crime.  Patently and were I wrong,  then he would have defended his position.

I'm sorry,  SarahC,  but you've just made my point for me,  and I'm grateful to you.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Men were not hung for stealing horses but to stop horses being stolen. 

....... Hilarious!
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you (God,  but you and I are as one!).  One small problem though,  did the death penalty stop murders?  As you so rightly say,  Hilarious! 

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (2 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Thank you for reinforcing my argument.  "Barnfield said that he had only pleaded guilty because he couldn't afford the £327k case the rspca had mounted".  *FINALLY*,  an rspca supporter who has accepted the reason for Barnfield's guilty plea.  His *15 minute aberration*,  which stepped outside the *500 HOURS* of footage,  is the straw to which you,  and your ilk,  cling.  

You've accepted that his plea was made through his inability to face the prosecution costs,  and nothing to do with his crime.  Patently and were I wrong,  then he would have defended his position.

I'm sorry,  SarahC,  but you've just made my point for me,  and I'm grateful to you.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

But they themselves ADMITTED to fifteen minutes of ILLEGAL HUNTING.

Therefore, they have committed an offence.  Simple.

You cannot say that somebody shouldn't be brought before a court just because they may, for instance, have only conducted a fifteen minute assault on somebody, instead of a 3 hour long torture.  The law is the law.


----------



## Hunters (2 February 2013)

Equally, should someone be hung for murder, because they cannot afford a defence & so plead guilty

Come on....


----------



## Alec Swan (2 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			But they themselves ADMITTED to fifteen minutes of ILLEGAL HUNTING.

Therefore, they have committed an offence.  Simple.

You cannot say that somebody shouldn't be brought before a court just because they may, for instance, have only conducted a fifteen minute assault on somebody, instead of a 3 hour long torture.  The law is the law.
		
Click to expand...

Explain this to me;  yet again,  and as has been freely stated by another,  the reason why Barnfield was unable to DEFEND his actions,  was because of the monstrous and overpowering risk of the costs.  He patently couldn't afford the costs of the parasitic barristers that the charity managed to justify (though only to themselves,  it now seems ),  so do you accept that those who are unable to justify such defence,  are entitled to any less justice than the man who has nothing,  and therefore couldn't care less?

Do you,  honestly consider that *£327 THOUSAND* of charitable donations could have been better spent?  Well,  do you?

I have nothing,  shall I take 3 couple of hounds to myself,  and would you HONESTLY think that the rspca will go to the troubles which they have,  over me,  that they have over the Heythrop?  Tell me that you believe that they would,  and you're living in a dream world.

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (2 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Equally, should someone be hung for murder, because they cannot afford a defence & so plead guilty

Come on....
		
Click to expand...

THEY ADMITTED TO 15 MINUTES OF FOOTAGE BEING ILLEGAL HUNTING, OUTSIDE OF COURT.  They committed an offence.  End of.

Why oh why are people so desperate to defend the actions of criminals, who you would think have now shed a very bad light on those who DO hunt legally too. 

If you lot hunt legally, and abide with the law (whether you agree with it or not) then you should be ashamed and pretty angered by the actions of the Heythrop.


----------



## Countryman (2 February 2013)

Why should we be ashamed of the Heythrop? No, we should be proud of them, they're rural heroes putting up with an incredible amount of intense harassment and then being bullied into pleading guilty when I don't believe the evidence actually showed they had been.


----------



## Moomin1 (2 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Explain this to me;  yet again,  and as has been freely stated by another,  the reason why Barnfield was unable to DEFEND his actions,  was because of the monstrous and overpowering risk of the costs.  He patently couldn't afford the costs of the parasitic barristers that the charity managed to justify (though only to themselves,  it now seems ),  so do you accept that those who are unable to justify such defence,  are entitled to any less justice than the man who has nothing,  and therefore couldn't care less?

Do you,  honestly consider that *£327 THOUSAND* of charitable donations could have been better spent?  Well,  do you?

I have nothing,  shall I take 3 couple of hounds to myself,  and would you HONESTLY think that the rspca will go to the troubles which they have,  over me,  that they have over the Heythrop?  Tell me that you believe that they would,  and you're living in a dream world.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...


The last sentence you make Alec sums you up, and is the whole reason why debate with you is pointless.  You seem to think that you have this God given knowledge and insight into the goings on of every thing that occurs in this world.  You obviously place yourself in your own mind, above the law.

Yes, I do think that the money spent on prosecuting the Heythrop was WELL SPENT.  I would like to see it happen again, and again, and again, should unscrupulous hunts folk break the law.  

And yes, should you break the law by even hunting illegally on a small scale, I would quite readily donate to the RSPCA to see you prosecuted aswell.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			But they themselves ADMITTED to fifteen minutes of ILLEGAL HUNTING.

Therefore, they have committed an offence.  Simple.

.......
		
Click to expand...

Again,  you are wrong.  They didn't ADMIT to 15 minutes of ILLEGAL hunting.  What was actually said was that out of a staggering 500 HOURS of film footage,  there were a mere 15 MINUTES which they felt that they needed to defend.  The risk of loosing their case was such that they couldn't afford,  or importantly risk,  the prosecution costs.

I would have stood my ground.  Barnfield couldn't risk it.  That's the injustice of the whole thing.

Alec.


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			I agree with you (God,  but you and I are as one!).  One small problem though,  did the death penalty stop murders?  As you so rightly say,  Hilarious! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Of course it did not so in both cases we have changed the sentence not repealed the laws. Hilarious is the suggestion to repeal a law because people still break it I would have thought.
If you are worried that the Heythrop conviction will not stop illegal hunting then we shall see but £60,000 for illegal days out hunting is a lot of caps to find.


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Equally, should someone be hung for murder, because they cannot afford a defence & so plead guilty

Come on....
		
Click to expand...

If you are on video killing the victim what help is money?


----------



## joeanne (2 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Alec Swan, you accuse the RSPCA of 'frittering away', money. I would like to ask you a simple question please if I may. The RSPCA was handed video evidence of illegal hunting by hunt monitors. Whenever the RSPCA is provided with evidence of lawbreaking regarding the welfare of animals it will investigate and if evidence proven it will prosecute. This started out as an every day situation for the RSPCA so what do you suggest they should have done as I will be very interested to hear your thoughts on the matter unless you believe laws in this land should not be enforced?
		
Click to expand...

Oh oh me me me...
What they SHOULD have done is pass it to the police who in turn would have passed it to the CPS who in turn would have prosecuted if they felt the case would reach a satisfactory outcome.
Private prosecution is wrong when a charity is funding it, all the RSPCA should be doing is gathering evidence if they happen upon a case and passing it to the appropriate body for consideration by the CPS.
That way the funds they raise can do what it was actually meant for in the 1st place.....helping and rehabilitating animals who find themselves in need of assistance.


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			SarahColeman

Forgive me my dear, for if you think MP's are about representing your views, for you, there is no hope.

Politicians need votes to stay in power. Labour thought the ban was a vote wInner & used it also to hurt the Tories for what Thatcher had done to the miners.

Open up your eyes 

Click to expand...

I was able to learn one thing from politicians during the RSPCA debate. They make the laws but do not do so for fun and expect them to be enforced.


----------



## Countryman (2 February 2013)

I have seen the video footage. There is NOTHING that to my mind would stand up in court as proof of illegal activity. 

SarahColeman, with respect, you are utterly clueless if you think that film of hounds breaking up a fox constitutes proof the Heythrop broke the hunting act. Read the Act first and read up on standards of evidence.


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			In my opinion, the monitors who monitor the Heythrop, who I've had the misfortune to come across, don't actually care about animals. They pretend they do when they're cameras are running, and pretend they're polite middle class people interested in animal welfare, but when they turn their cameras off the verbal abuse begins, as does the old lines about how all hunters are toffs etc
		
Click to expand...

Very off topic but so long as they are good at capturing those breaking animal welfare laws they are doing their job.


----------



## Moomin1 (2 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Again,  you are wrong.  They didn't ADMIT to 15 minutes of ILLEGAL hunting.  What was actually said was that out of a staggering 500 HOURS of film footage,  there were a mere 15 MINUTES which they felt that they needed to defend.  The risk of loosing their case was such that they couldn't afford,  or importantly risk,  the prosecution costs.

I would have stood my ground.  Barnfield couldn't risk it.  That's the injustice of the whole thing.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

But Alec, as I have tried to explain so many times, it is  RIDICULOUS thing to say that they were too 'frightened' to do anything other than plead guilty because of the costs.  Any charges brought about by the courts are all means tested.  Therefore defendants only pay back the amount of money which is considered to be reasonable, and in a method which is manageable.  Therefore, for instance, somebody on a decent income may only pay out £50 per month towards a fine, or somebody on benefits may only pay £1 a week!


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

joeanne said:



			Oh oh me me me...
What they SHOULD have done is pass it to the police who in turn would have passed it to the CPS who in turn would have prosecuted if they felt the case would reach a satisfactory outcome.
Private prosecution is wrong when a charity is funding it, all the RSPCA should be doing is gathering evidence if they happen upon a case and passing it to the appropriate body for consideration by the CPS.
That way the funds they raise can do what it was actually meant for in the 1st place.....helping and rehabilitating animals who find themselves in need of assistance.
		
Click to expand...

WHY? Because this time the guilty were a hunt? Absolute rubbish!


----------



## Moomin1 (2 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			I have seen the video footage. There is NOTHING that to my mind would stand up in court as proof of illegal activity. 

SarahColeman, with respect, you are utterly clueless if you think that film of hounds breaking up a fox constitutes proof the Heythrop broke the hunting act. Read the Act first and read up on standards of evidence.
		
Click to expand...

Well in that case then the defendants should have run with it, because the costs would have been reimbursed anyway.


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			I have seen the video footage. There is NOTHING that to my mind would stand up in court as proof of illegal activity. 

SarahColeman, with respect, you are utterly clueless if you think that film of hounds breaking up a fox constitutes proof the Heythrop broke the hunting act. Read the Act first and read up on standards of evidence.
		
Click to expand...

If you had watched all 15 minutes with the sound turned up you could have saved yourself writing the nonsense above.


----------



## Hunters (2 February 2013)

When a fox is shot, it is sometimes broken up to hounds.

However explanations are never going to quench the thirst of the do gooders.


----------



## JanetGeorge (2 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			But Alec, as I have tried to explain so many times, it is  RIDICULOUS thing to say that they were too 'frightened' to do anything other than plead guilty because of the costs.  Any charges brought about by the courts are all means tested.  Therefore defendants only pay back the amount of money which is considered to be reasonable, and in a method which is manageable.  Therefore, for instance, somebody on a decent income may only pay out £50 per month towards a fine, or somebody on benefits may only pay £1 a week!
		
Click to expand...

Sweetheart - you forget the defence barristers!!  Prosecution costs and fines are means tested - defence costs are not!  And for a trial originally estimated to take 30 days, they'd have been looking at substantial costs for their own barristers and legal team!  And - they would have needed 3 teams because the defence for each would have been slightly different in terms of 'responsibility'.

Julian Barnfield was the professional huntsman - IF illegal hunting had been going on, he would be the primary guilty party.  He couldn't have claimed ignorance or an inability to stop it.

The second individual on the day was the Master 'in charge'.  He COULD have claimed that he was busy field mastering and hadn't REALISED that Julian was (allegedly) hunting foxes.

And the hunt - as a company - could have defended the action based on the fact that - say - the Chairman and committee had instructed the Masters and the professional staff that all hunting MUST be of the legal variety.  

So - all 3 defendants would have needed their own legal teams and barristers - working for up to 30 days  That's a MINIMUM of £100,000 (if they went for cheapo barristers!)  And they'd have HAD to pay that - win or lose.  If they'd won, they MIGHT have got their costs back - but again - they might not have!


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			The last sentence you make Alec sums you up, and is the whole reason why debate with you is pointless.  You seem to think that you have this God given knowledge and insight into the goings on of every thing that occurs in this world.  You obviously place yourself in your own mind, above the law.

Yes, I do think that the money spent on prosecuting the Heythrop was WELL SPENT.  I would like to see it happen again, and again, and again, should unscrupulous hunts folk break the law.  

And yes, should you break the law by even hunting illegally on a small scale, I would quite readily donate to the RSPCA to see you prosecuted aswell.

Click to expand...

Very well said and completely agree.


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Again,  you are wrong.  They didn't ADMIT to 15 minutes of ILLEGAL hunting.  What was actually said was that out of a staggering 500 HOURS of film footage,  there were a mere 15 MINUTES which they felt that they needed to defend.  The risk of loosing their case was such that they couldn't afford,  or importantly risk,  the prosecution costs.

I would have stood my ground.  Barnfield couldn't risk it.  That's the injustice of the whole thing.

Alec.[/QUOTE

Is somebody reading the posts to you Alec but choosing to ignore bits you will not like perhaps?? AGAIN, Philip Mott QC "What you have here is unlawful hunting, shown and admitted, of no more than 15 minutes in total,"
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			When a fox is shot, it is sometimes broken up to hounds.

However explanations are never going to quench the thirst of the do gooders.
		
Click to expand...

Do you think that was the footage?  I thought you said you had seen it


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Sweetheart - you forget the defence barristers!!  Prosecution costs and fines are means tested - defence costs are not!  And for a trial originally estimated to take 30 days, they'd have been looking at substantial costs for their own barristers and legal team!  And - they would have needed 3 teams because the defence for each would have been slightly different in terms of 'responsibility'.

Julian Barnfield was the professional huntsman - IF illegal hunting had been going on, he would be the primary guilty party.  He couldn't have claimed ignorance or an inability to stop it.

The second individual on the day was the Master 'in charge'.  He COULD have claimed that he was busy field mastering and hadn't REALISED that Julian was (allegedly) hunting foxes.

And the hunt - as a company - could have defended the action based on the fact that - say - the Chairman and committee had instructed the Masters and the professional staff that all hunting MUST be of the legal variety.  

So - all 3 defendants would have needed their own legal teams and barristers - working for up to 30 days  That's a MINIMUM of £100,000 (if they went for cheapo barristers!)  And they'd have HAD to pay that - win or lose.  If they'd won, they MIGHT have got their costs back - but again - they might not have!
		
Click to expand...

IF they were innocent Honeybun why admit to the world that the monitors had taken video of them breaking the law?


----------



## Alec Swan (2 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Of course it did not so in both cases we have changed the sentence not repealed the laws. Hilarious is the suggestion to repeal a law because people still break it I would have thought.
If you are worried that the Heythrop conviction will not stop illegal hunting then we shall see but £60,000 for illegal days out hunting is a lot of caps to find.
		
Click to expand...

How interesting.  It would seem from what you say that you have a greater interest in the semantics of law,  than the arguments of justice.

I would point out to you that the word "Hilarious"  was used by you.  It was applied by you,  and to your argument,  and now it seems,  you'd like a side shift. 

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			IF they were innocent Honeybun why admit to the world that the monitors had taken video of them breaking the law?
		
Click to expand...

Read the JanetGeorge post again,  consider it,  and you may manage to grasp its intent,  as the rest of us have. 

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			But Alec, as I have tried to explain so many times, it is  RIDICULOUS thing to say that they were too 'frightened' to do anything other than plead guilty because of the costs.  Any charges brought about by the courts are all means tested.  Therefore defendants only pay back the amount of money which is considered to be reasonable, and in a method which is manageable.  Therefore, for instance, somebody on a decent income may only pay out £50 per month towards a fine, or somebody on benefits may only pay £1 a week!
		
Click to expand...

At no point have I suggested that the defendants were 'frightened'.  Have you been drinking,  again? 

Alec.

ps.  OK,  that's a cheap shot!  I'm off to the pub. 

a.


----------



## JanetGeorge (2 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			IF they were innocent Honeybun why admit to the world that the monitors had taken video of them breaking the law?
		
Click to expand...

Duh - Honey - you don't know much about court cases, do you!  If you are going to plead 'guilty' - for WHATEVER reason - you have to accept that some of the evidence, at least, shows you as guilty (and from that part of the 15 minutes I've seen, it ISN'T crystal clear by a long shot!)

You certainly can't say to the Judge: "Well, Guv. - I'm totally innocent, of course, but I'm going to plead guilty because I have a busy month in front of me and I can't afford to waste my time here.  And I'll save a lot more on my legal costs than what you'll hit me with!"


----------



## Countryman (2 February 2013)

SarahColeman, have you actually watched the footage? If you have I think you'll agree there's nothing that would stand up in court - PROBABLY. However, if they had been found guilty the costs didn't bear thinking about and their defence teams would've been bloody expensive considering they'd have to oppose RSPCA QC's - so it just wasn't worth it. I think they are heroes for being bullied into pleading guilty.


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Duh - Honey - you don't know much about court cases, do you!  If you are going to plead 'guilty' - for WHATEVER reason - you have to accept that some of the evidence, at least, shows you as guilty (and from that part of the 15 minutes I've seen, it ISN'T crystal clear by a long shot!)

You certainly can't say to the Judge: "Well, Guv. - I'm totally innocent, of course, but I'm going to plead guilty because I have a busy month in front of me and I can't afford to waste my time here.  And I'll save a lot more on my legal costs than what you'll hit me with!"
		
Click to expand...

What a complete load of nonsense you have just posted!!! Not sure what courts you frequent but the only time you may be expected to explain yourself in a British court is when you plead not guilty. In what Universe are you expected to explain why you are pleading guilty or changing your plea to guilty to a judge???????? Indeed YOU don't say a word your defence team does it for you.


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			SarahColeman, have you actually watched the footage? If you have I think you'll agree there's nothing that would stand up in court - PROBABLY. However, if they had been found guilty the costs didn't bear thinking about and their defence teams would've been bloody expensive considering they'd have to oppose RSPCA QC's - so it just wasn't worth it. I think they are heroes for being bullied into pleading guilty.
		
Click to expand...

Of course I have watched it otherwise I would not comment. Have you listened to it??? If hounds start chasing a fox AND YOU ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SO IT IS ILLEGAL. I an sorry for 'shouting', but it is better than banging ones head against a wall. You think they are heroes and that says enough. I would personally flog them if it were legal.


----------



## SarahColeman (2 February 2013)

"Duh - Honey - you don't know much about court cases, do you! If you are going to plead 'guilty' - for WHATEVER reason - you have to accept that some of the evidence, at least, shows you as guilty (and from that part of the 15 minutes I've seen, it ISN'T crystal clear by a long shot!)"

I still can not recover from reading this utter garbage!


----------



## Countryman (2 February 2013)

SarahColeman you say if hounds chase a fox and you encourage them that that is illegal.

Not exactly.

It is only illegal if you know they are chasing the fox when you encourage them!

So unless the huntsman sees the fox, sees the hounds hunt its line and knows no trail has been laid there, he is innocent.

You seem to be one of these clueless people who thinks hounds in full cry=hunting a fox. No it's called trail-hunting which the Heythrop said they were doing.

If you are going trail hunting, hounds will speak. FACT.

You're the one that needs flogging with your clueless, prejudiced and disgusting barbaric views.


----------



## Hunters (2 February 2013)

SarahColeman

Since you feel do strongly about hunting, one has to ask why you come onto a hunting forum?


----------



## Countryman (2 February 2013)

She's clearly an anti troll-she joined H&H solely to criticise hunting. Look at her post history!


----------



## Alec Swan (2 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Of course I have watched it otherwise I would not comment. Have you listened to it??? If hounds start chasing a fox AND YOU ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SO IT IS ILLEGAL. I an sorry for 'shouting', but it is better than banging ones head against a wall. You think they are heroes and that says enough. I would personally flog them if it were legal.
		
Click to expand...

Such reasoning,  such eloquence.  Tell me,  have we had a little drinkie-poos?  

Alec.


----------



## Hunters (3 February 2013)

Has she gone?


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Such reasoning,  such eloquence.  Tell me,  have we had a little drinkie-poos?  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I happily neither drink or smoke and would protect any animal from cruelty with as much force as I could muster.


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			She's clearly an anti troll-she joined H&H solely to criticise hunting. Look at her post history!
		
Click to expand...

Really? I actually joined to discuss with others the RSPCA stories which sadly become arguments for and against hunting it appears each time.


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			SarahColeman you say if hounds chase a fox and you encourage them that that is illegal.

Not exactly.

It is only illegal if you know they are chasing the fox when you encourage them!

So unless the huntsman sees the fox, sees the hounds hunt its line and knows no trail has been laid there, he is innocent.

You seem to be one of these clueless people who thinks hounds in full cry=hunting a fox. No it's called trail-hunting which the Heythrop said they were doing.

If you are going trail hunting, hounds will speak. FACT.

You're the one that needs flogging with your clueless, prejudiced and disgusting barbaric views.
		
Click to expand...

Okay I am clueless like no doubt anybody who disagrees with certain people on this Hunting section. I can live with that. It is easy to see since the RSPCA prosecution of the Heythrop just how many people have been verbally attacked and accused of such naivety but given the hunt supporters record against the likes of the public backed RSPCA, having now used EVERY weapon at their disposal it is easy to see who the naive ones were and who doesn't actually have a clue about the REAL world


----------



## Countryman (3 February 2013)

Again however, you refuse to even discuss the evidence in the trial which makes me doubt you understand the law.


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			Again however, you refuse to even discuss the evidence in the trial which makes me doubt you understand the law.
		
Click to expand...

If the evidence clearly did not show illegal hunting I would not have said I was guilty. I understand myself and law enough to know that I would not lie under oath!


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

I am off out as my children have booked a badminton court for 12.30 just in case anybody suggests I have gone anywhere. Perhaps Countryman you can guess what my view may be on the following.After a fox ran past hunt monitors, who were recording footage from a road nearby, Barnfield drew up on horseback. "Two route-followers indicated to Mr Barnfield the direction in which the fox had run. He immediately blows the hunting horn and enters the field as directed," said Carter-Manning. Barnfield and another man then gave vocal encouragement to the remainder of the pack, shouting "tally ho" and "forrard".


----------



## Countryman (3 February 2013)

I may be wrong SarahColeman, but I don't think the defendants are ever under oath. Barnsfield could've lied as much as he liked and it would be fine. 

But you don't get it-I don't think the evidence showed legal hunting. So you say he shouldn't have pleaded guilty. But he was bullied into it by a) the exhorbitant cost of his lawyers he'd have had to pay for to fight the RSPCA's top QC's and b) the slightest chance of him losing the case landing him with a bill for millions.

However, that piece of evidence SarahColeman I would've thought would've been obvious, even to you, that it wouldn't have stood up under cross examination.

The followers pointed but what did that mean? That the fox had gone that way? That the trail had been laid that way? That his hounds were that way?

Intent has to be proved. Unless the prosecution could prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Barnsfield knew a fox had gone that way AND that no trail had been subsequently laid there.

The ambigous pointing of a few car followers proves nothing. 

In court there is no way that would be seen as evidence-who is to say they weren't pointing saying 'your hounds went that way'? 

And remember, the car followers are under no obligation to tell Barnsfield a fox went that way.


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

On another occasion, in March, footage shot by a volunteer shows hounds beginning to squeal as they try to flush out a fox from dense cover, "and then almost immediately afterwards a double horn".

Further footage captures the hounds pursuing a fox and cries of "on, on, on" from the mounted hunt. Barnfield was "filmed quite clearly amongst the pursuing hounds shouting 'on, on, on' in obvious encouragement", said Carter-Manning.


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			I may be wrong SarahColeman, but I don't think the defendants are ever under oath. Barnsfield could've lied as much as he liked and it would be fine. 

But you don't get it-I don't think the evidence showed legal hunting. So you say he shouldn't have pleaded guilty. But he was bullied into it by a) the exhorbitant cost of his lawyers he'd have had to pay for to fight the RSPCA's top QC's and b) the slightest chance of him losing the case landing him with a bill for millions.

However, that piece of evidence SarahColeman I would've thought would've been obvious, even to you, that it wouldn't have stood up under cross examination.

The followers pointed but what did that mean? That the fox had gone that way? That the trail had been laid that way? That his hounds were that way?

Intent has to be proved. Unless the prosecution could prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Barnsfield knew a fox had gone that way AND that no trail had been subsequently laid there.

The ambigous pointing of a few car followers proves nothing. 

In court there is no way that would be seen as evidence-who is to say they weren't pointing saying 'your hounds went that way'? 

And remember, the car followers are under no obligation to tell Barnsfield a fox went that way.
		
Click to expand...

I was tempted not to reply to this post given the ludicrous nonsense it contains but it does raise my curiosity about those attending the hunt even foot followers. Is it not the case that ANYBODY connected to the hunt in anyway is deemed illegally hunting if they know the hounds are onto a fox yet do nothing in an attempt to stop the hounds, shouting or whatever? Does it even need encouragement to be illegal? Perhaps someone less biased than you Countryman will be able to answer


----------



## Alec Swan (3 February 2013)

What I find so baffling is that a Court case was based upon the evidence,  supplied by a bunch of bumbling buffoons,  and that the defendants offered up a guilty plea to what was claimed as evidence,  but what was patently edited and twisted and was in reality,  perjured evidence,  if offered under oath,  and there was no defence offered.

The case was eminently defendable.  Were the "evidence" to be carefully considered,  and the fact that over 500 hrs,  there was a mind numbing degree of editing (and distorting),  then I'm also staggered that the case ever got to Court. 

Before the pro prosecution bods leap about,  consider that professional film makers,  editors have watched the relevant footage,  and declared it not fit as evidence,  in a Court of Law.  Why it was accepted and why it wasn't defended remains a mystery,  except for the risk of failure,  and the burden of paying the ludicrous £327k costs.  Money that a charity can fritter away,  but not an individual.

Alec.


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			What I find so baffling is that a Court case was based upon the evidence,  supplied by a bunch of bumbling buffoons,  and that the defendants offered up a guilty plea to what was claimed as evidence,  but what was patently edited and twisted and was in reality,  perjured evidence,  if offered under oath,  and there was no defence offered.

The case was eminently defendable.  Were the "evidence" to be carefully considered,  and the fact that over 500 hrs,  there was a mind numbing degree of editing (and distorting),  then I'm also staggered that the case ever got to Court. 

Before the pro prosecution bods leap about,  consider that professional film makers,  editors have watched the relevant footage,  and declared it not fit as evidence,  in a Court of Law.  Why it was accepted and why it wasn't defended remains a mystery,  except for the risk of failure,  and the burden of paying the ludicrous £327k costs.  Money that a charity can fritter away,  but not an individual.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting but some may say fantasy. The defendants if not happy could have had the Public Prosecutors office refer the case to the CPS and if it did not meet the required standard it would have been kicked out! Are you suggesting they did not receive the best advice on offer?  Or that you know better?  Who has said it was a defendable case Alec?


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

p.s volunteer "bumbling buffoons", who took on an beat the Countryside Alliance/Heythrop bumbling buffoons


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

"Before the pro prosecution bods leap about, consider that professional film makers, editors have watched the relevant footage, and declared it not fit as evidence, in a Court of Law."

Who are these professional film makers Alec?


----------



## Alec Swan (3 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Interesting but some may say fantasy. The defendants if not happy could have had the Public Prosecutors office refer the case to the CPS and if it did not meet the required standard it would have been kicked out! Are you suggesting they did not receive the best advice on offer?  Or that you know better?  Who has said it was a defendable case Alec?
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you,  there was buffoonery on both sides,  but whilst the onus was upon the prosecuting side of the argument,  to PROVE law breaking,  so the onus upon the defence was to discredit and show the film work,  for what it was,  amateurish and home made and edited.  

All very strange,  but as it wasn't my problem,  so it isn't really my concern!  Have your second rate antis film me at my leisure,  and they'll meet with a more robust approach to life. 

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (3 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			.......

Who are these professional film makers Alec?
		
Click to expand...

They are in storage,  for another day!

Alec.


----------



## Countryman (3 February 2013)

Firstly SarahColeman I'm going to address your first post, then your 2nd. I'm going to explain it not in a biased way, but in an honest appraisal of the hunting act and what it permits.  

You say "On another occasion, in March, footage shot by a volunteer shows hounds beginning to squeal as they try to flush out a fox from dense cover, "and then almost immediately afterwards a double horn".

Further footage captures the hounds pursuing a fox and cries of "on, on, on" from the mounted hunt. Barnfield was "filmed quite clearly amongst the pursuing hounds shouting 'on, on, on' in obvious encouragement", said Carter-Manning."

Right. Where is the evidence that Barnfield knew they were on a fox and not a trail? The prosecution would've had to prove in a trial beyond doubt that Barnfield knew they were on a fox

Why? 

Because if they were trail hunting and hounds began to squeal, he'd Want to cheer them on so would double the horn. Hounds squeal on a scent - which is what they'd be expected to do if trail hunting!


As to your second point, there is nothing wrong with Barnsfield shouting 'on, on' unless the prosecution can prove he knew they were hunting a fox. As I've said before, you don't seem to realise that that us what he would have been doing if they were trail hunting.

Also, case law with the hunting act dictates that the defendant is presumed to have been acting within the law and states that it is for the prosecution to prove behind doubt that he knew it was a fox not a trail he was hunting.


----------



## Countryman (3 February 2013)

You say "I was tempted not to reply to this post given the ludicrous nonsense it contains but it does raise my curiosity about those attending the hunt even foot followers. Is it not the case that ANYBODY connected to the hunt in anyway is deemed illegally hunting if they know the hounds are onto a fox yet do nothing in an attempt to stop the hounds, shouting or whatever? Does it even need encouragement to be illegal? Perhaps someone less biased than you Countryman will be able to answer "

What ludicrous nonsense was in my post then? None-just legal knowledge.

As to the foot follower issue, I can tell you. It is perfectly legal to attend and follow an illegal fox hunt even if you know it to be illegal. Even if the hounds course a fox past you and the huntsman encourages them, the followers have done nothing wrong. This isn't my 'biased opinion' this is fact and had been proven in court on several occasions. The Act makes it an offence to hunt  a wild mammal with a dog and says that to hunt, you must be in charge of, or controlling, the hounds. Therefore passive followers are innocent. If however they turn a fox back, or holloa a fox, they would be aiding and abetting illegal hunting which counts as breaking the hunting act.


----------



## MillyMoomie (3 February 2013)

By the way everyone. The defendants ORIGINALLY pleaded not guilty, and in fact continued this plea right up until the last minute. 
The defense hired a QC, for reasons of parity the RSPCA did also. This is common practice.
ANY evidence, photographic, filmed, statements etc cannot be tampared with, and has to be proven not to be. To suggest otherwise is just plain stupid.
The defense would have seen the evidence against them. I ask, of not guilty, why hire a QC?


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			They are in storage,  for another day!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear, do not make often asking others for evidence a habit, when failing to ever provide any yourself or you may gain a reputation


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

I do believe the 'hounds', have backed away from the RSPCA with bloodied noses  and their tails firmly between their legs MillyMoomie


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

I do believe it is time we agree to differ Countryman. If the Heythrop hunt/huntsmen are happy with their guilt who are we to bother otherwise as Alec appears to agree  £60,000 for a fox hey


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

Oh and of course the Heythrop being banned from National Trust land


----------



## Alec Swan (3 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Oh and of course the Heythrop being banned from National Trust land 

Click to expand...

Has it occurred to you how strange it is that the NT have banned all hunting from their land (Not just the Heythrop),  but they still allow driven game shooting to go ahead,  where there is the guarantee of injured game being left for days or weeks to die?

Do you wonder why this is?  Let me tell you,  those who shoot pay vast amounts for the privilege to do so,  so you needn't think that the NT were acting in any sort of altruistic fashion,  when they banned hunting.  They did so because firstly,  hunting brought in no revenue,  and secondly,  and in the light of that,  they were appearing to do the right thing which appeased those of a certain set who leave them near obscene bequests.

Alec.


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Has it occurred to you how strange it is that the NT have banned all hunting from their land (Not just the Heythrop),  but they still allow driven game shooting to go ahead,  where there is the guarantee of injured game being left for days or weeks to die?

Do you wonder why this is?  Let me tell you,  those who shoot pay vast amounts for the privilege to do so,  so you needn't think that the NT were acting in any sort of altruistic fashion,  when they banned hunting.  They did so because firstly,  hunting brought in no revenue,  and secondly,  and in the light of that,  they were appearing to do the right thing which appeased those of a certain set who leave them near obscene bequests.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure if we are on the same page  The Heythrop have had their trail licence revoked until they can be trusted to hunt within the law. Other hunts have not been banned, yet.


----------



## Hunters (3 February 2013)

I was going to make the point that NT land has banned hunting for yonks. 

Alec et al, you are never going to change the minds of some of the people on here. It was common knowledge that Richard Sumner & Julian Barnfield had decided not to face huge costs & plead guilty.

What I'm still quite amazed about, is that so called animal lovers on here, would rather have their association spend £326,000 on a stupid hunt prosecution than spend that money on real help.

That one really confounds me, as the good old RSPCA have undoubtedly lost street cred with donators & that actually saddens me for any lost or distressed animal that may well now have to be destroyed because of a chairman with his own political agenda. Shame on him.


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			I was going to make the point that NT land has banned hunting for yonks. 

Alec et al, you are never going to change the minds of some of the people on here. It was common knowledge that Richard Sumner & Julian Barnfield had decided not to face huge costs & plead guilty.

What I'm still quite amazed about, is that so called animal lovers on here, would rather have their association spend £326,000 on a stupid hunt prosecution than spend that money on real help.

That one really confounds me, as the good old RSPCA have undoubtedly lost street cred with donators & that actually saddens me for any lost or distressed animal that may well now have to be destroyed because of a chairman with his own political agenda. Shame on him.
		
Click to expand...

And now they have banned the Heythrop from trail 'hunting'! And anybody pretending the Heythrop hunt could not fight the prosecution because of money is talking nonsense.


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

Animal lovers who have provided £160,000 in only eight weeks must be rubbing their hands with glee Hunters. I expect some of the hunts in the likes of Devon and Cornwall will be far, far cheaper to convict


----------



## Hunters (3 February 2013)

Which ever way you dress it up, it is an obscene amount to spend & any animal destroyed as a result,  is because of people like you refusing to acknowledge that your association got it wrong.


----------



## SarahColeman (3 February 2013)

Pathetic attempt to blame people who support the RSPCA for the failings of others. Any problem with I guess you are suggesting over breeding is for the government to address not for the RSPCA to ever increase its homing centre sizes leaving animals awaiting homes that will NEVER be found. Grow up hunters!


----------



## Countryman (3 February 2013)

SarahColeman - on your point about cheaper hunts being easier to convict, forget about it. I understand there is a central Hunting Fighting Fund to fight prosecutions etc which is considerably better off than the RSPCA's own fighting fund...


----------



## Moomin1 (3 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Pathetic attempt to blame people who support the RSPCA for the failings of others. Any problem with I guess you are suggesting over breeding is for the government to address not for the RSPCA to ever increase its homing centre sizes leaving animals awaiting homes that will NEVER be found. Grow up hunters!
		
Click to expand...

SC these people have very very different morals than the likes of you or I.  They will always try to justify their self indulgent barbaric behaviour and in the process throw the blame to anybody who may step into the firing line.

The mere fact that they try to exonerate criminal behaviour/breaking the law by wildly suggesting political motive, evidence tampering, and ridiculous claims regarding enforced guilty pleas says it all.  

Not worth even arguing with.


----------



## Hunters (3 February 2013)

I think I hit a nerve lol.


----------



## MillyMoomie (3 February 2013)

When did YOU last visit an RSPCA animal centre Hunters? 
When did you last look at all those animals waiting for homes NOT being destroyed, or even go to a boarding kennel where even more are patiently sitting on a list to a kennel space.
Yes you have hit MY nerve Hunters because you obviously have no idea of the real world. Go and experience what you so righteously preach about. THEN you may convince me.


----------



## Hunters (3 February 2013)

Calm down dear, it's only a forum. 

Furthermore it's a forum for people who hunt, whether that be drag hunting or trail hunting or whatever.

Personally, & I do believe I AM allowed an opinion, the RSPCA although generally do good work, have only themselves to blame for the negativity they have brought themselves.

If the RSPCA think that they have damaged hunting, then they are very wrong. They have only hurt themselves & as I said earlier, that's actually quite a pity.


----------



## competitiondiva (3 February 2013)

oakash said:



			SarahC, I come at this from a slightly different perspective. We all agree(probably) that cas4es such as Spindles farm were justified. But where hunting is concerned, those of us 'in touch' with wildlife and the natural world, KNOW that hunting is not 'cruel' in any real sense of the word. Many years ago the veteran left winger Tony Benn made a speech in which he pointed out that most progress in this country has been made by people deciding to break absurd laws. Well, I know nothing about the Heythrop case,and it does seem extremely unlikely that they were breaking the law, knowing, as they did, that a bunch of fascist 'monitor' thugs were filming them, but the Hunting Act most certainly comes under the category of 'absurd law'!
		
Click to expand...

ah so you believe that law breakers should only be brought to justice if they break a law that YOU think should be in place?? Who are you to pick and chose? The hunting act was brought in because the majority of MP's voted it in.  If you don't agree with it lobby your MP, don't point fingers at the RSPCA for upholding that law.  Read this article, makes good reading! http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnis...oesnt-change-just-because-youre-on-horseback/

Animal Welfare law was broken and those that broke it were brought to justice, nothing political in that, and it's just what the RSPCA was set up for when they first began!


----------



## Moomin1 (3 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			I think I hit a nerve lol.
		
Click to expand...

Why would it possibly hit a nerve?

The Heythrop were found guilty.  Hunting with hounds is illegal still.

Win/win situation for anti hunt.  

It's people like you that should feel a bitter taste in your mouth, which quite clearly you do given your pathetic excuses for the criminalities of the Heythrop.


----------



## Hunters (3 February 2013)

I wasn't aware I'd given any excuses for the Heythrop. Not sure I could.

As I have repeatedly stated, regardless of whether it was a hunt or not £300,000 is a heck of a lot of money to spend on any prosecution.

But you are never going to change your mind & neither am I.


----------



## Moomin1 (3 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			I wasn't aware I'd given any excuses for the Heythrop. Not sure I could.

As I have repeatedly stated, regardless of whether it was a hunt or not £300,000 is a heck of a lot of money to spend on any prosecution.

But you are never going to change your mind & neither am I.
		
Click to expand...


Well, the Charities Commission didn't feel that it was in any way a breach so there we go!


----------



## Countryman (3 February 2013)

No animal welfare laws were broken. The Hunting Act has nothing to do with animal welfare, it doesn't exist to reduce cruelty.


----------



## Moomin1 (3 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			No animal welfare laws were broken. The Hunting Act has nothing to do with animal welfare, it doesn't exist to reduce cruelty.
		
Click to expand...

Ok.  So what does the Hunting Act exist to do?


----------



## Hunters (3 February 2013)

I think the fact that the Charities Commission felt they had reason enough to write speaks volumes.

But no doubt they too will be castigated into being pro- hunt nutters.

It's all about accountability.


----------



## Ahunter (3 February 2013)

Ok. So what does the Hunting Act exist to do?

The Burns report clearly states, in the event of a ban other methods will be used to compensate those no longer killed by hounds, the two likely take up methods he stated were less Preferable to hunting, only a clown would then claim the ban was introduced to reduce cruelty or suffering.

It was introduced to stop the perceived sporting element to foxhunting regardless of the increase in suffering and cruelty.


----------



## Moomin1 (3 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			I think the fact that the Charities Commission felt they had reason enough to write speaks volumes.

But no doubt they too will be castigated into being pro- hunt nutters.

It's all about accountability.
		
Click to expand...

What on earth are you rambling about?!!

The CC HAVE to write, when enough complaints are raised.  The pro hunt peeps raised their complaints, so they wrote, and looked into it.  They found no breach.  Get over it FGS it's pathetic.

Just accept that your hunting friends at the Heythrop let you 'legal hunters' down and committed an offence.  They got caught.  They got prosecuted.  

The rest of you should be ashamed by those that let YOU down (if you hunt legally).


----------



## lastchancer (4 February 2013)

This might be a slightly dumb question but... The hunts have to have the farmers permission to go on the land that they hunt on? Do the monitors/thugs not need permission too? And if they don't have it can/do the landowners take action against them?


----------



## Hunters (4 February 2013)

Yes hunts take the time to get permission & no monitors/antis do not. 

Monitors/antis believe that they have the right to go wherever they like.


----------



## Hunters (4 February 2013)

Trespass generally is a civil offence, although aggravated trespass is different.

After Trevor Morse was killebang an anti - helicopter in Warwickshire, we had a huge hit from the antis (they seemed delighted to have killed a man.)

The police attended a 'trespass' incident & a arrest was made. The landowner was so angry with the anti that he backed the police prosecution. The antis/ monitors claimed that illegal hunting was taking place & produced video evidence of hounds rioting on deer.


----------



## Hunters (4 February 2013)

The huntsman could clearly be seen trying to stop the hounds.

Long & short of it, the anti was found guilty & after the verdict, previous convictions were read out & they were as long as your arm.

A fee months later, the anti had appealed the decision & so back to court we all went. Upon seeing us all once more prepared to go through it all again, the anti cancelled the appeal.

So yes you can do something about antis & trespass but it's a long & drawn-out process.


----------



## Hunters (4 February 2013)

Also, apologies for typos, iPhone app problems, but I think my posts are just about readable


----------



## competitiondiva (4 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			No animal welfare laws were broken. The Hunting Act has nothing to do with animal welfare, it doesn't exist to reduce cruelty.
		
Click to expand...

The hunting act was brought in because the majority of MP's (and in turn the pubic) voted that it was cruel and outdated, therefore voted to ban it.    

Whether the alternatives are any less or more cruel (and I am aware there are plenty of pest control firms and game keepers, successfully managing fox problems with more humane methods) is a separate issue in itself, it does not mean that the act of hunting with a pack of dogs is not cruel!  I won't go into the debate of hunting.  As no one will be swayed but just wanted to highlight the fact that the hunting act does create an animal welfare offence, therefore within the remit of the RSPCA.


----------



## SarahColeman (4 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			SarahColeman - on your point about cheaper hunts being easier to convict, forget about it. I understand there is a central Hunting Fighting Fund to fight prosecutions etc which is considerably better off than the RSPCA's own fighting fund...
		
Click to expand...

you forgot to add ner ner na ner ner to your childish post!

No good having a fighting fund if you have not the stomach for a fight @Heythrop????


----------



## SarahColeman (4 February 2013)

lastchancer said:



			This might be a slightly dumb question but... The hunts have to have the farmers permission to go on the land that they hunt on? Do the monitors/thugs not need permission too? And if they don't have it can/do the landowners take action against them?
		
Click to expand...

An even dumber question from me lastchancer  If the hunts are not breaking the law why are they doing all they can not to be monitored. If they are law abiding the monitors can prove this for them and trail hunting may not be banned after all.


----------



## SarahColeman (4 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Which ever way you dress it up, it is an obscene amount to spend & any animal destroyed as a result,  is because of people like you refusing to acknowledge that your association got it wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Hunters you completely ignored the HUGE fact that the Heythrop have been banned from trail hunting on National Trust land. What a price they have payed for their arrogance!


----------



## Simsar (4 February 2013)

SarahC genuine question, are you seriously suggesting that anyone going about their lawful business should allow themselves to be filmed as evidence?? Bizarre!


----------



## Ahunter (4 February 2013)

"The hunting act was brought in because the majority of MP's (and in turn the pubic) voted that it was cruel and outdated, therefore voted to ban it" 

What a load of Cobblers!!!!!

Peter Bradley, Labour MP for The Wrekin and parliamentary secretary to Alun
Michael wrote in the Sunday Telegraph, "we should own up, the struggle was not about personal freedoms and animal welfare, it was class war"


"Whether the alternatives are any less or more cruel (and I am aware there are plenty of pest control firms and game keepers, successfully managing fox problems with more humane methods) is a separate issue"

The Burns inquiry did not think so and compared the various methods as anyone with a brain would think its bloody stupid to ban one method only for another to take its place and increase suffering.


----------



## SarahColeman (4 February 2013)

Simsar said:



			SarahC genuine question, are you seriously suggesting that anyone going about their lawful business should allow themselves to be filmed as evidence?? Bizarre!
		
Click to expand...

When 50 odd thousand people connected to a certain business have signed a declaration stating they will break the law then to monitor them is by no means bizarre, more common sense. Being filmed not breaking the law would cause me no concern whatsoever. Moreover I would not then act in an illegal manner to prevent people filming me hunts people presently do.


----------



## combat_claire (4 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			An even dumber question from me lastchancer  If the hunts are not breaking the law why are they doing all they can not to be monitored. If they are law abiding the monitors can prove this for them and trail hunting may not be banned after all.
		
Click to expand...

How would you like it if I followed you round the supermarket videoing and photographing your every move because I suspected that you might be about to start shoplifting? I might argue that if you are law abiding then you have nothing to fear from my monitoring your activity. You would probably see it as harassment of you going about your lawful business. There we have the nub of the reason why hunts dislike the monitors. 

This combined with the fact that many monitors are former saboteurs there is hardly any wonder why they are distrusted. 

I had the misfortune to come across a group of the East Midland's finest monitors/saboteurs - they were a deeply threatening presence as they marched up the hillside in their black hoodies, camouflage bottoms and scarves towards a group of foot followers who were peaceably watching the draw. I would add that they were not abusive or violent to us, but I still had a feeling that they had menace on their minds.


----------



## Simsar (4 February 2013)

Thanks CC you beat me to it!


----------



## combat_claire (4 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			So yes you can do something about antis & trespass but it's a long & drawn-out process.
		
Click to expand...

It took the Fitzwilliam 2 years of evidence gathering against saboteurs before they managed o secure an injunction using an ancient tort known as 'trespass of goods' 

The details are here in this report:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-by-blowing-horns-and-hallooing-1504580.html


----------



## Simsar (4 February 2013)

Another question, if hunts are persistently follwed by the same sabs could the hunt or the hunt staff take out a restaining order on the offenders?


----------



## combat_claire (4 February 2013)

Simsar said:



			Thanks CC you beat me to it!
		
Click to expand...

I would just add I have better things to do with my time than follow people around the supermarket!!


----------



## Simsar (4 February 2013)

Restraining even, wouldn't want them restained...... might get done for cruelty.


----------



## Fellewell (4 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Men were not hung for stealing horses but to stop horses being stolen. If this prosecution prevents others from acting in the way the Heythrop did then foxes will be saved from such hunting. Who cares what one or more MP's wanted from this ban the public want it and MP's represent us and our views! Nor does it matter about road kills the law is to ban the killing of foxes with dogs and the Heythrop conviction proves absolutely the law is a success. As hunts refuse to abide by the law time will bring a ban on the smokescreen of trail hunting I have no doubt. they had their chance to comply and when caught not doing so actually attack the RSPCA. Hilarious!
		
Click to expand...

'Nor does it matter about road kills'

So an agonising death for a fox by the roadside in territory he's unfamiliar with is acceptable to you is it?
You'd be ok with the Heythrop running over foxes in a car would you?
Perhaps you could ask yourself why the fox has been forced to become an urbanite in the first place.
Being cleanly despatched by a terrierman is a far more humane end; but this isn't really about the fox for you is it? Be honest.


----------



## Moomin1 (4 February 2013)

Fellewell said:



			'Nor does it matter about road kills'

So an agonising death for a fox by the roadside in territory he's unfamiliar with is acceptable to you is it?
You'd be ok with the Heythrop running over foxes in a car would you?
Perhaps you could ask yourself why the fox has been forced to become an urbanite in the first place.
Being cleanly despatched by a terrierman is a far more humane end; but this isn't really about the fox for you is it? Be honest.
		
Click to expand...

There's a slight difference in a car accidently hitting a fox, than a human being going all out to intentionally kill using a pack of hounds.


----------



## Countryman (4 February 2013)

The reason we do everything we can to stop the monitors filming or having a good day out is that they make no secret of the fact they hate us and hold us in contempt. You do not let someone who hates you film your activities when you know they will do everything they can to have the filming misconstrued as illegal activity - for example, telling a court that hounds in cry is proof of illegal hunting! (Hounds in cry is also equally good proof of trail hunting...)


----------



## SarahColeman (4 February 2013)

combat_claire said:



			How would you like it if I followed you round the supermarket videoing and photographing your every move because I suspected that you might be about to start shoplifting? I might argue that if you are law abiding then you have nothing to fear from my monitoring your activity. You would probably see it as harassment of you going about your lawful business. There we have the nub of the reason why hunts dislike the monitors. 

This combined with the fact that many monitors are former saboteurs there is hardly any wonder why they are distrusted. 

I had the misfortune to come across a group of the East Midland's finest monitors/saboteurs - they were a deeply threatening presence as they marched up the hillside in their black hoodies, camouflage bottoms and scarves towards a group of foot followers who were peaceably watching the draw. I would add that they were not abusive or violent to us, but I still had a feeling that they had menace on their minds.
		
Click to expand...

It just does not compare UNLESS I was previously allowed to take any goods I wanted from the supermarket for free. Now the supermarket said I had to pay for my goods but I, encouraged by a future MP declared no way would I pay, I would shoplift. If you then videoed or photographed my every move in the supermarket you would have your comparison.


----------



## Fellewell (4 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			There's a slight difference in a car accidently hitting a fox, than a human being going all out to intentionally kill using a pack of hounds.
		
Click to expand...

Try telling that to the fox.

Hounds are/were doing what comes/came naturally. Just as sure as the lions in the Serengeti with that well-known 'hunt follower' David Attenborough.

People happily sit down to be entertained by watching animals ripping each other to bits on natural history programmes. Would you call that cognitive dissonance?


----------



## SarahColeman (4 February 2013)

Fellewell said:



			Try telling that to the fox.

Hounds are/were doing what comes/came naturally. Just as sure as the lions in the Serengeti with that well-known 'hunt follower' David Attenborough.

People happily sit down to be entertained by watching animals ripping each other to bits on natural history programmes. Would you call that cognitive dissonance?
		
Click to expand...

Hounds are not doing what comes 'naturally' to them, LEGALLY anymore


----------



## Countryman (4 February 2013)

Well hounds killing a fox isn't necessarily illegal.


----------



## Fellewell (4 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			No. Honestly for me it is about attacks on the RSPCA by people such as yourself who post c**p like the above 

Click to expand...

I didn't mention the RSPCA and you are resorting to foul language because you don't have any answers.


----------



## SarahColeman (4 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			Well hounds killing a fox isn't necessarily illegal.
		
Click to expand...

Back to ner ner so soon


----------



## competitiondiva (4 February 2013)

Fellewell said:



			Try telling that to the fox.

Hounds are/were doing what comes/came naturally. Just as sure as the lions in the Serengeti with that well-known 'hunt follower' David Attenborough.

People happily sit down to be entertained by watching animals ripping each other to bits on natural history programmes. Would you call that cognitive dissonance?
		
Click to expand...

by your arguement then dog fighting should be allowed as they are doing what comes naturally to them??


----------



## SarahColeman (4 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Trespass generally is a civil offence, although aggravated trespass is different.

After Trevor Morse was killebang an anti - helicopter in Warwickshire, we had a huge hit from the antis (they seemed delighted to have killed a man.)

The police attended a 'trespass' incident & a arrest was made. The landowner was so angry with the anti that he backed the police prosecution. The antis/ monitors claimed that illegal hunting was taking place & produced video evidence of hounds rioting on deer.
		
Click to expand...

I do not know the intimate details of this case but was it not Morse who was trespassing and then aggravated the offence with violence toward the copter occupants?


----------



## Moomin1 (4 February 2013)

Fellewell said:



			Try telling that to the fox.

Hounds are/were doing what comes/came naturally. Just as sure as the lions in the Serengeti with that well-known 'hunt follower' David Attenborough.

People happily sit down to be entertained by watching animals ripping each other to bits on natural history programmes. Would you call that cognitive dissonance?
		
Click to expand...

Ha ha.  Err, slightly flawed argument, because animals ripping each other apart in the wild is FOR SURVIVAL.  Not to provide entertainment for people such as yourself.


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 February 2013)

competitiondiva said:



			by your arguement then dog fighting should be allowed as they are doing what comes naturally to them??
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, dear, but dog fighting to the death doesn't actually come naturally to them!  And although stallions can fight to the death if one is VERY determined to take over, it is more normal for one to back off and leave the area fast if he is having 7 bells kicked out of him!

Dog fights are 'engineered' by breeding aggressive dogs, bringing them up to be aggressive, and putting them in a situation where they can't run away - they fight - or they die!  And sick barstewards bet on the outcome and are 'entertained' by the pain they suffer - and the blood that flows!

Anyone who went foxhunting to satisfy a 'blood lust' would be VERY sadly disappointed!  In 20 odd years of foxhunting I was close enough to 3 kills to SEE them - and there was no blood with any of them (the pack I normally went with rarely 'broke up' their foxes after the kill.  Once it was dead, the most the dog hounds would do was lift a leg on it!)


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			The video footage of the incident however clearly shows these antis up and reveals their true colours. Their first words upon killing Morse were not shock, or horror, but a sneering voice which said "Oh look, the stupid **** didn't get out of the way".
		
Click to expand...

And - of course - that wasn't the pilot but the very 'sinister' AR nutter, John Curtin!   His presence was NOT disclosed to the jury: if they'd known he was there - and had details of his criminal record - the verdict might have been rather different!


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Ha ha.  Err, slightly flawed argument, because animals ripping each other apart in the wild is FOR SURVIVAL.  Not to provide entertainment for people such as yourself.

Click to expand...

See my reply to competitiondiva above!  If hunt followers needed 'entertainment' value from the killing of a fox, they'd quickly give up hunting.  The killing of foxes was strictly between the huntsman/hounds - and the farmers who allowed us to gallop over their land!

Now that a normal day's hunting doesn't include killing foxes, some farmers don't allow hunting any more.  Thankfully, most do - in return for fox control work done by the huntsman, 2 hounds and some shooters!  

MOST mounted followers go hunting purely for the ride it provides - over country and jumps they would not normally have access to, with friends.  Some enjoy the houndwork too - although it's usually the foot followers who appreciate and see more of the houndwork.

When MOST kills happen, the mounted followers can be half-a-mile away!


----------



## Moomin1 (4 February 2013)

So in that case why do the majority of hunts folk get so bothered by the ban?  Drag hunting should be just as enjoyable


----------



## competitiondiva (4 February 2013)

my parallel may not have been 100% the same, but both are artificial situations created by man using an animals instincts.  And I never mentioned stallions??!! Not sure where that one came in!

Anyway, right or wrong, the debate will go on for a long long time, those pro will never change their opinions and neither will those who are against.  So where do we go from here.  Well we abide by the law. And until the law changes, it is Illegal to hunt using a pack of dogs.  So those that hunt legally, continue away, those that don't, don't moan when you get caught and don't then accuse the RSPCA of being political if they take a prosecution against you.  And if you don't agree with the law, then lobby your MP for a change.  After all who are we to pick and choose with laws are upheld and which aren't???


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			So in that case why do the majority of hunts folk get so bothered by the ban?  Drag hunting should be just as enjoyable
		
Click to expand...

Because we KNOW what was behind it; we KNOW what the alternatives are (for the fox) - and draghunting actually provides a totally different type of riding.  Draghunting is faster, jumping is virtually compulsory.  You need a much fitter horse, and there's far less time for a good chin-wag!


----------



## Hunters (4 February 2013)

Trail hunting is what's done now & mostly it works well.  The scent tends to make hounds run faster as it's so pungent.

The only problem, is if a fox should be 'put up' that's when it gets tricky for a huntsman.

I don't envy any huntsman's job these days. It must be very hard, even harder with antis thrusting video cameras everywhere.

Hunting has knitted the countryside together for generations, whether it be drag hunting or trail hunting, long may it continue.


----------



## SarahColeman (4 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Dog fights are 'engineered' by breeding aggressive dogs, bringing them up to be aggressive, and putting them in a situation where they can't run away - they fight - or they die!  And sick barstewards bet on the outcome and are 'entertained' by the pain they suffer - and the blood that flows!

I know we are heading off topic but fighting dogs are not bred for aggression they are bred for gameness. Being aggressive produces no fighting ability, stamina or guts. Just as in humans.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SarahColeman (4 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Trail hunting is what's done now & mostly it works well.  The scent tends to make hounds run faster as it's so pungent.

The only problem, is if a fox should be 'put up' that's when it gets tricky for a huntsman.

I don't envy any huntsman's job these days. It must be very hard, even harder with antis thrusting video cameras everywhere.

Hunting has knitted the countryside together for generations, whether it be drag hunting or trail hunting, long may it continue.
		
Click to expand...

If you change the scent used and stopped cub hunting their wouldn't be a single accident. The law and the antis are not the problem it is the huntsmen themselves!


----------



## Fellewell (4 February 2013)

competitiondiva said:



			by your arguement then dog fighting should be allowed as they are doing what comes naturally to them??
		
Click to expand...

Dog fights are not used to control numbers and keep them healthy.

Last time I looked dogs were being cruelly destroyed by indiscriminate breeding.


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 February 2013)

competitiondiva said:



			my parallel may not have been 100% the same, but both are artificial situations created by man using an animals instincts.  And I never mentioned stallions??!! Not sure where that one came in!
		
Click to expand...

Stallions fighting was just another example of what is 'natural' to animals - and what isn't!  Although there are some barstewards in other countries that 'organise' stallion fights for entertainment.

The BIG difference between the blood 'sports' - and foxhunting - is that the blood 'sports' involve animals in close and captive surroundings so that they can't escape when the going gets rough - and so the barstewards who organise these 'sports' can enjoy the carnage and bet on the result!

Foxhunting is actually totally natural.  Although foxes are a smallish predator - they have always been 'prey' for larger carnivores (wolves/coyotes etc.)  You don't need a trained foxhound to have a dog that will chase a fox - my YorkiexJack is constantly after them although he hasn't managed to catch one, and my Springer also used to chase them!  The fox chooses 'flight' from ANYTHING that might threaten it - it puts a safe distance between itself and the 'hunter' (last year I watched 2 of my foals 'hunting' a fox around the field!!)  

Putting a safe distance between itself - and whatever it perceives as a threat - is totally natural to the fox and it is not particularly frightened.  As soon as there's a safe distance, fox goes about his normal business until the 'threat' gets close again.

People go on and on about a hunted fox being 'terrified' - it's not - because it keeps running.  Some years ago, an RSPCA PROVED that hunted foxes are not terrified!  He'd just released a fox back into the wild - he removed it from its crate and put it on the ground - and it FROZE - for several minutes.  RSPCA Inspector explained that he was too scared to run!  Funnily enough, I've never seen a hunted fox 'freeze'!


----------



## Luci07 (4 February 2013)

There is a lot of emphasis on the fact that the law must not be broken. Constantly.

I would say if we don't agree, we need to challenge (which we do). Used to be legal to hang a child for stealing a loaf of bread!


----------



## Hunters (4 February 2013)

I think SarahColeman should run the country, no, change that, run the world. She has an answer to everything & if she is beyond reason, she shouts.

By God, she can perform miracles, she says that 'fox' hounds shouldn't chase fox scent lol!!

She will have them chasing bananas next - or perhaps that will be monitored by the banana police!

Most funniest and stupid post yet


----------



## Fellewell (4 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Ha ha.  Err, slightly flawed argument, because animals ripping each other apart in the wild is FOR SURVIVAL.  Not to provide entertainment for people such as yourself.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing you don't keep chickens.


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			I know we are heading off topic but fighting dogs are not bred for aggression they are bred for gameness. Being aggressive produces no fighting ability, stamina or guts. Just as in humans.
		
Click to expand...

Mmm - an expert on dog fighting??  The ASPCA would disagree - to quote their fact sheet:




			Q. Can All dogs Be Trained to Fight?

No. Much like herding dogs, trailing dogs and other breeds selected for particular roles, fighting dogs are born ready for the training that will prepare them to succeed in the pit, and are bred to have a high degree of dog aggression.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			If you change the scent used and stopped cub hunting their wouldn't be a single accident. The law and the antis are not the problem it is the huntsmen themselves!
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear - you're an expert on dog fighting (not!) and now you're an expert on foxhounds!  Actually, I know a LOT more about foxhounds than I do about fighting breeds - as I've walked a LOT of foxhound puppies (from 8 weeks to 8-10 months of age.)  ALL of them have shown a natural instinct to chase foxes from a young age.  Two bitches I had - at 4 months - put up a fox on my farm and hunted it over 3 more farms and onto a pub car park before they lost the scent!  Little poppets woud chase most things but it was easy to teach them NOT to chase sheep etc - because they were on hand when needed!

Foxhounds have been bred for their ability to hunt foxes for some 250 years - it is totally natural to them and they don't have to be trained to do it - they just have to be trained to accept commands - such as 'leave it', and 'get back to him' (the huntsman) etc etc etc - and NOT to chase anything else!  It would be extremely difficult to train a foxhound to hunt an alternative scent.  Bloodhounds, of course, hunt a human scent - something THEY have been bred for for hundreds of years!

Oh - and cubjunting HAS stopped - it is just as illegal as hunting mature foxes!


----------



## Alec Swan (4 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			So in that case why do the majority of hunts folk get so bothered by the ban?  Drag hunting should be just as enjoyable
		
Click to expand...

It isn't,  it's that simple.  Hunting,  complete with its failed days,  provides the chance of an achievable end.  Following someone who's laid a trail,  is tedious,  predictable and boring.  

It's all about the word.  To HUNT,  is to seek out and to hold and to achieve and to posses.  It is an entirely natural instinct in some,  and a base instinct,  which is not understood by others. 

The small boy who sets his first mouse trap,  and catches his first mouse,  is no different from the man who spends hours on The Hill,  closing with his prize,  a stag.  He's no different from the man who encourages his hounds to hunt.  He's no different from those who scour auction sites or antique shops looking for bargains.  Hunting in its many forms,  can be a passion.

OK,  so when rummaging around in antique shops,  nothing dies,  but that isn't the point,  it's the attached passion,  which matters.  You wont understand,  I understand,  but it's the way that it is with some,  and for others to tell me what I should or shouldn't do,  and so consider themselves to be my conscience,  is irksome.  For that very good reason,  I pay scant regard to those Laws which I consider unreasonable.  I consider my actions to be of a "Testing" nature.  Report me,  see if I care.

Alec.


----------



## SarahColeman (4 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Mmm - an expert on dog fighting??  The ASPCA would disagree - to quote their fact sheet:
		
Click to expand...

I certainly do not need to read ASPCA fact sheet propaganda and quote it to make a point about a subject but your frankly smarmy comment regarding "expert", is duly noted. I fully disagree that pit fighting dogs were either bred to be dog aggressive or need to be bred aggressive/encouraged to be aggressive to fight. The one thing that those attempting to combat dog fighting could or more likely would not accept is pit dogs for two hundred years have been bred to simply enjoy fighting. Let them get on with it and they will very quietly try to take each other apart whilst wagging their tails!


----------



## SarahColeman (4 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Oh dear - you're an expert on dog fighting (not!) and now you're an expert on foxhounds!  Actually, I know a LOT more about foxhounds than I do about fighting breeds - as I've walked a LOT of foxhound puppies (from 8 weeks to 8-10 months of age.)  ALL of them have shown a natural instinct to chase foxes from a young age.  Two bitches I had - at 4 months - put up a fox on my farm and hunted it over 3 more farms and onto a pub car park before they lost the scent!  Little poppets woud chase most things but it was easy to teach them NOT to chase sheep etc - because they were on hand when needed!

Foxhounds have been bred for their ability to hunt foxes for some 250 years - it is totally natural to them and they don't have to be trained to do it - they just have to be trained to accept commands - such as 'leave it', and 'get back to him' (the huntsman) etc etc etc - and NOT to chase anything else!  It would be extremely difficult to train a foxhound to hunt an alternative scent.  Bloodhounds, of course, hunt a human scent - something THEY have been bred for for hundreds of years!

Oh - and cubjunting HAS stopped - it is just as illegal as hunting mature foxes!
		
Click to expand...

How wonderful for you Superwoman! The simple truth is if you can train a foxhound not to chase sheep and other animals you can train it NOT to chase foxes. You claim it would be difficult to train a foxhound to follow an alternative scent, why???? And no cub hunting has not stopped but given the RSPCA's new funding system it will be very soon.


----------



## competitiondiva (4 February 2013)

I find it rather alarming, or maybe I'm naive that so many of you have such disregard for the laws of this country. Whether you like it or not, it is the law. You might not agree with it, similarly dog fighters don't agree with the law making their sport illegal. If we all only follow the law we want to abide by where would the country be? Bearing in mind everyone is different and holds different values in life. Should the person who believes they can speed through the school zone be allowed to? If so many of you are willing to flaunt the law is there any wonder when prosecutions are brought. What you do with your life is up to you, but if you break the law it also becomes the interest of the public. And if you are held accountable for your actions don't stomp your feet like a petulant child. You are all adults responsible for your own actions.


----------



## SarahColeman (4 February 2013)

I could not agree more competitiondiva but suspect one of the more vocal 'anarchists', is actually posting from his room in the nursing home, wishing he wasn't so frail and miffed that he is daily forced to do exactly what he is told to.


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			The simple truth is if you can train a foxhound not to chase sheep and other animals you can train it NOT to chase foxes. You claim it would be difficult to train a foxhound to follow an alternative scent, why???? And no cub hunting has not stopped but given the RSPCA's new funding system it will be very soon.
		
Click to expand...

WRONG!  Unless you caught up live foxes and enclosed them so you could 'introduce' them to foxhounds in a VERY confined space!  Do you have ANY idea how foxhounds are trained NOT to chase sheep (and they haven't been bred to chase sheep for 250 years!!)  They are NOT easy dogs to train.

And - what scent would you use??  And how would you train them to follow it?  I'd really like to hear what ideas you have.  They actually aren't very good at finding chocolate biscuits - although they WILL find raw or cooked meat quickly.  But there'd be an obvious problem in laying a beef scent!

Cubhunting IS illegal and most hunts ARE following the law!!  In Autumn, criss-cross trails are laid in a covert to help teach the young hounds to get their heads dow and follow a scent - rather than chasing the first thing they see.

I don't think the RSPCA's 'new funding system' will have any effect other than perhaps to teach hunts who are a bit careless to cover themselves rather more carefully!


----------



## Hunters (4 February 2013)

My jack Russell catches & kills rats, I neither showed her how to do it, nor would I be able to stop her.

The retriever, when the terrier has finished playing with the rat, retrieves it. The clue is in how the animal is bred.

Hardly rocket science lol.


----------



## SarahColeman (4 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			WRONG!  Unless you caught up live foxes and enclosed them so you could 'introduce' them to foxhounds in a VERY confined space!  Do you have ANY idea how foxhounds are trained NOT to chase sheep (and they haven't been bred to chase sheep for 250 years!!)  They are NOT easy dogs to train.

And - what scent would you use??  And how would you train them to follow it?  I'd really like to hear what ideas you have.  They actually aren't very good at finding chocolate biscuits - although they WILL find raw or cooked meat quickly.  But there'd be an obvious problem in laying a beef scent!

Cubhunting IS illegal and most hunts ARE following the law!!  In Autumn, criss-cross trails are laid in a covert to help teach the young hounds to get their heads dow and follow a scent - rather than chasing the first thing they see.

I don't think the RSPCA's 'new funding system' will have any effect other than perhaps to teach hunts who are a bit careless to cover themselves rather more carefully!
		
Click to expand...

You can TRY and make it sound as difficult as you wish to retrain the hounds and of course I could start by suggesting the hundreds of foxes in the safe care of the rescue groups could be used. But, what will happen is you will find another excuse and then another because certain people want to retain the hounds so they can keep killing 
Of course, you can mock the fine work of the RSPCA and hint at lawbreakers just doing so more cleverly but they will get you, they are coming for your criminals


----------



## cptrayes (4 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Foxhounds have been bred for their ability to hunt foxes for some 250 years - it is totally natural to them and they don't have to be trained to do it - they just have to be trained to accept commands - such as 'leave it', and 'get back to him' (the huntsman) etc etc etc - and NOT to chase anything else! * It would be extremely difficult to train a foxhound to hunt an alternative scent.*

Click to expand...

My bolding. Ummmmmm?  

Drag packs use foxhounds and hunt a scent with no problems.

Hunts which are hunting legally have switched their foxhounds to hunt a scent with few problems. 

Can't see this is right Janet, sorry


----------



## Moomin1 (4 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			I could not agree more competitiondiva but suspect one of the more vocal 'anarchists', is actually posting from his room in the nursing home, wishing he wasn't so frail and miffed that he is daily forced to do exactly what he is told to.
		
Click to expand...

Brilliant!


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			You can TRY and make it sound as difficult as you wish to retrain the hounds and of course I could start by suggesting the hundreds of foxes in the safe care of the rescue groups could be used.
		
Click to expand...

Gee - I bet the rescue groups would LOVE that idea!  Captive foxes at risk of being chased by hounds (and killed if the huntsman wasn't quick enough)!





			Of course, you can mock the fine work of the RSPCA and hint at lawbreakers just doing so more cleverly but they will get you, they are coming for your criminals 

Click to expand...

I'm not interested in lawbreakers being 'clever' - what I AM concerned about is hunts that are doing their utmost to hunt within the law ensuring they take care - video their trail laying etc - so that IF they find themselves facing charges because of an accidental riot on fox they'll be able to PROVE without doubt that it WAS an accident!


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 February 2013)

cptrayes said:



			My bolding. Ummmmmm?  

Drag packs use foxhounds and hunt a scent with no problems.

Hunts which are hunting legally have switched their foxhounds to hunt a scent with few problems. 

Can't see this is right Janet, sorry 

Click to expand...

MOST drag hunts use foxhounds who proved poor scenting hounds - the MUCH stronger scent used for draghunting suits them - and because the drags are laid over 'prepared' lines, it's less likely a fox will pop up in their path.

Hunts which ARE hunting legally have plenty of problems, believe me.  Hounds will see/scent a fox and they're off!  If the huntsman or whipper-in are close enough they can stop them pretty quickly - if they're not (and hunt monitors are at hand) chances are they will be prosecuted!

You really don't know much about hunting, do you!


----------



## cptrayes (4 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			MOST drag hunts use foxhounds who proved poor scenting hounds -
		
Click to expand...

That would be why the two packs I hunt with will regularly attempt to follow a fox scent and be called off, would it?




			drags are laid over 'prepared' lines, it's less likely a fox will pop up in their path.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Janet but this doesn't make sense. Our hounds often pick up fox and try to follow it and are called off. They did last Satuday. They are hunting in exactly the areas where foxes will have been leaving scent. They get very excited indeed when they scent fox, even I can tell the difference in the way they speak.





			Hunts which ARE hunting legally have plenty of problems, believe me.  Hounds will see/scent a fox and they're off!  If the huntsman or whipper-in are close enough they can stop them pretty quickly - if they're not (and hunt monitors are at hand) chances are they will be prosecuted!
		
Click to expand...

I can see the problem if the hounds are old enough to have been hunting fox, but surely they would now all be too old? So in theory all today's hounds should never have been encouraged/trained/allowed to follow fox scent. And I therefore don't see why there are any more difficult to stop from following fox than our drag hounds. 

Unless they are learning to follow the scent of a fox somewhere  ?




			You really don't know much about hunting, do you!
		
Click to expand...

More than you would like me to, I think


----------



## Alec Swan (4 February 2013)

competitiondiva said:



			I find it rather alarming, or maybe I'm naive that so many of you have such disregard for the laws of this country. Whether you like it or not, it is the law. 

.......
		
Click to expand...

Tell me that within your perfect world,  that you have never knowingly broken the law.  

Alec.


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 February 2013)

cptrayes said:



			That would be why the two packs I hunt with will regularly attempt to follow a fox scent and be called off, would it?
		
Click to expand...

That's a bit contradictory, isn't it?  A couple of posts ago you were saying the draghounds hunted a trail with no problems!   Now they're regularly attempting to follow a fox scent and have to be called off (let's hope the huntsman didn't stop for a pee!)


----------



## cptrayes (4 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			That's a bit contradictory, isn't it?  A couple of posts ago you were saying the draghounds hunted a trail with no problems!   Now they're regularly attempting to follow a fox scent and have to be called off (let's hope the huntsman didn't stop for a pee!)

Click to expand...

I don't understand your problem understanding me Janet.

Let me give you an example. On Saturday the hounds found fox in a covert and their voices gave the game away completely. The owner of the pack, who was field mastering that day, smiled and joked about how well the hounds were working and then said "shame that's not the line they should be following" as the Huntsman and whips were in the process of calling them off. A minute or two later, they were put onto the right scent, and off we all went after them. 

It is not a "problem" that they find fox and are called off, it's quite good fun to hear their excitement and to see the level of control that our Huntsmen and Whips have over them.

I do not see how you could define something that is bound to happen in the course of taking a pack of foxhounds through woods and across open country as a problem, hence I do not understand your confusion. 

In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that you might be arguing with me for the sake of it  ?


----------



## Alec Swan (4 February 2013)

My word,  cptrayes,  you are hunting in the presence of genius. 

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (4 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			MOST drag hunts use foxhounds who proved poor scenting hounds - the MUCH stronger scent used for draghunting suits them - and because the drags are laid over 'prepared' lines, it's less likely a fox will pop up in their path.

Hunts which ARE hunting legally have plenty of problems, believe me.  Hounds will see/scent a fox and they're off!  If the huntsman or whipper-in are close enough they can stop them pretty quickly - if they're not (and hunt monitors are at hand) chances are they will be prosecuted!

You really don't know much about hunting, do you!
		
Click to expand...

Well then the answer is simple.

Don't hunt with hounds.


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 February 2013)

cptrayes said:



			I don't understand your problem understanding me Janet.

Let me give you an example. On Saturday the hounds found fox in a covert and their voices gave the game away completely. The owner of the pack, who was field mastering that day, smiled and joked about how well the hounds were working and then said "shame that's not the line they should be following" as the Huntsman and whips were in the process of calling them off.
		
Click to expand...

Funny - I don't know of many draghunts who lay trails through coverts!  And what if the huntsman had been caught up getting back some rioting hounds.  And there'd been hunt monitors in the wood who got just a couple of minutes of video of hounds hunting a fox with no-one trying to stop them at that precise time??  Of course, if the huntsman arrived on the scene to STOP hounds the video would have been turned off!


----------



## Moomin1 (4 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Funny - I don't know of many draghunts who lay trails through coverts!  And what if the huntsman had been caught up getting back some rioting hounds.  And there'd been hunt monitors in the wood who got just a couple of minutes of video of hounds hunting a fox with no-one trying to stop them at that precise time??  Of course, if the huntsman arrived on the scene to STOP hounds the video would have been turned off!
		
Click to expand...

Again, surely the answer is to stop hunting with hounds?


----------



## Countryman (4 February 2013)

I don't know about any one else but I'm certainly not going to give up my lifestyle just because of the possibility that at times people may think we're hunting illegally when we're not...


----------



## Hunters (4 February 2013)

Of course - brilliant idea.

Go hunting without hounds? 

Just get rid of them? Give them to the RSPCA??


----------



## Hunters (4 February 2013)

Full circle.

What a logical cunning plan. Get rid of the hounds, get the RSPCA to neuter them & keep them until they die & bingo - a whole species of animal has been erradicated due to 'animal rights nutters.' 

What clever kind people they are.


----------



## Moomin1 (4 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Of course - brilliant idea.

Go hunting without hounds? 

Just get rid of them? Give them to the RSPCA??
		
Click to expand...

Stop breeding them for that purpose.


----------



## Moomin1 (4 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Full circle.

What a logical cunning plan. Get rid of the hounds, get the RSPCA to neuter them & keep them until they die & bingo - a whole species of animal has been erradicated due to 'animal rights nutters.' 

What clever kind people they are.
		
Click to expand...

Get a grip.

Ridiculous.  That's like saying that by dog fighting being banned that pit bulls have died out in this world. 

Excuses excuses excuses.  What an absolute load of bile.


----------



## Hunters (4 February 2013)

Poor beautiful hounds, hounded out by so called 'do gooders.' 

What a mad distorted world it is


----------



## Moomin1 (4 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Poor beautiful hounds, hounded out by so called 'do gooders.' 

What a mad distorted world it is 

Click to expand...

Pathetic.


----------



## Hunters (4 February 2013)

Resorted to insults. How unsurprising.


----------



## Moomin1 (4 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Resorted to insults. How unsurprising.
		
Click to expand...

Just like yourself of course, resorting to ridiculous and quite frankly laughable transparent excuses for the Heythrop and illegal hunting in general.


----------



## Hunters (4 February 2013)

No - I have not called anyone pathetic. 

Unlike you, & no doubt you will need the last word.


----------



## lastchancer (5 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			The huntsman could clearly be seen trying to stop the hounds.

Long & short of it, the anti was found guilty & after the verdict, previous convictions were read out & they were as long as your arm.

A fee months later, the anti had appealed the decision & so back to court we all went. Upon seeing us all once more prepared to go through it all again, the anti cancelled the appeal.

So yes you can do something about antis & trespass but it's a long & drawn-out process.
		
Click to expand...

Good, I'm glad people are fighting back. I'm not involved in hunting but the way the anti's behave is nothing short of terrorism. Perhaps hunting folk should wear balaclavas and carry a shot gun each


----------



## lastchancer (5 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			An even dumber question from me lastchancer  If the hunts are not breaking the law why are they doing all they can not to be monitored. If they are law abiding the monitors can prove this for them and trail hunting may not be banned after all.
		
Click to expand...

But they are balaclava wearing thugs. If they were officially employed by the government then the hunts would have no choice but to accept them, much like trade standards are tolerated, and the tax man ect. If someone whom you know already hated you started to follow you around wearing military gear, a balaclava and clutching a camcorder, would you not be a little alarmed?


----------



## Hunters (5 February 2013)

The anti that was found guilty of aggravated trespass with us, was also involved in the digging up of the body of the grandmother who was related to the guinea pig people.

Somehow in their minds, digging up a corpse is ok.


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			I'm not interested in lawbreakers being 'clever' - what I AM concerned about is hunts that are doing their utmost to hunt within the law ensuring they take care - video their trail laying etc - so that IF they find themselves facing charges because of an accidental riot on fox they'll be able to PROVE without doubt that it WAS an accident!

That is fine Janet. The Heythrop were prosecuted because they believed they were above the law and could hunt foxes illegally in the full view of filming monitors the arrogant so and so's. They were rightly prosecuted and it is people like them that will ruin legal trail hunting for all of you who wish to enjoy the hounds working a false trail. The ONLY way forward or you could say last chance for mounted hunts is synthetic scent and robust control of hounds with no fox deaths. If not the packs will be gone in the near future.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

lastchancer said:



			But they are balaclava wearing thugs. If they were officially employed by the government then the hunts would have no choice but to accept them, much like trade standards are tolerated, and the tax man ect. If someone whom you know already hated you started to follow you around wearing military gear, a balaclava and clutching a camcorder, would you not be a little alarmed?
		
Click to expand...

No. If he/she is clutching a video camera I would guess the balaclava was for protection tbh. I originally would have agreed with government supported monitors but not any more. The hunts can not be trusted and trail hunting is being used as an excuse for killing foxes. Unless trail hunting is controlled via the scent etc then it is time for it to be banned full stop.


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			The anti that was found guilty of aggravated trespass with us, was also involved in the digging up of the body of the grandmother who was related to the guinea pig people.

Somehow in their minds, digging up a corpse is ok.
		
Click to expand...

To describe this individual it is not sufficient to describe them as anti foxhunting in a ludicrous attempt to stereotype those who go out watching, monitoring or indeed sabbing the hunts.


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Of course - brilliant idea.

Go hunting without hounds? 

Just get rid of them? Give them to the RSPCA??
		
Click to expand...

Why suggest giving them to the RSPCA now when you are under pressure?? You usually just kill the hounds!


----------



## competitiondiva (5 February 2013)

Having seen responses on here. Is it any wonder the monitors are out in force when there are a significant number of you that openly state you will continue to break the law. This attitude not only ruins the 'sport' for your fellow 'hunters' who abide by the law but also results in prosecutions being brought, which you then criticise the RSPCA for doing! Rather hypocritical don't you think. If you want to continue breaking the law don't moan when you get caught!!!! Which is of cause what this whole heythrop situation is about? If you didn't break the law the RSPCA wouldn't have to'waste' money prosecuting you!


----------



## Alec Swan (5 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			To describe this individual it is not sufficient to describe them as anti foxhunting in a ludicrous attempt to stereotype those who go out watching, monitoring or indeed sabbing the hunts.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry to tell you this,  but you're wrong.  The average sabs are easily stereotyped.  They justify the committing of crime by their loathing of those who hunt,  and their ludicrous beliefs that those who hunt are class structured and upper class based.  They care nothing for the welfare of those animals which they claim to support,  and their lack of respect for the rights and privacy of others,  let alone the laws of this land,  set them aside as anarchic thugs.  Their claims to represent justice , order and animal welfare are simply preposterous. *Their actions are a complete rebuttal of their claims.*

We don't tend to get your heroes here in Norfolk,  much,  but if we did,  then I would willingly set aside my time to film and monitor their activities.  Monitoring would be the ideal way to demonstrate to the generally bemused public that your chums are not actually as they seem. 

Alec.


----------



## Fellewell (5 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Why suggest giving them to the RSPCA now when you are under pressure?? You usually just kill the hounds!
		
Click to expand...

Don't your lot usually do that by luring them onto the roads. Hypocrite.


----------



## combat_claire (5 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			I don't know about any one else but I'm certainly not going to give up my lifestyle just because of the possibility that at times people may think we're hunting illegally when we're not...
		
Click to expand...

Well said Countryman


----------



## Alec Swan (5 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Why suggest giving them to the RSPCA now when you are under pressure?? You usually just kill the hounds!
		
Click to expand...

How you can make such a statement when your friends have called hounds across a public highway,  with fatal results,  would stretch credulity.  It begs the question whether they were your friends,  or you're actually part of their movement.

The behaviour and stance of those who you seem to support,  is such that I'd have thought that any caring person would feel just a little embarrassed.  Perhaps you feel no sense of shame.  

Why anyone considers you worthy of discussion,  is beyond me,  and you'd be right,  I don't! 

Again,  Good night.

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (5 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Funny - I don't know of many draghunts who lay trails through coverts!
		
Click to expand...

We often do. Both our drag packs like to make the day as like fox hunting as possible. Both packs lay trails through patches of woodland, which I thought were called coverts though no doubt you will swiftly correct me on that if I am wrong 

On this occasion though, the trail was not laid through the woodland, the hounds just caught a scent  from where they were in the field beside it and gave chase. 

You really are arguing about this just for the sake of it, aren't you Janet? I'm game if you are. 





			And what if the huntsman had been caught up getting back some rioting hounds.  And there'd been hunt monitors in the wood who got just a couple of minutes of video of hounds hunting a fox with no-one trying to stop them at that precise time??
		
Click to expand...

Why would no-one be trying to stop them? If ours go off after the wrong scent there are two or three people after them immediately.

The answer for fox hunts is straightforward Janet. Have a camera on the huntsman. It will then be clear that he is attempting to call off the hounds. They are cheap as chips and any hunt that has no intention of hunting fox would be daft, in my opinion, not to do this. 

The answer for drag packs is that of course we are never sabbed, because we never kill fox. Our hounds are called off, and obey.


----------



## cptrayes (5 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			....I'm certainly not going to give up my lifestyle just because of the possibility that at times people may think we're hunting illegally when we're not...
		
Click to expand...

But no-one is asking you to.

They are asking the hunts that are hunting fox illegally to give up doing that. 

If you are hunting legally then that will have no effect on your lifestyle whatsoever, will it


----------



## combat_claire (5 February 2013)

cptrayes said:



			But no-one is asking you to.

They are asking the hunts that are hunting fox illegally to give up doing that. 

If you are hunting legally then that will have no effect on your lifestyle whatsoever, will it 

Click to expand...

I think he was responding to Moomin's hysterical comment about not hunting with any hounds and just going for a glorified hack...


----------



## Moomin1 (5 February 2013)

combat_claire said:



			I think he was responding to Moomin's hysterical comment about not hunting with any hounds and just going for a glorified hack...
		
Click to expand...

See, that proves the point doesn't it?

People harp on saying that hunts are not about the tearing apart of foxes, but purely about the ride and freedom of the countryside.  

Yet when suggested that perhaps leave the hounds at home in order to ensure no 'accidents' take place, everyone is up in arms saying that it would be pointless and 'a glorified hack'.

So which is it?  Either you hunt for the pleasure of pursuing and killing a fox with hounds, or you hunt for the pleasure of riding the freedom of the countryside and a damn good day out with friends?


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

Nerve struck well and true because I dared mention the hounds killed by hunts?! Now all of a sudden accused by at least three posters of being friends with/part of the anti/sabbing movement. Please do get over yourselves I am an individual and make my own choices whilst always acting in sensible manner and will neither accept blame nor deflect it from those who deserve it!!!


----------



## MerrySherryRider (5 February 2013)

lastchancer said:



			Good, I'm glad people are fighting back. I'm not involved in hunting but the way the anti's behave is nothing short of terrorism. Perhaps hunting folk should wear balaclavas and carry a shot gun each 

Click to expand...

In the interests of fair play, as the pro-hunting lobby like to portray themselves as victims, I just started looking at a list of the criminal convictions of hunt members, hunt staff and supporters and I'm totally shocked. In fact only read part of the list because guilty verdicts of indecent assault on a female hunt monitor by the master of the Cotswold Vale, a couple of incidences where old ladies had broken bones, men being attacked with scythes (yes, really ) and countless assaults on cars, beatings to people heads, being whipped, police officers being assaulted by huntsmen etc etc.
 Just begs the question, are there any hunts out there that have not had members or supporters convicted of violent crimes ?

Dear old Anthony Kirkham deserves a medal from the CA for the amount of convictions he's obtained in promoting the cause. Even attacks police officers. Nice.

I think after reading some of this incredibly long list, the hunt monitors are pussy cats in comparison.


+


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			How you can make such a statement when your friends have called hounds across a public highway,  with fatal results,  would stretch credulity.  It begs the question whether they were your friends,  or you're actually part of their movement.

The behaviour and stance of those who you seem to support,  is such that I'd have thought that any caring person would feel just a little embarrassed.  Perhaps you feel no sense of shame.  

Why anyone considers you worthy of discussion,  is beyond me,  and you'd be right,  I don't! 

Again,  Good night.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...


It is lunch time just open the curtains   "your friends" "your friends"?? How dare you even attempt to tar me with this brush! And no I do not suppose anybody who posts facts about hunting that you may not like but can not distort is worthy of discussion. Run away and hide.


----------



## combat_claire (5 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			See, that proves the point doesn't it?

People harp on saying that hunts are not about the tearing apart of foxes, but purely about the ride and freedom of the countryside.  

Yet when suggested that perhaps leave the hounds at home in order to ensure no 'accidents' take place, everyone is up in arms saying that it would be pointless and 'a glorified hack'.

So which is it?  Either you hunt for the pleasure of pursuing and killing a fox with hounds, or you hunt for the pleasure of riding the freedom of the countryside and a damn good day out with friends?
		
Click to expand...

I think you will find that Countryman, Hunters and myself amongst others have all been consistent in saying that our pleasure in hunting has been about watching the hounds work - whether that be a trail, flushing to a bird of prey or pre-ban hunting a quarry. If we did as Moomin suggested and removed the hounds from the equation then there would be very little worth paying my foot followers subscription for.


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

horserider said:



			In the interests of fair play, as the pro-hunting lobby like to portray themselves as victims, I just started looking at a list of the criminal convictions of hunt members, hunt staff and supporters and I'm totally shocked. In fact only read part of the list because guilty verdicts of indecent assault on a female hunt monitor by the master of the Cotswold Vale, a couple of incidences where old ladies had broken bones, men being attacked with scythes (yes, really ) and countless assaults on cars, beatings to people heads, being whipped, police officers being assaulted by huntsmen etc etc.
 Just begs the question, are there any hunts out there that have not had members or supporters convicted of violent crimes ?

Dear old Anthony Kirkham deserves a medal from the CA for the amount of convictions he's obtained in promoting the cause. Even attacks police officers. Nice.

I think after reading some of this incredibly long list, the hunt monitors are pussy cats in comparison.


+
		
Click to expand...

Do you mean Alec's 'friends', are violent thugs and abusers of women?


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			See, that proves the point doesn't it?

People harp on saying that hunts are not about the tearing apart of foxes, but purely about the ride and freedom of the countryside.  

Yet when suggested that perhaps leave the hounds at home in order to ensure no 'accidents' take place, everyone is up in arms saying that it would be pointless and 'a glorified hack'.

So which is it?  Either you hunt for the pleasure of pursuing and killing a fox with hounds, or you hunt for the pleasure of riding the freedom of the countryside and a damn good day out with friends?
		
Click to expand...

It will not be long before they are leaving the hounds behind by law perhaps.


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

combat_claire said:



			I think you will find that Countryman, Hunters and myself amongst others have all been consistent in saying that our pleasure in hunting has been about watching the hounds work - whether that be a trail, flushing to a bird of prey or pre-ban hunting a quarry. If we did as Moomin suggested and removed the hounds from the equation then there would be very little worth paying my foot followers subscription for.
		
Click to expand...

Oh lord no not the bird of prey smokescreen  There are no birds of prey in this country that can humanely and safely kill a fox, any hunt pretending to use one should be firmly monitored for law breaking!


----------



## combat_claire (5 February 2013)

horserider said:



			I think after reading some of this incredibly long list, the hunt monitors are pussy cats in comparison.
		
Click to expand...

Yes complete 'pussy cats'

January 1993 - 5 police officers injured and 25 arrests of hunt saboteurs in Essex
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1474504.html

November 1993 - injunctions for the Fitzwilliam and Portman - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g-1504580.html

March 1994 - Saboteurs armed with fencing stakes hospitalise four members of the Four Burrow hunt
http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/evi...fourburrow.htm

November 1994 - Saboteurs charged with aggravated trespass following at incident at the Woodland Pytchley Hunt
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~maureen/pr1b.html

December 1996 - saboteur arrested after causing a horse to fall onto the master, Whipper in also arrested after hitting saboteur trying to force his horse onto barbed wire

September 2000 - Old Surrey kennels attacked http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-staff-attacked-by-40-masked-protesters.html

March 2002 - vehicle driven at hunt supporter - http://www.ashbournenewstelegraph.co.uk/News/Hunt-confrontation.htm

June 2002 - saboteurs carrying hammers and pick axe handles attack the Three Counties Hunt - http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competit ... 36173.html

September 2004 - Old Surrey Hunt Kennels held under siege by violent saboteurs who threw stones at humans and hounds. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... sters.html

October 2004 - Suzanne Amos found guilty of ABH following incident at Quorn Hunt
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/58511.html

December 2006 - Saboteur arrested for carrying an offensive weapon at a meet of the Essex & Suffolk
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/n...2021:31:07:357

March 2009 intimidation by masked protestors ends with arrests http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/arrests-Betchworth-foxhunt/story-12667704-detail/story.html

March 2009 - Trevor Morse killed by monitor in gyrocopter - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...on-murder-quiz-as-aircraft-hits-huntsman.html

September 2009 - Tiff Clelland and David Marriot were charged with public order offences, they were asked to remove the clothing covering their faces and refused becoming verbally abusive to the police who had made the request.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/20...ving_balaclava

February 2011 - pepper spray used to break up violence http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8839...by_police_during_Sussex_hunt_protest_clashes/

March 2011 - 5 saboteurs arrested on suspicion of carrying an offensive weapon
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...test-Huntley/story-11867672-detail/story.html

January 2013 - Hunt Kennels attacked and GBH on huntsman http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/392/315607.html


----------



## combat_claire (5 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Oh lord no not the bird of prey smokescreen  There are no birds of prey in this country that can humanely and safely kill a fox, any hunt pretending to use one should be firmly monitored for law breaking!
		
Click to expand...

I have a little maxim - better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt! Something you might be wise to consider applying to your own posts. 

You simply need to open Youtube and search for 'golden eagle takes fox' - there are hundreds of videos to prove that a golden eagle is capable. We also have hours of footage (not available online) of our hunt's golden eagle with its professional falconer taking foxes, hares and small deer such as muntjacs and roe. 

The Act says nothing about the kill via a bird of prey being humane. A huge flaw in the whole of the Act. A kill by an eagle is slower, more gruesome and probably more painful than a kill by hounds ever was.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (5 February 2013)

Oh CC, will you hunt supporters always condone all law breaking and violence by your own people ?

 I have never once on here heard any of you question the wrong doings of the hunts. 
 I find that quite scary and very telling of the lengths they will go to.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (5 February 2013)

combat_claire said:



			I have a little maxim - better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt! Something you might be wise to consider applying to your own posts. 

You simply need to open Youtube and search for 'golden eagle takes fox' - there are hundreds of videos to prove that a golden eagle is capable. We also have hours of footage (not available online) of our hunt's golden eagle with its professional falconer taking foxes, hares and small deer such as muntjacs and roe. 

The Act says nothing about the kill via a bird of prey being humane. A huge flaw in the whole of the Act. A kill by an eagle is slower, more gruesome and probably more painful than a kill by hounds ever was.
		
Click to expand...

Doesn't the Hawk Board strongly oppose the use of birds to get round the loophole in the law ?

BTW, The Trevor Morse incident found the pilot NOT GUILTY. Mr Morse had blocked the pilot in and called for more hunt supporters. The pilot was in fear of his life having already been shot at while he was in the air, repeatedly asked the man to move and moments later, didn't Ottis Ferry(no stranger to assaults)along with other reinforcements arrive on the scene ?
Don't use that unhappy incident to try and point score. The pilot went through hell.


----------



## Moomin1 (5 February 2013)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/8571913.stm


----------



## Countryman (5 February 2013)

Moomin we know he was found not guilty. But I don't think anybody who after decapitating a fellow human simply says "oh dear the test didn't move out of the way" can be accepted as human really...

In response to the posters saying any hunts using the bird of prey loophole are acting illegally, PLEASE just read the Hunting Act. It says nothing about killing animals, it talks of hunting them. It's legal to flush a focal that a bird of prey can hunt it-that need not ever involve killing.

Otherwise hunts would just try and hunt the US way without ever killing the fox they chased.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (5 February 2013)

I think the poster was referring to hunts using birds as a smokescreen to cover illegal hunting. A quite different point. Read the post again.


----------



## Fellewell (5 February 2013)

combat_claire said:



			Yes complete 'pussy cats'

January 1993 - 5 police officers injured and 25 arrests of hunt saboteurs in Essex
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1474504.html

November 1993 - injunctions for the Fitzwilliam and Portman - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g-1504580.html

March 1994 - Saboteurs armed with fencing stakes hospitalise four members of the Four Burrow hunt
http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/evi...fourburrow.htm

November 1994 - Saboteurs charged with aggravated trespass following at incident at the Woodland Pytchley Hunt
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~maureen/pr1b.html

December 1996 - saboteur arrested after causing a horse to fall onto the master, Whipper in also arrested after hitting saboteur trying to force his horse onto barbed wire

September 2000 - Old Surrey kennels attacked http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-staff-attacked-by-40-masked-protesters.html

March 2002 - vehicle driven at hunt supporter - http://www.ashbournenewstelegraph.co.uk/News/Hunt-confrontation.htm

June 2002 - saboteurs carrying hammers and pick axe handles attack the Three Counties Hunt - http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competit ... 36173.html

September 2004 - Old Surrey Hunt Kennels held under siege by violent saboteurs who threw stones at humans and hounds. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... sters.html

October 2004 - Suzanne Amos found guilty of ABH following incident at Quorn Hunt
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/58511.html

December 2006 - Saboteur arrested for carrying an offensive weapon at a meet of the Essex & Suffolk
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/n...2021:31:07:357

March 2009 intimidation by masked protestors ends with arrests http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/arrests-Betchworth-foxhunt/story-12667704-detail/story.html

March 2009 - Trevor Morse killed by monitor in gyrocopter - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...on-murder-quiz-as-aircraft-hits-huntsman.html

September 2009 - Tiff Clelland and David Marriot were charged with public order offences, they were asked to remove the clothing covering their faces and refused becoming verbally abusive to the police who had made the request.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/20...ving_balaclava

February 2011 - pepper spray used to break up violence http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8839...by_police_during_Sussex_hunt_protest_clashes/

March 2011 - 5 saboteurs arrested on suspicion of carrying an offensive weapon
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...test-Huntley/story-11867672-detail/story.html

January 2013 - Hunt Kennels attacked and GBH on huntsman http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/392/315607.html

Click to expand...

Quite.

Perhaps they felt they were doing enough to uphold the law by sleeping with undercover police officers.


----------



## combat_claire (5 February 2013)

horserider said:



			I think the poster was referring to hunts using birds as a smokescreen to cover illegal hunting. A quite different point. Read the post again.
		
Click to expand...

And I was objecting to her inference that the use of our bird of prey was a smokescreen when as stated above we have clear evidence of our hunt's bird of prey killing foxes and other ground game.


----------



## combat_claire (5 February 2013)

horserider said:



			Oh CC, will you hunt supporters always condone all law breaking and violence by your own people ?

 I have never once on here heard any of you question the wrong doings of the hunts. 
 I find that quite scary and very telling of the lengths they will go to.
		
Click to expand...

Where have I condoned the wrong doings of hunts? I am merely trying to point out that the anti-hunting brigade are not quite as squeaky clean as they like to pretend. 

Frankly I think that the three people that have been killed (Tom Warby, Mike Hill & Trevor Morse) as a result of anti-hunting protest activity are three too many. 

I am firmly of the opinion (and this is shared by many masters and followers within our hunt and indeed across the region) that if you ignore the activity of the anti-hunting saboteurs and refuse to fight with them or be intimidated by them then they will get bored and go away.


----------



## Moomin1 (5 February 2013)

combat_claire said:



			Where have I condoned the wrong doings of hunts? I am merely trying to point out that the anti-hunting brigade are not quite as squeaky clean as they like to pretend. 

Frankly I think that the three people that have been killed (Tom Warby, Mike Hill & Trevor Morse) as a result of anti-hunting protest activity are three too many. 

I am firmly of the opinion (and this is shared by many masters and followers within our hunt and indeed across the region) that if you ignore the activity of the anti-hunting saboteurs and refuse to fight with them or be intimidated by them then they will get bored and go away.
		
Click to expand...

You can hardly include the case of Trevor Morse in that I'm afraid.  He pursued the anti hunts guy, he tried to block him from leaving, despite being asked to move.  He was the one who got on the phone asking for 'reinforcement' from the pro hunt supporters in order for them to come along to the scene to assist him in his efforts of blocking him.  

Much as it is a sad situation for somebody to die like that, I am afraid he did put himself in that situation.


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

combat_claire said:



			I have a little maxim - better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt! Something you might be wise to consider applying to your own posts. 

You simply need to open Youtube and search for 'golden eagle takes fox' - there are hundreds of videos to prove that a golden eagle is capable. We also have hours of footage (not available online) of our hunt's golden eagle with its professional falconer taking foxes, hares and small deer such as muntjacs and roe. 

The Act says nothing about the kill via a bird of prey being humane. A huge flaw in the whole of the Act. A kill by an eagle is slower, more gruesome and probably more painful than a kill by hounds ever was.
		
Click to expand...

Given that your post wholeheartedly compliments my statement regarding birds of prey being an inhumane killer of foxes I fear you excitedly jumped the gun with your stolen maxim and in fact make yourself look foolish! If your hunt is happy to use thoroughly inhumane methods to kill foxes then you and they should hang your heads in shame. I shall have a word about this situation and see what can be done regarding welfare/cruelty issues


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

combat_claire said:



			Yes complete 'pussy cats'

January 1993 - 5 police officers injured and 25 arrests of hunt saboteurs in Essex
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1474504.html

November 1993 - injunctions for the Fitzwilliam and Portman - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g-1504580.html

March 1994 - Saboteurs armed with fencing stakes hospitalise four members of the Four Burrow hunt
http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/evi...fourburrow.htm

November 1994 - Saboteurs charged with aggravated trespass following at incident at the Woodland Pytchley Hunt
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~maureen/pr1b.html

December 1996 - saboteur arrested after causing a horse to fall onto the master, Whipper in also arrested after hitting saboteur trying to force his horse onto barbed wire

September 2000 - Old Surrey kennels attacked http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-staff-attacked-by-40-masked-protesters.html

March 2002 - vehicle driven at hunt supporter - http://www.ashbournenewstelegraph.co.uk/News/Hunt-confrontation.htm

June 2002 - saboteurs carrying hammers and pick axe handles attack the Three Counties Hunt - http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competit ... 36173.html

September 2004 - Old Surrey Hunt Kennels held under siege by violent saboteurs who threw stones at humans and hounds. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... sters.html

October 2004 - Suzanne Amos found guilty of ABH following incident at Quorn Hunt
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/58511.html

December 2006 - Saboteur arrested for carrying an offensive weapon at a meet of the Essex & Suffolk
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/n...2021:31:07:357

March 2009 intimidation by masked protestors ends with arrests http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/arrests-Betchworth-foxhunt/story-12667704-detail/story.html

March 2009 - Trevor Morse killed by monitor in gyrocopter - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...on-murder-quiz-as-aircraft-hits-huntsman.html

September 2009 - Tiff Clelland and David Marriot were charged with public order offences, they were asked to remove the clothing covering their faces and refused becoming verbally abusive to the police who had made the request.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/20...ving_balaclava

February 2011 - pepper spray used to break up violence http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8839...by_police_during_Sussex_hunt_protest_clashes/

March 2011 - 5 saboteurs arrested on suspicion of carrying an offensive weapon
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...test-Huntley/story-11867672-detail/story.html

January 2013 - Hunt Kennels attacked and GBH on huntsman http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/392/315607.html

Click to expand...

A very interesting read and thank you for taking the time to compile it. Since the hunting ban though is their any actual evidence of monitors or sabs attacking huntsmen? the above is a lot of huff and puff about nothing in all honesty. As for the 2013 report which of course happened about 10yrs ago what is that all about


----------



## competitiondiva (5 February 2013)

well you learn a new thing everyday, I thought the bird of prey was only used with the harriers???  Which in a completely separate debate, why do hare numbers need controlling?


----------



## Countryman (5 February 2013)

It's true. You have to ask just why hunts that ignore the antis seem to get far fewer visits... Could it be that they get bored and all they're interested in is trying to get a reaction?


----------



## Moomin1 (5 February 2013)

Countryman said:



			It's true. You have to ask just why hunts that ignore the antis seem to get far fewer visits... Could it be that they get bored and all they're interested in is trying to get a reaction?
		
Click to expand...

Maybe so!  Who knows.  

Who actually cares?


----------



## JanetGeorge (5 February 2013)

horserider said:



			BTW, The Trevor Morse incident found the pilot NOT GUILTY. Mr Morse had blocked the pilot in and called for more hunt supporters. The pilot was in fear of his life having already been shot at while he was in the air, repeatedly asked the man to move and moments later, didn't Ottis Ferry(no stranger to assaults)along with other reinforcements arrive on the scene ?
Don't use that unhappy incident to try and point score. The pilot went through hell.
		
Click to expand...

IF the Jury had been allowed to know who was in the gyrocopter with the pilot, it may well have been different!  The pilot was accompanied by a man well known for his total disrespect for life (or death - as he's a convicted grave desecrator!  That man JOKED about Mr. Morse's death at the time it actually happened.

And what hell do you think Mr. Morse's family went through - after all, he had died a horrible death!

The pilot had been harrassing hunts for weeks, putting hunt followers - including children - in danger as they flew low over riders.  On the day of Mr. Morse's death, they didn't even have a camera or video in the gyrocopter - they were just acting to disrupt and annoy with NO thought for the safety of riders whose horses would be scared by low flying!  So pardon me if I hope he DID go through hell!


----------



## Moomin1 (5 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			IF the Jury had been allowed to know who was in the gyrocopter with the pilot, it may well have been different!  The pilot was accompanied by a man well known for his total disrespect for life (or death - as he's a convicted grave desecrator!  That man JOKED about Mr. Morse's death at the time it actually happened.

And what hell do you think Mr. Morse's family went through - after all, he had died a horrible death!

The pilot had been harrassing hunts for weeks, putting hunt followers - including children - in danger as they flew low over riders.  On the day of Mr. Morse's death, they didn't even have a camera or video in the gyrocopter - they were just acting to disrupt and annoy with NO thought for the safety of riders whose horses would be scared by low flying!  So pardon me if I hope he DID go through hell!
		
Click to expand...

How come it said that they had landed the gyrocopter to refuel, and that Morse had actually arrived in his land rover at the location to take photos of them?


----------



## Hunters (5 February 2013)

Give up Janet. You can't change bigots or fanatics.

I have returned home from work & read today's posts.

They're not interested in anything anyone of us has to say.

They have an Ill informed answer for everything & if they don't then they resort to insults.

The word 'fanatic' comes to mind.


----------



## Nancykitt (5 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Given that your post wholeheartedly compliments my statement regarding birds of prey being an inhumane killer of foxes I fear you excitedly jumped the gun with your stolen maxim and in fact make yourself look foolish! If your hunt is happy to use thoroughly inhumane methods to kill foxes then you and they should hang your heads in shame. I shall have a word about this situation and see what can be done regarding welfare/cruelty issues 

Click to expand...

I think you have pretty much summed up the ridiculous nature of the law here. 
Yes, it is perfectly legal to kill a fox using a bird of prey - although it does have to be a large bird (typically a golden eagle or eagle owl).
Yes, it is perfectly legal to shoot a fox. It is not desirable to attempt to shoot a fox with a shotgun (unless it is  very close) but it does happen.
Yes, it is perfectly legal to use a snare or trap. 

Personally, I'm not very happy about any of the above. But they are legal.

I've seen an urban fox trapped in a cage and then shot at point blank range. In this case, it was not  the shooting that disturbed me, but the fact that the fox was incredibly distressed due to the fact that it was caged. It brought home to me that the most cruel thing to happen to this animal was to be deprived of the ability to run away. 

Yet it is completely legal.

I am constantly coming across members of the public who honestly believe that foxes are some sort of protected species and that it is illegal to kill one. I've been amazed at how little some people know about the law, foxes and hunting.


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			IF the Jury had been allowed to know who was in the gyrocopter with the pilot, it may well have been different!  The pilot was accompanied by a man well known for his total disrespect for life (or death - as he's a convicted grave desecrator!  That man JOKED about Mr. Morse's death at the time it actually happened.

And what hell do you think Mr. Morse's family went through - after all, he had died a horrible death!

The pilot had been harrassing hunts for weeks, putting hunt followers - including children - in danger as they flew low over riders.  On the day of Mr. Morse's death, they didn't even have a camera or video in the gyrocopter - they were just acting to disrupt and annoy with NO thought for the safety of riders whose horses would be scared by low flying!  So pardon me if I hope he DID go through hell!
		
Click to expand...

Had the jury been allowed to know who was in the copter thing it would have not changed Morse's actions. Neither the fact you have not added that the pilot had been investigated for low flying and CLEARED ( putting children in danger?? you sensationalist fiction writer Janet!!) Would it change the fact that senior hunt staff lied in court and were humiliated by the judge for doing so?! Perhaps you can explain why Morse was after the flyers, why he was like a man possessed, what did he have planned for those poor men?


----------



## cptrayes (5 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			You can't change bigots or fanatics.

I have ......   read today's posts.

They're not interested in anything anyone of us has to say.

They have an Ill informed answer for everything & if they don't then they resort to insults.

The word 'fanatic' comes to mind.
		
Click to expand...

A post that I wholeheartedly agree with!


----------



## Lizzie66 (5 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			How come it said that they had landed the gyrocopter to refuel, and that Morse had actually arrived in his land rover at the location to take photos of them?
		
Click to expand...

So you agree that he was taking photos of someone committing an act of deliberately intimidating and endangering life by flying too close to horses? Trevor was acting in the same way as you believe hunt monitors act, by trying to gain evidence of someone committing a criminal act. You find it perfectly acceptable for them to do this but not for Trevor Morse to do the same ? 

You also appear to defend the killing of Trevor Morse, would you feel the same way if hunt followers ran down hunt monitors, claiming that the monitors intimidated them and made them fear for their safety ? I doubt it. You and SC both hold double standards and are totally incapable of any reasoned argument. You will not change our minds as our opinions are based on reasoned argument and scientific evidence, yours are based on your personal beliefs.

You are entitled to those beliefs but please do stop trying to force those beliefs on us.


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			I think you have pretty much summed up the ridiculous nature of the law here. 
Yes, it is perfectly legal to kill a fox using a bird of prey - although it does have to be a large bird (typically a golden eagle or eagle owl).
Yes, it is perfectly legal to shoot a fox. It is not desirable to attempt to shoot a fox with a shotgun (unless it is  very close) but it does happen.
Yes, it is perfectly legal to use a snare or trap. 

Personally, I'm not very happy about any of the above. But they are legal.

I've seen an urban fox trapped in a cage and then shot at point blank range. In this case, it was not  the shooting that disturbed me, but the fact that the fox was incredibly distressed due to the fact that it was caged. It brought home to me that the most cruel thing to happen to this animal was to be deprived of the ability to run away. 

Yet it is completely legal.

I am constantly coming across members of the public who honestly believe that foxes are some sort of protected species and that it is illegal to kill one. I've been amazed at how little some people know about the law, foxes and hunting.
		
Click to expand...

I honestly believe the laws bedding in period is nearly up. Nobody in their right mind wants a return to a banned blood sport and future strengthening of the law will see many daft loopholes forced onto the bill at the time removed. I personally hate to think of shotguns used to kill foxes.


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

Lizzie66 said:



			So you agree that he was taking photos of someone committing an act of deliberately intimidating and endangering life by flying too close to horses? Trevor was acting in the same way as you believe hunt monitors act, by trying to gain evidence of someone committing a criminal act. You find it perfectly acceptable for them to do this but not for Trevor Morse to do the same ? 

You also appear to defend the killing of Trevor Morse, would you feel the same way if hunt followers ran down hunt monitors, claiming that the monitors intimidated them and made them fear for their safety ? I doubt it. You and SC both hold double standards and are totally incapable of any reasoned argument. You will not change our minds as our opinions are based on reasoned argument and scientific evidence, yours are based on your personal beliefs.

You are entitled to those beliefs but please do stop trying to force those beliefs on us.
		
Click to expand...

The copter pilot had been investigated and was not flying low. It is a matter of record! The rest of your post is no doubt very offensive to others and myself as we do not struggle with reasoned argument if faced with posts not containing lies!


----------



## Lizzie66 (5 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Oh lord no not the bird of prey smokescreen  There are no birds of prey in this country that can humanely and safely kill a fox, any hunt pretending to use one should be firmly monitored for law breaking!
		
Click to expand...

You're right it is cruel but unfortunately that is what the Hunting Act allows. The more humane way is banned !


----------



## Nancykitt (5 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			I honestly believe the laws bedding in period is nearly up. Nobody in their right mind wants a return to a banned blood sport and future strengthening of the law will see many daft loopholes forced onto the bill at the time removed. I personally hate to think of shotguns used to kill foxes.
		
Click to expand...

Oh, right, sorry, I didn't realise we were going through a 'bedding in period'. 
By 'daft loopholes', do you mean that the shooting, trapping, snaring and killing of foxes with birds of prey will be banned? Really?? 

I'm very surprised that even people like you can't see that to trap a fox  - to take away its ability to run -  is incredibly cruel. Yet how are the urban foxes to be controlled if trapping/caging is made illegal? Fox control is not just about the countryside.


----------



## Nancykitt (5 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Oh lord no not the bird of prey smokescreen  There are no birds of prey in this country that can humanely and safely kill a fox, any hunt pretending to use one should be firmly monitored for law breaking!
		
Click to expand...

Hang on, are you seriously suggesting that there are hunts taking out falconers with their birds of prey as some sort of cover-up exercise when actually they are killing foxes with hounds???

Your evidence, please? I can't think of one falconer who would consent to such a thing.


----------



## Lizzie66 (5 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			The rest of your post is no doubt very offensive to others and myself as we do not struggle with reasoned argument if faced with posts not containing lies!
		
Click to expand...

You have not put forward any evidence supporting your viewpoint. The Burns report and the RSPCA concluded back in 2000 that the hunting of foxes with hounds was less cruel than the majority of other methods. They recommended a middle way approach, looking to make animal welfare the aim of any legislation relating to hunting with hounds. The MPs chose to ignore this and force through a law that prohibits hunting with hounds (with some exceptions) and that effectively worsens the welfare of foxes.

You have put forward views that are biased and bigoted, any points that you cannot answer you reply to with insults. If you choose to take offence at my comments then that is your choice but it is my choice to express my opinion as you have yours.


----------



## SarahColeman (5 February 2013)

Lizzie66 said:



			You have not put forward any evidence supporting your viewpoint. The Burns report and the RSPCA concluded back in 2000 that the hunting of foxes with hounds was less cruel than the majority of other methods. They recommended a middle way approach, looking to make animal welfare the aim of any legislation relating to hunting with hounds. The MPs chose to ignore this and force through a law that prohibits hunting with hounds (with some exceptions) and that effectively worsens the welfare of foxes.

You have put forward views that are biased and bigoted, any points that you cannot answer you reply to with insults. If you choose to take offence at my comments then that is your choice but it is my choice to express my opinion as you have yours.
		
Click to expand...

The thread is not about the rights and wrongs of hunting it is supposed to be about the RSPCA. If certain pro hunt posters attempt to take it of topic I can CHOOSE whether to respond or not. I do not need or wish to have a particular viewpoint on hunting as I would be happy simply discussing the RSPCA. There you are.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (5 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Give up Janet. You can't change bigots or fanatics.

I have returned home from work & read today's posts.

They're not interested in anything anyone of us has to say.

They have an Ill informed answer for everything & if they don't then they resort to insults.

The word 'fanatic' comes to mind.
		
Click to expand...

So very true.So many closed minds on the hunting forum. Does no one speak with a sense of fair play and integrity on the subject?

 I have never been an 'anti' but I do object to distorting truth and feeding propaganda. The posts on the hunting forum are at times outrageous and belligerent. That's the reason why I challenge the extremist and fanatical views on here.


----------



## Moomin1 (5 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Give up Janet. You can't change bigots or fanatics.

I have returned home from work & read today's posts.

They're not interested in anything anyone of us has to say.

They have an Ill informed answer for everything & if they don't then they resort to insults.

The word 'fanatic' comes to mind.
		
Click to expand...

A fair few words spring to my mind too, but I won't post them here.


----------



## JanetGeorge (5 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			How come it said that they had landed the gyrocopter to refuel, and that Morse had actually arrived in his land rover at the location to take photos of them?
		
Click to expand...

That is exactly what happened.  Trevor Morse wanted to photograph the pilot so he could be identified - to accompany a complaint to the CAA about the gyrocopter's constant low flying which was scaring horses!  

Which bit don't you understand??


----------



## Moomin1 (5 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			That is exactly what happened.  Trevor Morse wanted to photograph the pilot so he could be identified - to accompany a complaint to the CAA about the gyrocopter's constant low flying which was scaring horses!  

Which bit don't you understand??
		
Click to expand...

The point I am making is that Morse actively went to the location where the pilot was refuelling, in order to photograph. He then blocked his path, or attempted to, and called for 'reinforcements' (which in itself, as agreed by the courts, is somewhat highly threatening).  You appear to be trying to suggest that the pilot actively sought out the hunt and deliberately acted in a way as to endanger the life of Morse.  That was not the case.  It was an accident brought about by the stupidity and dangerous behaviour of Morse himself.

I am not saying that the pilot had or hadn't acted in a similar fashion himself over previous incidents with the hunt - maybe he had.  But in the incident involving Morse's death, I do not see you can possibly blame the pilot.  Neither could the court.


----------



## JanetGeorge (5 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			The point I am making is that Morse actively went to the location where the pilot was refuelling, in order to photograph. He then blocked his path, or attempted to, and called for 'reinforcements' (which in itself, as agreed by the courts, is somewhat highly threatening).  You appear to be trying to suggest that the pilot actively sought out the hunt and deliberately acted in a way as to endanger the life of Morse.  That was not the case.  It was an accident brought about by the stupidity and dangerous behaviour of Morse himself.

I am not saying that the pilot had or hadn't acted in a similar fashion himself over previous incidents with the hunt - maybe he had.  But in the incident involving Morse's death, I do not see you can possibly blame the pilot.  Neither could the court.
		
Click to expand...

The pilot had recklessly endangered the lives and safety of dozens of hunt followers - including children - every time he flew low over the hunt!  HE didn't want to be photographed, identified, and reported to the CAA.  HE knew how the blades of a gyrocopter act - they are NOT fixed - Trevor Morse almost certainly didn't.  A lengthy discussion on a pilots' forum after the incident revealed that the vast majority of pilots - whatever their views on hunting - thought the piot had acted (at the very least) in an irresponsible manner!  The Pilot was IN his gyrocopter - in the company of a violent animal rights extremist - why should he be scared of Trevor Morse.  The court did not know about the pilot's companion - the court decided that would be 'prejudicial' to the pilot's trial.  That decision was - of course - prejudical to Trevor Morse and his family's right to justice!


----------



## Moomin1 (5 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			The pilot had recklessly endangered the lives and safety of dozens of hunt followers - including children - every time he flew low over the hunt!  HE didn't want to be photographed, identified, and reported to the CAA.  HE knew how the blades of a gyrocopter act - they are NOT fixed - Trevor Morse almost certainly didn't.  A lengthy discussion on a pilots' forum after the incident revealed that the vast majority of pilots - whatever their views on hunting - thought the piot had acted (at the very least) in an irresponsible manner!  The Pilot was IN his gyrocopter - in the company of a violent animal rights extremist - why should he be scared of Trevor Morse.  The court did not know about the pilot's companion - the court decided that would be 'prejudicial' to the pilot's trial.  That decision was - of course - prejudical to Trevor Morse and his family's right to justice!
		
Click to expand...

Urgh.  It does appear to be a common trait amongst the pro hunt on this thread..being so right and more qualified and knowledgeable than the law.  A COURT FOUND HIM NOT GUILTY.  A COURT FOUND THE HEYTHROP GUILTY.  You and your pro hunt supporters don't like it.  Tough.


----------



## Hunters (5 February 2013)

Poor man. Enough said.


----------



## Moomin1 (5 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Poor man. Enough said.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I agree.  Poor man.  Shame he was silly enough to do what he did.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (5 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			That is exactly what happened.  Trevor Morse wanted to photograph the pilot so he could be identified - to accompany a complaint to the CAA about the gyrocopter's constant low flying which was scaring horses!  

Which bit don't you understand??
		
Click to expand...

I find it extremely distasteful that you are trying to point score over this man's tragic death. You KNOW what the facts are and yet you try to distort the facts from the court case for your own ends.

There is much more I could say about this incident, but respect for the grief of his family and the trauma of those involved, prevents me from doing so.


----------



## JanetGeorge (5 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Urgh.  It does appear to be a common trait amongst the pro hunt on this thread..being so right and more qualified and knowledgeable than the law.  A COURT FOUND HIM NOT GUILTY.  A COURT FOUND THE HEYTHROP GUILTY.  You and your pro hunt supporters don't like it.  Tough.
		
Click to expand...

And how often do Courts get it wrong??  How many times do the guilty go free - and how often are innocent people convicted.  Pretty often!!


----------



## Moomin1 (5 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			And how often do Courts get it wrong??  How many times do the guilty go free - and how often are innocent people convicted.  Pretty often!!
		
Click to expand...

Well according to you and your hunt supporters the courts seem to get it wrong a lot.

According to most other people, it happens pretty rarely.


----------



## Hunters (6 February 2013)

Eggs for breakfast I think.


----------



## Moomin1 (6 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Eggs for breakfast I think.
		
Click to expand...

Your point being?


----------



## JanetGeorge (6 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Well according to you and your hunt supporters the courts seem to get it wrong a lot.

According to most other people, it happens pretty rarely.
		
Click to expand...

Well - do a bit of research and you'll find out that 'most other people' are wrong.  Start here - and these are just some of the high profile cases.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/criminal-cases-review-commission  Many others never get this far!

In the first court case I was involved in - back in 1992 - which involved a violent assault by a hunt saboteur against the hunt terrierman, the saboteurs got off.  They got off for several reasons.  One was an identity problem - one of the saboteurs was wearing a distinctive red jumper.  When he ran from the scene he persuaded a newbie to swap clothes with him.  So the newbie was arrested and charged along with two others who WERE involved.  Then there was a bit of deliberate perjury - by one of the saboteurs.  Then there was some VERY stupid and very imaginative evidence given by a braindead female hunt supporter who was at LEAST 300 yards away from the incident, didn't get a proper view and had probably emptied her flask before the attack happened!  

In another case I was involved in, the most important witness was a livestock farmer who had seen - and heard - what went on.  Before the trial, he was visited by some masked saboteurs who walked around his livestock buildings rattling boxes of matches and making 'subtle' threats.  Strangely enough, the farmer decided not to be a witness!

At another trial - nothing to do with hunting - I was an expert witness for Trading Standards in a horse mis-selling case.  I saw and heard the father of the defendant THREATEN the prosecution's main witness!  I reported it to the Clerk of the Court and they called the police - who were 'too busy' to attend.  It was reported to the Judge and - in the legal discussions that followed - the defendant decided to plead guilty.  I was SO angry about the threats made  (which were against the woman's children) I made a special trip to the police station to report the threats - accompanied by the main witness and her husband - who had been threatened by the same man, although I hadn't witnessed that.  The police refused to take ANY action!  Said it was 'trivial'!  The justice system has a LOT of ways of going wrong when the police won't take action against someone who threatens witnesses!

And there are a hundred other ways in which the wrong result can be reached!  The Justice system is very far from perfect!


----------



## Moomin1 (6 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Well - do a bit of research and you'll find out that 'most other people' are wrong.  Start here - and these are just some of the high profile cases.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/criminal-cases-review-commission  Many others never get this far!

In the first court case I was involved in - back in 1992 - which involved a violent assault by a hunt saboteur against the hunt terrierman, the saboteurs got off.  They got off for several reasons.  One was an identity problem - one of the saboteurs was wearing a distinctive red jumper.  When he ran from the scene he persuaded a newbie to swap clothes with him.  So the newbie was arrested and charged along with two others who WERE involved.  Then there was a bit of deliberate perjury - by one of the saboteurs.  Then there was some VERY stupid and very imaginative evidence given by a braindead female hunt supporter who was at LEAST 300 yards away from the incident, didn't get a proper view and had probably emptied her flask before the attack happened!  

In another case I was involved in, the most important witness was a livestock farmer who had seen - and heard - what went on.  Before the trial, he was visited by some masked saboteurs who walked around his livestock buildings rattling boxes of matches and making 'subtle' threats.  Strangely enough, the farmer decided not to be a witness!

At another trial - nothing to do with hunting - I was an expert witness for Trading Standards in a horse mis-selling case.  I saw and heard the father of the defendant THREATEN the prosecution's main witness!  I reported it to the Clerk of the Court and they called the police - who were 'too busy' to attend.  It was reported to the Judge and - in the legal discussions that followed - the defendant decided to plead guilty.  I was SO angry about the threats made  (which were against the woman's children) I made a special trip to the police station to report the threats - accompanied by the main witness and her husband - who had been threatened by the same man, although I hadn't witnessed that.  The police refused to take ANY action!  Said it was 'trivial'!  The justice system has a LOT of ways of going wrong when the police won't take action against someone who threatens witnesses!

And there are a hundred other ways in which the wrong result can be reached!  The Justice system is very far from perfect!
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, just need to clarify a few things.

1)  Your first instance - you do not explain objectively how the court got it wrong on that occassion.  You merely describe the version of events you believed took place.

2)  You say the vital witness in this case backed out, because of 'threats from hunt sabs'.  Well, how is that anything to do with courts getting things wrong?

3)  The third example of yours - you say that 'in the legal discussions that followed the defendant pleaded guilty'.  Therefore, the court did not make any judgement at all other than take in the guilty plea.  Furthermore, your other moan was at the police.  They are not the court.


----------



## lastchancer (6 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			You can hardly include the case of Trevor Morse in that I'm afraid.  He pursued the anti hunts guy, he tried to block him from leaving, despite being asked to move.  He was the one who got on the phone asking for 'reinforcement' from the pro hunt supporters in order for them to come along to the scene to assist him in his efforts of blocking him.  

Much as it is a sad situation for somebody to die like that, I am afraid he did put himself in that situation.
		
Click to expand...

Good god you can't just kill folk for doing something stupid!!
 If I were driving a car and some idiot chav stood in the way and refused to move would it be ok to mow him down? Tempting though it may be...


----------



## lastchancer (6 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Yes I agree.  Poor man.  Shame he was silly enough to do what he did.
		
Click to expand...

You really do come across as a vile individual Moomin.


----------



## lastchancer (6 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			WTF?  The court found him NOT GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER.  NEVERMIND MURDER.  THE MAN WAS NOT GUILTY.  

Get a grip the lot of you
		
Click to expand...


THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE CAP'S, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LOUD YOU SHOUT, YOU ARE STILL FULL OF NONSENSE 

 And I was referring to your inference that this poor man somehow asked for his tragic end. I don't know if the pilot was guilty or not, I wasn't there. But he certainly wasn't playing very nicely was he when he was flying dangerously low over the hunt now was he...

I'm not even particularly for or against hunting but it's pretty obvious that the hunts have a lot to put up with. The anti's shouldn't even be on the land that they 'monitor'.


----------



## Moomin1 (6 February 2013)

lastchancer said:



			THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE CAP'S, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LOUD YOU SHOUT, YOU ARE STILL FULL OF NONSENSE 

 And I was referring to your inference that this poor man somehow asked for his tragic end. I don't know if the pilot was guilty or not, I wasn't there. But he certainly wasn't playing very nicely was he when he was flying dangerously low over the hunt now was he...

I'm not even particularly for or against hunting but it's pretty obvious that the hunts have a lot to put up with. The anti's shouldn't even be on the land that they 'monitor'.
		
Click to expand...

From what I read, he wasn't even on hunt land when the accident happened.  The hunt supporter tracked him down.


----------



## Hunters (6 February 2013)

Vile - is an understatement (as per Lastchancer)


----------



## Alec Swan (6 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			WTF?  The court found him NOT GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER.  NEVERMIND MURDER.  THE MAN WAS NOT GUILTY.  

Get a grip the lot of you
		
Click to expand...

Just a small point for you;  He was "found" to be not guilty,  there's a world of difference between that,  and in "fact" being not guilty.

The pilot feared for his life,  and through his stupidity,  ignorance and negligence,  he killed a man?  Through his wanton use of an aircraft,  another died,  and he wasn't responsible?  Whilst the Court wasn't able to "find" him guilty,  are you honestly going to tell me that he wasn't responsible for the death of a complete innocent?  

As with most of the rabid anti hunting campaigners,  I'd suggest that a session with a psychiatrist may well be of benefit. 

Alec.


----------



## JanetGeorge (6 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			I'm sorry, just need to clarify a few things.

1)  Your first instance - you do not explain objectively how the court got it wrong on that occassion.  You merely describe the version of events you believed took place.
		
Click to expand...

To explain it fully - in words of one syllable - would have taken all night!  I was in the thick of the 'incident' and KNOW what happened.




			2)  You say the vital witness in this case backed out, because of 'threats from hunt sabs'.  Well, how is that anything to do with courts getting things wrong?
		
Click to expand...

Because the court did not have all the evidence.




			3)  The third example of yours - you say that 'in the legal discussions that followed the defendant pleaded guilty'.  Therefore, the court did not make any judgement at all other than take in the guilty plea.  Furthermore, your other moan was at the police.  They are not the court.
		
Click to expand...

But they are an integral part of the majority of court cases - and - unfortunately - often to blame for miscarriages of justice.  Miscarriages of justice are usually NOT the direct fault of the court, although some juries CAN be dominated by one particular member.  The court is just where all aspects of a prosecution are brought together. The court can ONLY 'get it right' if all aspects are 'right'.  And very often they are not!

It is a miracle there aren't MANY more miscarriages of justice!


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

Lizzie66 said:



			You're right it is cruel but unfortunately that is what the Hunting Act allows. The more humane way is banned !
		
Click to expand...

Just because something is presently legal it does not mean any of us are forced to take part in the activity. Anybody who uses or watches/encourages the use of birds to kill foxes has serious issues IMHO  I would never kill any animal inhumanely whether I could or not!


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			Oh, right, sorry, I didn't realise we were going through a 'bedding in period'. 
By 'daft loopholes', do you mean that the shooting, trapping, snaring and killing of foxes with birds of prey will be banned? Really?? 

I'm very surprised that even people like you can't see that to trap a fox  - to take away its ability to run -  is incredibly cruel. Yet how are the urban foxes to be controlled if trapping/caging is made illegal? Fox control is not just about the countryside.
		
Click to expand...

I think a Labour government will at least ban the use of birds and now trail hunting ( Avon Vale Hunt next victim of the RSPCA, no video evidence needed).
Yes you would of course happily release a fox from a trap so you could chase it with dogs no doubt  However many,many urban foxes are actually shot free running.


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			Hang on, are you seriously suggesting that there are hunts taking out falconers with their birds of prey as some sort of cover-up exercise when actually they are killing foxes with hounds???

Your evidence, please? I can't think of one falconer who would consent to such a thing.
		
Click to expand...

One bloke from the hunt taking on a bird of prey to hunt within a loophole is NOT a falconer nor welcome by real falconers. Any evidence of illegal hunting is a matter for the relevant authorities not a public forum.


----------



## combat_claire (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Just because something is presently legal it does not mean any of us are forced to take part in the activity. Anybody who uses or watches/encourages the use of birds to kill foxes has serious issues IMHO  I would never kill any animal inhumanely whether I could or not!
		
Click to expand...

Which is why our professional falconer uses a knife to finish the deed rather than leaving it to the eagle. 

The absurd loopholes in this law brings us back to the real reasons behind the passing of the Act. It has nothing to do with animal welfare and making a judgement that it is always wrong to kill foxes and other quarry with hounds or by other methods (the law after all allows 2 hounds to be used to catch quarry and also allows a variety of other methods). It was all about attacking people who hunt based on a completely false perception of the type of people who go hunting. The exemptions when examined carefully have been designed so as not to affect falconry or types of shooting activity such as shooting grouse over pointers.

That is why I have so many issues with the Hunting Act being allowed to remain on the statute books. If this act had anything to do with animal welfare then why is it okay to hunt rats and rabbits with hounds but not okay to hunt hare, deer and fox? Why is the American mink not exempt from the Act given the amount of damage it does to our native wildlife? Why is there no exemption for the deer casualty service on Exmoor to use more than 2 hounds so the injured deer can be found quicker and put down. 

No wonder platitudes from the Antis about the Act being all about improving the welfare of animals is so sickening to hear when any fool can see that the life of no animal has been improved by the passing of this law.


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			From what I read, he wasn't even on hunt land when the accident happened.  The hunt supporter tracked him down.
		
Click to expand...

Morse chased him to the airport, frightening his passenger with his driving and aggressive manner. When angrily confronting the 'aircraft', Morse's passenger who had accompanied him onto private land backed away fearing trouble. Morse was warned many times to move away from the vehicle and stop preventing it from escaping him but he refused to move and stayed on his mobile phone ( recruiting others no doubt). How he died is also known and it was his own actions which followed that led to his sad death.


----------



## combat_claire (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			One bloke from the hunt taking on a bird of prey to hunt within a loophole is NOT a falconer nor welcome by real falconers. Any evidence of illegal hunting is a matter for the relevant authorities not a public forum.
		
Click to expand...

And as I keep telling you our falconer is a professional falconer of many years standing who was employed by us following the passing of the Act to use a Golden Eagle as purchased by the hunt.


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Just a small point for you;  He was "found" to be not guilty,  there's a world of difference between that,  and in "fact" being not guilty.

The pilot feared for his life,  and through his stupidity,  ignorance and negligence,  he killed a man?  Through his wanton use of an aircraft,  another died,  and he wasn't responsible?  Whilst the Court wasn't able to "find" him guilty,  are you honestly going to tell me that he wasn't responsible for the death of a complete innocent?  

As with most of the rabid anti hunting campaigners,  I'd suggest that a session with a psychiatrist may well be of benefit. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Just a small point. If the hunt had not planned to 'get the pilot'. If Morse had not followed the copter. If Morse had not trespassed on the airfield. If Morse had not charged toward the grounded copter. If Morse had not stood right at the nose of the copter. There are a lot of if's before the poor pilot is even involved.


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

combat_claire said:



			And as I keep telling you our falconer is a professional falconer of many years standing who was employed by us following the passing of the Act to use a Golden Eagle as purchased by the hunt.
		
Click to expand...

You and he should be ashamed of yourselves killing a fox in such a way but you are obviously not. Don't tell me. the law forces you to do this?!


----------



## Nancykitt (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			One bloke from the hunt taking on a bird of prey to hunt within a loophole is NOT a falconer nor welcome by real falconers. Any evidence of illegal hunting is a matter for the relevant authorities not a public forum.
		
Click to expand...

I'm speechless, really I am. 
'One bloke from the hunt taking on a bird of prey' - you talk about this as though it's no bigger a deal than getting a goldfish!!! To keep a golden eagle or eagle owl takes a fantastically experienced and skilful falconer. Falconry is an incredibly time consuming hobby, even keeping a relatively 'easy' bird as a hunter, such as a Harris Hawk, takes hours and hours of skill and devotion. Keeping a bird big enough to kill a fox is a matter for serious professional falconers, not 'one bloke from the hunt'. 

I'm also intrigued by your comment about urban foxes being shot 'free running'. Really? I do know someone who regularly dispatches urban foxes and not one has been shot 'free running'  - presumably you mean with a rifle? - due to the obvious potential to kill a human being. Even a .22 will wipe someone out, and at quite a distance. What you don't have is people running around housing estates with rifles firing free bullets at foxes!

Janet George is most certainly not a blatant liar but a hugely experienced horsewoman who knows her stuff. 
Combat_Claire, you put it beautifully.


----------



## Fellewell (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Just a small point. If the hunt had not planned to 'get the pilot'. If Morse had not followed the copter. If Morse had not trespassed on the airfield. If Morse had not charged toward the grounded copter. If Morse had not stood right at the nose of the copter. There are a lot of if's before the poor pilot is even involved.
		
Click to expand...

You are a piece of work, you really are.

You've never been near a hunt have you? All you have is Google and some Facebook 'friends'.

So obsessed are you with your second-hand, misinformed, oft-repeated, propaganda that you really can't see the wood for the trees.

I suspect that you don't have a clue what's happening with the RSPCA so it's pointless discussing it with you, or anything else for that matter.


----------



## Hunters (6 February 2013)

Fellewell - hilarious. 

My sentiments exactly lol


----------



## Hunters (6 February 2013)

If you notice, they answer every single post, usually with wild accusations. 

Equally, as proven in their ability to argue with most posts, they clearly can't have much of a life either lol..


----------



## Moomin1 (6 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			Resorted to insults. How unsurprising.
		
Click to expand...




Hunters said:



			Vile - is an understatement (as per Lastchancer)
		
Click to expand...

PMSL!


----------



## JanetGeorge (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			As much as I hate to say this Janet George is a blatant liar and is choosing to mislead this forum.
		
Click to expand...

SarahColeman - it is time you learnt the difference between offensive insults and a libellous statement on a public forum!  I'll see if I can teach you!


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

combat_claire said:



			And as I keep telling you our falconer is a professional falconer of many years standing who was employed by us following the passing of the Act to use a Golden Eagle as purchased by the hunt.
		
Click to expand...

As I will keep telling you a fox is too big for an eagle to kill and a fox is not natural prey for a bird of prey. Your hunt is ignoring/accepting cruelty merely to continue using hounds to hunt with. The sooner this barbaric loophole is closed and you lot are stopped the better.


----------



## combat_claire (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			As I will keep telling you a fox is too big for an eagle to kill and a fox is not natural prey for a bird of prey. Your hunt is ignoring/accepting cruelty merely to continue using hounds to hunt with. The sooner this barbaric loophole is closed and you lot are stopped the better.
		
Click to expand...

Did you bother to look it up on Youtube and see the videos? No, thought not! A golden eagle has a 6' wing span and talons bigger than my hand. It is capable of catching and killing a fox in the wild and as part of organised falconry activity. We have taken measures to ensure that the kill is as humane as is possible. It has been practised for centuries in Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries. 

Remember it wasn't us that campaigned for this abortion of a law. As the famous folk song goes 'they will only end up breaking what they do not understand'. Ye Gods we have been proved right on that score...


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

Nancykitt said:



			I'm speechless, really I am. 
'One bloke from the hunt taking on a bird of prey' - you talk about this as though it's no bigger a deal than getting a goldfish!!! To keep a golden eagle or eagle owl takes a fantastically experienced and skilful falconer. Falconry is an incredibly time consuming hobby, even keeping a relatively 'easy' bird as a hunter, such as a Harris Hawk, takes hours and hours of skill and devotion. Keeping a bird big enough to kill a fox is a matter for serious professional falconers, not 'one bloke from the hunt'. 

I'm also intrigued by your comment about urban foxes being shot 'free running'. Really? I do know someone who regularly dispatches urban foxes and not one has been shot 'free running'  - presumably you mean with a rifle? - due to the obvious potential to kill a human being. Even a .22 will wipe someone out, and at quite a distance. What you don't have is people running around housing estates with rifles firing free bullets at foxes!

Janet George is most certainly not a blatant liar but a hugely experienced horsewoman who knows her stuff. 
Combat_Claire, you put it beautifully.
		
Click to expand...

You are not speechless you are merely ignorant. The very issue addressed by the Hawk Board was that any old bloke from the hunts was going on a little training course and the hunts would buy a bird of prey to get around the hunting ban.  Jim Chick, chairman of the Hawk Board said "This is bringing the sport into disrepute," 

Now you are intrigued about shooting urban foxes with a rifle. It is done on a regular basis, they even made an interesting TV programe about one such marksman not so long ago. Oh, and Janet George might be great on a horse rider but is a liar according to her posts.


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

Fellewell said:



			You are a piece of work, you really are.

You've never been near a hunt have you? All you have is Google and some Facebook 'friends'.

So obsessed are you with your second-hand, misinformed, oft-repeated, propaganda that you really can't see the wood for the trees.

I suspect that you don't have a clue what's happening with the RSPCA so it's pointless discussing it with you, or anything else for that matter.
		
Click to expand...

Do not start with the insults already! Facebook would not be my cup of tea I suspect and I am more than very close to my local hunt and its members thank you. YOU obviously can not argue with the points raised so resort to a personal attack. I certainly know enough to combat any false allegations about the RSPCA so if you care to actually post on topic for once I will happily deal with any issues you raise?


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

combat_claire said:



			Did you bother to look it up on Youtube and see the videos? No, thought not! A golden eagle has a 6' wing span and talons bigger than my hand. It is capable of catching and killing a fox in the wild and as part of organised falconry activity. We have taken measures to ensure that the kill is as humane as is possible. It has been practised for centuries in Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries. 

Remember it wasn't us that campaigned for this abortion of a law. As the famous folk song goes 'they will only end up breaking what they do not understand'. Ye Gods we have been proved right on that score...
		
Click to expand...

Well we can always rely on those in Kazakhstan and central Asia to be humane ( have you listened to yourself Claire??). And like I suspected, last paragraph consists of 'they make us do it'. All you prove is what those against you always claimed!


----------



## Lizzie66 (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Just because something is presently legal it does not mean any of us are forced to take part in the activity. Anybody who uses or watches/encourages the use of birds to kill foxes has serious issues IMHO  I would never kill any animal inhumanely whether I could or not!
		
Click to expand...

What I was trying to get across (note to self spell it out rather than assume that other person can connect threads) is that the hunting act is not an animal welfare piece of legislation. It does not improve animal welfare, in fact it specifically allows hunting in less humane methods than were previously practiced.

The RSPCA is an animal welfare organisation, any prosecutions that it brings should be in relation to animal welfare. At the time of the Burns report the RSPCA believed the scientific evidence showed that hunting foxes with hounds was less cruel than the majority of other methods. It supported the drafting of legislation to protect animal welfare with regard to hunting with hounds, it did not support the hunting act. The RSPCA has now changed its stance, it has changed it purely because the people at the top have changed and those people have a different outlook, it does not have any further evidence to support the change in its stance.

Their prosecution of the Heythrop hunt was not related to animal welfare. It was to gain publicity at great expense by bullying people into pleading guilty to a minor offence, the risk of the Heythrop losing was small but the cost of defending would have been great, whatever the verdict.

There are at least two former executive directors of LACS that whilst investigating hunting, came to the conclusion that although they personally found it abhorrent that people got enjoyment out of hunting and then killing a fox, that the actual act of hunting foxes with hounds was more humane than most other methods.

I respect their views and them as they looked at the facts, they didn't like hunting and would never partake, but they did look at the evidence and make a decision based upon it. 

I respect your right to hold a view but I do not respect the vile diatribe and insults that you are peddling on this forum.


----------



## Alec Swan (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Just a small point. If the hunt had not planned to 'get the pilot'. If Morse had not followed the copter. If Morse had not trespassed on the airfield. If Morse had not charged toward the grounded copter. If Morse had not stood right at the nose of the copter. There are a lot of if's before the poor pilot is even involved.
		
Click to expand...

How much "Planning" do you think was possible?  The pilot landed,  he was approached by a hunt supporter,  he panicked,  without need,  and he killed an entirely innocent man.

"The Poor Pilot"?  Are you being serious?  Through his rank stupidity,  his ignorance and his lack of care and attention,  he will carry the death of an innocent man with him,  for the rest of his days.  If he doesn't,  then he should.

Mind you,  if he is as ignorant and displays the lack of caring which the rest of your curious bunch seem to do,  then he probably couldn't care less.  Justifying the pilots actions,  and vindicating him,  as you are,  displays a level of inhumanity which has parallels,  but rarely in this country.  To glibly claim that the pilot was not at fault sets you apart from the average human being.  You really are an embarrassment.  I'd suggest that you should be ashamed,  but I'd doubt that you'd understand the concept of shame.

As an aside,  is CAA authority needed for those who fly gyrocopters?  Does anyone know?

Alec.


----------



## Lizzie66 (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Now you are intrigued about shooting urban foxes with a rifle. It is done on a regular basis, they even made an interesting TV programe about one such marksman not so long ago.
		
Click to expand...

So you find it alright for someone to enjoy killing foxes by shooting them ?


----------



## Alec Swan (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			As much as I hate to say this Janet George is a blatant liar and is choosing to mislead this forum. 

.......
		
Click to expand...

You are quite wrong on both counts,  and I would caution you that you are skating on perilously thin ice.  I would also advise you that the target for your bile is highly respected,  on here and in the wider field.

Your posts are becoming ever more rabid and irrational,  and your argument ever more laughable.  Being offensive and clearly disturbed,  is no way to debate.  I'd suggest that you have a break for a day or two. 

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			As I will keep telling you a fox is too big for an eagle to kill and a fox is not natural prey for a bird of prey. 

.......
		
Click to expand...

Quite incorrect,  yet again.  On the Steppes,  the fox is the traditional prey and quarry for the native Golden Eagle owning falconers.

Alec.


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

Lizzie66 said:



			What I was trying to get across (note to self spell it out rather than assume that other person can connect threads) is that the hunting act is not an animal welfare piece of legislation. It does not improve animal welfare, in fact it specifically allows hunting in less humane methods than were previously practiced.

The RSPCA is an animal welfare organisation, any prosecutions that it brings should be in relation to animal welfare. At the time of the Burns report the RSPCA believed the scientific evidence showed that hunting foxes with hounds was less cruel than the majority of other methods. It supported the drafting of legislation to protect animal welfare with regard to hunting with hounds, it did not support the hunting act. The RSPCA has now changed its stance, it has changed it purely because the people at the top have changed and those people have a different outlook, it does not have any further evidence to support the change in its stance.

Their prosecution of the Heythrop hunt was not related to animal welfare. It was to gain publicity at great expense by bullying people into pleading guilty to a minor offence, the risk of the Heythrop losing was small but the cost of defending would have been great, whatever the verdict.

There are at least two former executive directors of LACS that whilst investigating hunting, came to the conclusion that although they personally found it abhorrent that people got enjoyment out of hunting and then killing a fox, that the actual act of hunting foxes with hounds was more humane than most other methods.

I respect their views and them as they looked at the facts, they didn't like hunting and would never partake, but they did look at the evidence and make a decision based upon it. 

I respect your right to hold a view but I do not respect the vile diatribe and insults that you are peddling on this forum.
		
Click to expand...

"vile diatribe and insults"?? please do man up so to speak. Powa monitors took video evidence of illegal hunting directly to the RSPCA. The RSPCA hands were tied, when provided with evidence of illegal activity involving animals they ALWAYS investigate. End of. Enough nonsense now please!


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			How much "Planning" do you think was possible?  The pilot landed,  he was approached by a hunt supporter,  he panicked,  without need,  and he killed an entirely innocent man.

"The Poor Pilot"?  Are you being serious?  Through his rank stupidity,  his ignorance and his lack of care and attention,  he will carry the death of an innocent man with him,  for the rest of his days.  If he doesn't,  then he should.

Mind you,  if he is as ignorant and displays the lack of caring which the rest of your curious bunch seem to do,  then he probably couldn't care less.  Justifying the pilots actions,  and vindicating him,  as you are,  displays a level of inhumanity which has parallels,  but rarely in this country.  To glibly claim that the pilot was not at fault sets you apart from the average human being.  You really are an embarrassment.  I'd suggest that you should be ashamed,  but I'd doubt that you'd understand the concept of shame.

As an aside,  is CAA authority needed for those who fly gyrocopters?  Does anyone know?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

The accosting of the pilot/copter was pre-planned before the days hunting. Yes, the poor pilot who will always suffer following that day and should never have been forced into any actions by Mr.Morse. Regardless I have no further wish to discuss this particular incident that you pro hunters repeatedly bring up as when then actually discussed you  all get rather over-emotional!


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

Lizzie66 said:



			So you find it alright for someone to enjoy killing foxes by shooting them ?
		
Click to expand...

Why have chosen to add the word enjoy out of interest?


----------



## Lizzie66 (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			"vile diatribe and insults"?? please do man up so to speak. Powa monitors took video evidence of illegal hunting directly to the RSPCA. The RSPCA hands were tied, when provided with evidence of illegal activity involving animals they ALWAYS investigate. End of. Enough nonsense now please!
		
Click to expand...

You really do pick the bits you respond to don't you !

Shall I try again - the RSPCA deal with Animal Welfare if they are handed evidence of an offence impacting on animal welfare then they should consider whether they or the CPS should bring a prosecution. If they are handed evidence of something not related to animal welfare then they should pass it straight over to the Police/CPS for further evidence gathering and potential prosecution.


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			You are quite wrong on both counts,  and I would caution you that you are skating on perilously thin ice.  I would also advise you that the target for your bile is highly respected,  on here and in the wider field.

Your posts are becoming ever more rabid and irrational,  and your argument ever more laughable.  Being offensive and clearly disturbed,  is no way to debate.  I'd suggest that you have a break for a day or two. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Skating on thin ice? My god who on earth do you think you are? Again, I have no wish to continue about the case but Janet claimed Morse was out to identify the pilot. He already new who the pilot was and had the pilots details in his possession as revealed in court. Far from my being rabid or irrational we appear to have reached the point were the truth can not be handled by you and some of your friends anymore without personal attacks.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (6 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			You are quite wrong on both counts,  and I would caution you that you are skating on perilously thin ice.  I would also advise you that the target for your bile is highly respected,  on here and in the wider field.

Your posts are becoming ever more rabid and irrational,  and your argument ever more laughable.  Being offensive and clearly disturbed,  is no way to debate.  I'd suggest that you have a break for a day or two. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Hey, hang a minute, I know you're direct but don't think I've ever heard you so rude.

I'm opting out of this because reason and debate has left the building.


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

Lizzie66 said:



			You really do pick the bits you respond to don't you !

Shall I try again - the RSPCA deal with Animal Welfare if they are handed evidence of an offence impacting on animal welfare then they should consider whether they or the CPS should bring a prosecution. If they are handed evidence of something not related to animal welfare then they should pass it straight over to the Police/CPS for further evidence gathering and potential prosecution.
		
Click to expand...

No I do not pick anything thank you. The RSPCA were handed evidence of illegal hunting of a wild animal, they  ALWAYS investigate. They can not hand it to the CPS only the police can. The police as clearly pointed out in Parliament are in no position to investigate this sort of crime on such a large scale ONLY the RSPCA are capable. What on earth should the RSPCA have done. Ignored the law breaking?! The RSPCA did the job they do every single day but once, just this once according to you they did wrong. Please tell me why? What one single reason should they not have acted normally because of???????????????????????????????????


----------



## SarahColeman (6 February 2013)

Can I just check with you Lizzie about the RSPCA 'should', do  this and 'should', do that. According to who exactly?


----------



## combat_claire (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			No I do not pick anything thank you.
		
Click to expand...

So come on then, answer my questions why it is okay to chase a mammal with two hounds but not with three? Why the American Mink has not been exempted from the legislation and why the Deer Casualty Service searching for deer injured in road traffic accidents are not exempt from the two hound rule when using the whole pack would allow the huntsman to reach the injured deer more quickly and thus end its suffering more quickly.


----------



## Countryman (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman, according to your logic it seems you'd be fine with hunt supporters running sabs over in their cars? If it was done on private land (a farm track) for instance, and they had their radios with them? Sabs can be pretty scary after all. And ofc if they were blocking the track? Which they might well be, to film/intimidate the car occupants.


----------



## Alec Swan (6 February 2013)

horserider said:



			Hey, hang a minute, I know you're direct but don't think I've ever heard you so rude.

I'm opting out of this because reason and debate has left the building.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't consider that I was being particularly rude,  but discussion with someone who thinks on their feet and argues their case on an ad-hoc basis that lacks any form of reason,  is frustrating.  It's like arguing with a child who insists that they're right,  despite the most compelling evidence to the contrary.

I also notice that SarahC has gone dark.  Nothing to do with me.  I have a self imposed rule that I don't tell tales,  no matter the provocation.  I did warn her,  but as with some,  she wouldn't listen.  Never mind,  perhaps when she returns she'll be a little more circumspect.

I suspect that this thread has run its course,  most of us have had our say,  several times over in my case,  but as we argue,  there are times when points are made,  and accepted.  This isn't one of those occasions.  Within this argument (hardly a debate),  views are so entrenched that on a generally pro hunting forum,  apart from mischief making,  I fail to see what the anti would hope to achieve.

If I've caused offence,  in any way,  I apologise.

Alec.


----------



## JanetGeorge (6 February 2013)

horserider said:



			I find it extremely distasteful that you are trying to point score over this man's tragic death. You KNOW what the facts are and yet you try to distort the facts from the court case for your own ends.

There is much more I could say about this incident, but respect for the grief of his family and the trauma of those involved, prevents me from doing so.
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear, do you?  Yes, I KNOW what the facts are, both from the day of Trevor Morse's death AND from the incidents leading up to it - and I have not been guilty of any distortion - nor have I shown anything but total respect for Trevor Morse and his family and his close friends.  UNLIKE some of the anti posters on this forum who have showed TOTAL disrespect and a total lack of concern for the death of a decent and well-liked countryman!

I'll admit I have shown little respect for the pilot - who acted (at least) irresponsibly on numerous occasions leading up to the tragedy - nor for his companion who deserves none!


----------



## Simsar (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			You and he should be ashamed of yourselves killing a fox in such a way but you are obviously not. Don't tell me. the law forces you to do this?!
		
Click to expand...




SarahColeman said:



			The accosting of the pilot/copter was pre-planned before the days hunting. Yes, the poor pilot who will always suffer following that day and should never have been forced into any actions by Mr.Morse.
		
Click to expand...

DOUBLE STANDARDS?

Why is it an anti can be forced to action but a pro can't? 

Give em just enough rope....................


----------



## Lizzie66 (6 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			Can I just check with you Lizzie about the RSPCA 'should', do  this and 'should', do that. According to who exactly?
		
Click to expand...

According to them, Quote from their website "We offer advice on caring for all animals and campaign to change laws that will protect them, which we will enforce through prosecution".

So they will prosecute under laws that relate to animal welfare, especially laws that they have had a hand in developing. As previously stated (and agreed by yourself) the hunting act is not about animal welfare.


----------



## Fellewell (6 February 2013)

Hunters said:



			If you notice, they answer every single post, usually with wild accusations. 

Equally, as proven in their ability to argue with most posts, they clearly can't have much of a life either lol..
		
Click to expand...

Well that certainly explains why they seem incapable of grasping a simple concept. However, I think for the benefit of the wider society it is better if they stay indoors.

One of them is going to be a lot quieter that's for sure


----------



## Hunters (6 February 2013)

Fellewell - you post as if you know something ..,,,


----------



## Alec Swan (10 February 2013)

There's a bloke called Mike Swan (no relation),  who's Head of Education for the GWCT.  He's written a letter to the Shooting Times,  claiming the following;

"I was also surprised to read that the rspca's preferred method of despatch of a cage-trapped squirrel,  is lethal injection,  by a vet".

Two points here;  firstly the obvious,  that the stress to the animal whilst being transported and subsequently handled would be such that no one with any interest in animal welfare would countenance such conduct,  and secondly,  it would also put the holder in contravention of the law,  being in unlicensed possession of a live squirrel!

Do the rspca employ _anyone_ who vets their daft statements,  I wonder?

Alec.


----------



## MillyMoomie (10 February 2013)

Alec you need to do your research. 
Natural England specifically state that the short term possession and transport of a grey squirrel in order to take to a place where humane destruction can be obtained does not require a license.
Also, how would YOU advise a Humane method of destruction other than injection by a vet? I'm interested?!


----------



## Simsar (10 February 2013)

Shoot them and stop wasting meat.........

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.424555810926280.94531.100001155936176&type=3


----------



## Alec Swan (10 February 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			Alec you need to do your research. 
Natural England specifically state that the short term possession and transport of a grey squirrel in order to take to a place where humane destruction can be obtained does not require a license.
Also, how would YOU advise a Humane method of destruction other than injection by a vet? I'm interested?!
		
Click to expand...

Priceless,  thank you! 

Your question is ill-deserving of a reply.  Would you care so little for the well being of the transported squirrel that you would have it endure a journey to a vet,  for it to be handled,  and then sent of to heaven in a lovely fluffy fashion?  If you are so convinced that your charity's stance is correct,  you've yet to grasp the concept of "Animal Welfare".

What is a lethal injection?  More to the point,  how would you have your charitable vet administer such an injection?  Check with them first,  and come back to me.  Your reply should be of interest! 

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (10 February 2013)

I do agree with Alec that it would be far more humane to pick the creature up and break its neck than to transport it to a vet for a vet to find a vein on an unfamiliar wild animal and stop its heart.


----------



## cptrayes (10 February 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			Alec you need to do your research. 
Natural England specifically state that the short term possession and transport of a grey squirrel in order to take to a place where humane destruction can be obtained does not require a license.
Also, how would YOU advise a Humane method of destruction other than injection by a vet? I'm interested?!
		
Click to expand...

Milliemoonie, "humane" is anything which is quick and painless. Wringing its neck, shooting it at close range, cutting off its head with one stroke of a very sharp knife are all humane ways to kill a small animal.


----------



## MillyMoomie (10 February 2013)

Alec you are priceless. Yet again your reaction to being priced wrong is to just be insulting.

IF you actually read my post without embellishing it with your own imagination you will see that I mentioned nothing of the welfare aspect of transporting a wild animal, I simply corrected you in your misinformed allegation.

THEN I asked you a question. Again mentioning nothing of my opinion or thoughts on PTS by injection administered by a vet.

Alec try and behave like a gentleman occasionally. I know it must be difficult for you to be corrected, but us humans are very occasionally wrong. 

Have you researched Natural England yet and your license allegation?? ;-)


----------



## MillyMoomie (10 February 2013)

cptrayes you are correct in your definition of a 'humane' destruction. In consequence I agree. But as I have just explained to the reasonable Alec Swan, my opinion was not relevant in this instance. My point is, just because you, I and indeed Alec are comfortable in our ability to humanely dispatch a squirrel. Can everybody be so confidant? I don't think so, in that case what other method would there be available?


----------



## Countryman (10 February 2013)

I should think most squirrels in traps get drowned in waterbutts. Not as humane as the above methods, but still I reckon more humane than transporting it to a vets.


----------



## MillyMoomie (11 February 2013)

Countryman drowning is illegal and has already been proven to cause unnecessary suffering. Careful what advise you give!


----------



## Countryman (11 February 2013)

Unsure about its illegality. Yes one person has once been fined for it but I think it might not count as unnecessary suffering if there was a proper court battle over it. It certainly hasn't been proven to cause unnecessary suffering.


----------



## MillyMoomie (11 February 2013)

A chap in court has already admitted causing unnecessary suffering by drowning a squirrel. All I'm saying is that until drowning is proven to be an acceptable humane way of destroying an animal people should use the accepted methods only.


----------



## Nancykitt (11 February 2013)

I didn't think that Countryman was 'giving advice' - merely stating what does happen on occasions. 

And while we're on the subject of grey squirrels - while waiting to set off on a drag hunt a few years ago I was in a pub car park with the rest of the field, the huntsman, hounds and the masters. Someone's dog (as in a member of the public) got hold of a grey squirrel in a shrubbery area and immediately the hounds were there. The whole episode from start to finish must have taken a couple of seconds at the most. 

Now this was most definitely an accident. It is not ideal and in no way am I giving advice or suggesting that a good way to control grey squirrels is to take hounds into pub car parks (or any other space with that intent). All I am saying is that the whole thing was so incredibly fast that there is no doubt in my mind that this was a far less stressful end for this particular wild animal compared to be trapped and transported.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 February 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			Alec you are priceless. Yet again your reaction to being priced wrong is to just be insulting.

,.......
		
Click to expand...

I apologise if you found me insulting or offensive.  That wasn't my intention.

Perhaps if I were to approach this from another direction,  you may see how my frustration forms.  When there are those who quote the rspca,  as chapter and verse,  and in a fashion which would belie common sense,  then I find that remaining calm and patient is something of a test!!

Let me explain,  if you'd posted something along the lines of;

_"Can someone explain to me the likely events of how a cage trapped squirrel would be euthanised by lethal injection,  and by a competent vet", _  Then the reply from most would have been something along the lines of;

_"The squirrel,  within its cage,  would be put into a car,  and taken to a,  probably bemused,  vet.  This is where the fun (sic) starts!   Cage traps have a large front entrance door,  and a gloved hand would have to be inserted into this door,  whilst being certain that the squirrel doesn't bolt back past the gloved hand,  and fly about around the surgery.  Ordinary welders gloves MAY be good enough to protect the vet from being bitten,  and the problem with such gloves is that if they are thick enough to protect the hand then they are going to be incredibly clumsy and for a firm enough grip to be taken,  then a great deal of pressure will have to be applied.  Pressure which is both cruel and needless.

Now we get to the point of the lethal injection.  To find a main vein in the foreleg of a struggling,  stressed and probably screaming squirrel,  is probably next to impossible,  and the more extended the attempts so the greater the stress level,  for both the vet and the animal,  that it becomes an act of barbarism.  

The reality is that once the animal has been gripped firmly,  it would be turned over and a lethal concoction would be injected directly into the heart and through the thorax.  Effectively,  the squirrel would be stabbed to death,  because it would probably be unconscious by the time that the chemicals started to work".
_

Tell me now,  when the squirrel is sitting quietly in it's cage,  do you not think that a simple and effective .22 pellet wouldn't be the most humane answer to the death of our chum?  I do.

Again , if I've caused you,  or others offence,  then I apologise,  but the blind faith which the blind attach to those who are equally blind,  will raise the ire level of those who find the issuings of the rspca to be a total contradiction of their claims and statements.

I'm sure that you consider me arrogant,  and this may not help,  but before the rspca release any more ridiculous press statements,  then if they'll run them past me first,  I'll give them an honest and discreet opinion as to the sense of their words.  Currently the rspca release statements which most accept as having been dreamt up in a knee jerk fashion,  rather than being actually thought through.  

Alec.

Ets,  and as a footnote,  I agree with you that death by drowning is unacceptable,  and a practice which I could never support.  I have a fear of drowning which is the result of a childhood incident.  However,  am I anthropomorphising?  I have a fear of drowning but the drowned animal doesn't,  and those who've returned to life from drowning have told me that it was a surprisingly peaceful experience.  I still don't fancy it,  much! a


----------



## Countryman (11 February 2013)

Now this idea of Squirrelhounds! That could be fun . It's just a shame that they climb trees. Perhaps a combination of hawks (to flush them out) and terriers/hounds/longdogs to catch them would be best...


----------



## MillyMoomie (11 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			I apologise if you found me insulting or offensive.  That wasn't my intention.

Perhaps if I were to approach this from another direction,  you may see how my frustration forms.  When there are those who quote the rspca,  as chapter and verse,  and in a fashion which would belie common sense,  then I find that remaining calm and patient is something of a test!!

Let me explain,  if you'd posted something along the lines of;

_"Can someone explain to me the likely events of how a cage trapped squirrel would be euthanised by lethal injection,  and by a competent vet", _  Then the reply from most would have been something along the lines of;

_"The squirrel,  within its cage,  would be put into a car,  and taken to a,  probably bemused,  vet.  This is where the fun (sic) starts!   Cage traps have a large front entrance door,  and a gloved hand would have to be inserted into this door,  whilst being certain that the squirrel doesn't bolt back past the gloved hand,  and fly about around the surgery.  Ordinary welders gloves MAY be good enough to protect the vet from being bitten,  and the problem with such gloves is that if they are thick enough to protect the hand then they are going to be incredibly clumsy and for a firm enough grip to be taken,  then a great deal of pressure will have to be applied.  Pressure which is both cruel and needless.

Now we get to the point of the lethal injection.  To find a main vein in the foreleg of a struggling,  stressed and probably screaming squirrel,  is probably next to impossible,  and the more extended the attempts so the greater the stress level,  for both the vet and the animal,  that it becomes an act of barbarism.  

The reality is that once the animal has been gripped firmly,  it would be turned over and a lethal concoction would be injected directly into the heart and through the thorax.  Effectively,  the squirrel would be stabbed to death,  because it would probably be unconscious by the time that the chemicals started to work".
_

Tell me now,  when the squirrel is sitting quietly in it's cage,  do you not think that a simple and effective .22 pellet wouldn't be the most humane answer to the death of our chum?  I do.

Again , if I've caused you,  or others offence,  then I apologise,  but the blind faith which the blind attach to those who are equally blind,  will raise the ire level of those who find the issuings of the rspca to be a total contradiction of their claims and statements.

I'm sure that you consider me arrogant,  and this may not help,  but before the rspca release any more ridiculous press statements,  then if they'll run them past me first,  I'll give them an honest and discreet opinion as to the sense of their words.  Currently the rspca release statements which most accept as having been dreamt up in a knee jerk fashion,  rather than being actually thought through.  

Alec.

Ets,  and as a footnote,  I agree with you that death by drowning is unacceptable,  and a practice which I could never support.  I have a fear of drowning which is the result of a childhood incident.  However,  am I anthropomorphising?  I have a fear of drowning but the drowned animal doesn't,  and those who've returned to life from drowning have told me that it was a surprisingly peaceful experience.  I still don't fancy it,  much! a
		
Click to expand...

Right, Alec my main issue with you is that you treat people who disagree with as an idiot. There is no need to to detail the methods of Intravenous or Intracardiac injection by using barbiturates. I have first hand experience.

As you have finally answered my original question which for arguments sake i will re-post here, " How would YOU advise a humane method of destruction other than injection by a vet? Im interested?" I am sure you would agree, this is simply a question, I didnt argue the merits of injection or otherwise. Now i thank you for providing me with an answer, which incidentally i AGREE with. The point I was leading to, was that many people may not have a .22 handy or either the inclination. The RSPCA can hardly state that every trapped squirrel be shot or neck dislocated. can you imagine the carnage of every tom, dick and harry attempting this! By far the safest advice is to simply to transport to a professional. I am pretty sure any competent trapper is already experienced in humane methods and would not be seeking advice from the RSPCA. Making your original post on this subject a moot point.

Now, we get to the original reason i felt compelled to reply to your original post. Which again for aguments sake i will again qoute, " Secondly, it would put the holder in contravention of the law, being in unlicensed possession of a live squirrel!" As I have already pointed out, you are MISTAKEN. It is a good job the RSPCA didnt run THIS statement by you isnt it? Or was it a case of the biased blind leading the biased blind leading the biased blind who will do anything to discredit whom they consider their enemy?


----------



## Moomin1 (11 February 2013)

MillyMoomie said:



			Right, Alec my main issue with you is that you treat people who disagree with as an idiot. There is no need to to detail the methods of Intravenous or Intracardiac injection by using barbiturates. I have first hand experience.

As you have finally answered my original question which for arguments sake i will re-post here, " How would YOU advise a humane method of destruction other than injection by a vet? Im interested?" I am sure you would agree, this is simply a question, I didnt argue the merits of injection or otherwise. Now i thank you for providing me with an answer, which incidentally i AGREE with. The point I was leading to, was that many people may not have a .22 handy or either the inclination. The RSPCA can hardly state that every trapped squirrel be shot or neck dislocated. can you imagine the carnage of every tom, dick and harry attempting this! By far the safest advice is to simply to transport to a professional. I am pretty sure any competent trapper is already experienced in humane methods and would not be seeking advice from the RSPCA. Making your original post on this subject a moot point.

Now, we get to the original reason i felt compelled to reply to your original post. Which again for aguments sake i will again qoute, " Secondly, it would put the holder in contravention of the law, being in unlicensed possession of a live squirrel!" As I have already pointed out, you are MISTAKEN. It is a good job the RSPCA didnt run THIS statement by you isnt it? Or was it a case of the biased blind leading the biased blind leading the biased blind who will do anything to discredit whom they consider their enemy?
		
Click to expand...

Fantastic post.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 February 2013)

Deleted.

I give in,  and will acquiesce to the idiots.  Don't ever say that I didn't try.

Idiot arguments come from idiots,  and the sane step away from them,  I'm advised. 

Alec.


----------



## MillyMoomie (11 February 2013)

Alec I took it upon myself to investigate your original post containing the statement from Mike Swan ( no relation ) I would be interested to know where he read this advise from the RSPCA as this was all I could dredge up from the website. I think it makes sense. Note no mention of transportation to a vet in the cage trapped paragraph. 
http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232713931123&mode=prd


----------



## MillyMoomie (11 February 2013)

Alec in my days of debating calling your opponents 'idiots' and using insults was not considered the done thing. 
Accepting when you are wrong in this instance is the classy way to step aside, But then somehow I think 'degradation' is your weapon. 
No matter, i enjoy a argument plus I am man enough to accept that occasionally I find what you write insightful and wise. I am open to reasoned opinion no matter what 'idiots' disagree.


----------



## Hunters (12 February 2013)

Not too many idiots on here, merely those that may have to agree to disagree..


----------



## SarahColeman (16 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			That is exactly what happened.  Trevor Morse wanted to photograph the pilot so he could be identified - to accompany a complaint to the CAA about the gyrocopter's constant low flying which was scaring horses!  

Which bit don't you understand??
		
Click to expand...

As you are an expert on this issue perhaps you could explain why you claim Morse needed to identify the pilot given that Morse already knew his identity,possessed the pilots full details and had them in the vehicle he drove to the airfield?


----------



## JanetGeorge (16 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			As you are an expert on this issue perhaps you could explain why you claim Morse needed to identify the pilot given that Morse already knew his identity,possessed the pilots full details and had them in the vehicle he drove to the airfield?
		
Click to expand...

Complaints had previously been made about a number of incidents.  But for each NEW complaint about NEW incidents, you HAVE to be able to 'identify' the pilot was who you could ASSUME it to be.  It might have been a different pilot (or a different gyrocopter) on that particular day - hard to tell when you're on the ground and it's 500 feet or more above you!


----------



## Alec Swan (16 February 2013)

SarahColeman said:



			As you are an expert on this issue perhaps you could explain why you claim Morse needed to identify the pilot given that Morse already knew his identity,possessed the pilots full details and had them in the vehicle he drove to the airfield?
		
Click to expand...




JanetGeorge said:



			Complaints had previously been made about a number of incidents.  But for each NEW complaint about NEW incidents, you HAVE to be able to 'identify' the pilot was who you could ASSUME it to be.  It might have been a different pilot (or a different gyrocopter) on that particular day - hard to tell when you're on the ground and it's 500 feet or more above you!
		
Click to expand...

And furthermore,  every individual crime will need specific and individual evidence,  to support a prosecution.  Providing that,  unlike the evidence so often offered by the anti,  that the evidence hasn't been adulterated,  then the camera is the most reliable of allies!  Trevor Morse was gathering such evidence,  before the person who unlawfully killed him fled the scene.

Alec.


----------



## Hunters (16 February 2013)

I find  the attacks on Trevor Morse most disturbing given the man is dead & therefore cannot defend himself.

Thank goodness The Warwickshire hunt continue as normal (although today cancelled due to ground conditions)


----------



## lastchancer (19 February 2013)

Sorry to drag this thread up again but... 
The idea of transporting and injecting a live/wild/wriggling/biting squirrel instead of just dispatching it there and then - just pmsl. 
That is all.


----------



## fburton (25 February 2013)

Stunning blow to the head and cervical dislocation would be more humane than attempting to inject barbiturates, I'd have thought.


----------



## JanetGeorge (25 February 2013)

fburton said:



			Stunning blow to the head and cervical dislocation would be more humane than attempting to inject barbiturates, I'd have thought.
		
Click to expand...

But you CAN'T do that to an anti - no matter how tempting!





(Whoops - just spotted you were talking about a tree rat!)


----------



## Alec Swan (26 February 2013)

lastchancer said:



			Sorry to drag this thread up again but... 
The idea of transporting and injecting a live/wild/wriggling/biting squirrel instead of just dispatching it there and then - just pmsl. 
That is all.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think that you quite understand;  those who would have the wild animal taken to a vet for an ostensibly humane euthanasia,  don't actually have any interest in the well being of the animal itself.  Their primary interest is in their own control of others.  The living creature's stress levels are of no importance,  what so ever.

Alec.

ps.  The other point which you need to grasp,  is that they are congenital idiots,  all of them.  a.


----------



## Moomin1 (26 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			I don't think that you quite understand;  those who would have the wild animal taken to a vet for an ostensibly humane euthanasia,  don't actually have any interest in the well being of the animal itself.  Their primary interest is in their own control of others.  The living creature's stress levels are of no importance,  what so ever.

Alec.

ps.  The other point which you need to grasp,  is that they are congenital idiots,  all of them.  a.
		
Click to expand...

Of course, given your extensive knowledge of every matter in the entire universe 'alec', I assume you must realise that RSPCA inspectors are trained to euthanase animals themselves, on scene?


----------



## Hunters (26 February 2013)

That may be so, but are they trained in common sense? :-D


----------



## Alec Swan (26 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Of course, given your extensive knowledge of every matter in the entire universe 'alec', I assume you must realise that RSPCA inspectors are trained to euthanase animals themselves, on scene?

Click to expand...

That's excellent news,  so every time that anyone has a squirrel,  alive in a trap,  they're to call out one of your inspectors are they?  

Just a tip for you,  if you took the time to consider your responses,  before you set them out in print,  then perhaps they'd make sense! 

Alec.


----------



## fburton (26 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			But you CAN'T do that to an anti - no matter how tempting!
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear, JG - you are naughty!


----------



## fburton (26 February 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Of course, given your extensive knowledge of every matter in the entire universe 'alec', I assume you must realise that RSPCA inspectors are trained to euthanase animals themselves, on scene?

Click to expand...

So do you know if the preferred euthanasia method for rodents is anaesthetic overdose or concussion with neck dislocation (or simply dislocation if the animal is small enough)? Having experience with both, I imagine that a wild, frightened squirrel would be better dispatched using the latter method. Intraperitoneal injection isn't particularly quick and intracardiac is discouraged by the Home Office Animal Procedures Committee.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 February 2013)

fburton,  I suspect that you may well be waisting your breath,  and your efforts too!!  

It seems that Moomin1 doesn't care for being doubted or questioned,  and their short answer is to attempt rather puerile insults!!

I've suggested that thinking their argument through,  in a logical fashion may help them form sensible and cogent points,  but apparently not!  Were he or she to do so,  then their points may make sense,  and/or,  be worthy of further thought.

Alec.


----------



## fburton (27 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			That's excellent news,  so every time that anyone has a squirrel,  alive in a trap,  they're to call out one of your inspectors are they?
		
Click to expand...

Related question... Are members of the public who aren't licensed vets allowed to dispatch squirrels by hand? Can it be that hard to do humanely?

I was hoping for some feedback from Moomin1.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 February 2013)

fburton said:



			Related question... Are members of the public who aren't licensed vets allowed to dispatch squirrels by hand? Can it be that hard to do humanely?

I was hoping for some feedback from Moomin1.
		
Click to expand...

There is no license needed,  to kill a squirrel.  I'm not too sure what you mean by "By Hand".  If you mean literally,  handling the creature and killing it with one's hands,  then it would be cruel,  in the extreme.  The most humane system would be to shoot it through the bars of the cage,  but there will be the idiot sector who want the poor creature to suffer from the stress of being contained,  transported and then handled,  because that's what another idiot told them that they should do! 

Alec.


----------



## JanetGeorge (27 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			There is no license needed,  to kill a squirrel.  I'm not too sure what you mean by "By Hand".  If you mean literally,  handling the creature and killing it with one's hands,  then it would be cruel,  in the extreme.
		
Click to expand...

Why on EARTH would it be cruel to dislocate the neck of a squirrel - assuming you found it alive but unable to run away?  Obviously if it was trapped in a cage, shooting it would be best assuming you had a suitable firearm.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Why on EARTH would it be cruel to dislocate the neck of a squirrel - ........
		
Click to expand...

Have you ever tried handling a wild and adult squirrel?  Have you seen their fearsome incisor teeth?  Dislocating the neck would call for a degree of dexterity that few posses,  I suspect.  To prevent oneself from being badly bitten,  then clumsy gloves would be the only way,  and that would be crude.  Shooting them in the cage would be the only humane and sensible answer,  I think.  There'd be no need for a firearm,  as a suitable air rifle would work a treat.

An otherwise delightful and elderly lady who I knew,  when she had a squirrel in a cage trap,  would attach a piece of string to the trap,  and dump it in a water butt,  and retire for a cup of tea.  I never have,  and never will view drowning as a suitable method of humane destruction.  Each to their own,  as they say! 

Alec.


----------



## JanetGeorge (27 February 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Have you ever tried handling a wild and adult squirrel?  Have you seen their fearsome incisor teeth?  Dislocating the neck would call for a degree of dexterity that few posses,  I suspect.  To prevent oneself from being badly bitten,  then clumsy gloves would be the only way,  and that would be crude.  Shooting them in the cage would be the only humane and sensible answer,  I think.  There'd be no need for a firearm,  as a suitable air rifle would work a treat.
		
Click to expand...

Lots of us don't own air rifles, Alec.  And I would only want to kill a tree rat if I found it badly injured - or ill and obviously dying - in which case it wouldn't be too wild for me to put my foot on its neck (to immobilise), grab its back legs and pull hard and twist!


----------



## Alec Swan (28 February 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			Lots of us don't own air rifles, Alec.  And I would only want to kill a tree rat if I found it badly injured - or ill and obviously dying - in which case it wouldn't be too wild for me to put my foot on its neck (to immobilise), grab its back legs and pull hard and twist!
		
Click to expand...

It would be preferred if those who set traps,  for any wildlife,  had the ability and if necessary,  the tools,  to bring about a painless dispatch.  Setting live catch traps,  and claiming to break the neck,  of a live squirrel,  isn't being either realistic,  or responsible.

Alec.


----------

