# Anti actually admiting assault!



## marmalade76 (20 May 2012)

Funnily enough, in our local press it's always the hunt and followers that do the assaulting, this makes a refreshing change!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-protagonist-weeks-infamous-YouTube-hit.html


----------



## Fiagai (21 May 2012)

Puts lie to their self portrayal as being all law abiding citizens! It's quite clear that she has committed assault on the video footage. Attempting to hurt someone because they are cycling on a rural road following a hunt is pathetic imo. Not the first time anti/monitors/sabs have been involved in such pathetic and potentially serious offences. Fair play to the gentleman for keeping his cool and attempting to fend her off.


----------



## Alec Swan (21 May 2012)

So Miss Marsh decided to release video footage of herself,  whilst committing an assault did she?  That was clever,  wasn't it? 

It would seem Fiagai,  that we don't need to Monitor the Monitors,  they're making a good enough job of it for themselves!  That's what society needs,  more people with a sense of justice.

Alec.


----------



## DawnRay (21 May 2012)

Oh dear, Miss March is not of course a hunt monitor. The lady in question is a Hunt Saboteur.

"While some moderate campaigners believe the ban can be successfully enforced, others  Miss Marsh included  believe that tougher direct action is needed because, she says, illegal hunting still continues."


----------



## Alec Swan (21 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			Oh dear, Miss March is not of course a hunt monitor. The lady in question is a Hunt Saboteur.

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

DawnRay,  we may be making progress here.  Are we to assume that your hoped for team of monitors would be completely impartial,  and report perceived wrong doing,  regardless of the camp which it came from?  

The reason that I ask is because from your post you seem to disassociate your self from all who break the law,  or act in an illegal fashion.  Would you also,  insist that your monitors refrain from the act of common trespass?  The rspca,  for instance,  cannot enter private land with the purpose of obtaining evidence to put before a court,  without being invited onto that land,  by someone with suitable authority.  

Were your monitors completely impartial,  and only interested in the gathering of facts,  then I'm sure that they'd be made most welcome.  

I suspect that we both know the answers to the above questions,  and that we also both accept the fact that the rather silly Ms Marsh was herself sabotaged! 

Alec.


----------



## Fiagai (21 May 2012)

Another imortant point in relation to this story is the self identification of individuals as Monitors and/or Sabateurs. At what point can an monitors be classified as a Sab? If a Sab has a video camera in their hand - does that make them a monitor? Then we have the Hunt Sab Assoc saying that they are now in effect Monitors! Looking at the evidence available I see nothing to differentiate Sabs from Monitors except when they select to do so for tactical reasons. Both appear to be engaging in dubious activities that at best are an excuse for engaging in harassment and the infringement of other peoles rights.


----------



## marmalade76 (21 May 2012)

I found the readers' comments rather interesting too, it seems that Miss Marsh doesn't have that many supporters


----------



## DawnRay (21 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			DawnRay,  we may be making progress here.  Are we to assume that your hoped for team of monitors would be completely impartial,  and report perceived wrong doing,  regardless of the camp which it came from?  

The reason that I ask is because from your post you seem to disassociate your self from all who break the law,  or act in an illegal fashion.  Would you also,  insist that your monitors refrain from the act of common trespass?  The rspca,  for instance,  cannot enter private land with the purpose of obtaining evidence to put before a court,  without being invited onto that land,  by someone with suitable authority.  

Were your monitors completely impartial,  and only interested in the gathering of facts,  then I'm sure that they'd be made most welcome.  

I suspect that we both know the answers to the above questions,  and that we also both accept the fact that the rather silly Ms Marsh was herself sabotaged! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I would be 100% happy to have impartial monitors who would report wrongdoing from either side if they were allowed full access to the hunt and the land they were 'trail', hunting on. Yes. Would you?


----------



## Alec Swan (21 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			I would be 100% happy to have impartial monitors who would report wrongdoing from either side if they were allowed full access to the hunt and the land they were 'trail', hunting on. Yes. Would you?
		
Click to expand...

By all means,  I would be agreeable.  The point though,  is that these _"Monitors"_ would need to be appointed as Court Officials,  in that they would then give a truly unbiased opinion and evidence.  _"Monitors"_ appointed by those opposed to hunting,  or for it,  for that matter,  would hardly be in a position to give impartial evidence.   

The Courts are already at bursting point,  and I think it highly unlikely that such a suggestion would be taken seriously,  as the only people who seem to take the ban on hunting,  seriously,  seem to be those who are opposed to it.  Parliament,  and the vote begging Blair have all admitted that the law,  when it was changed,  was both unworkable and unjust,  the Police have better things to do than hide in holly bushes spying on those carrying out a mostly legally conducted sport,  and as for the courts,  I'd suggest that you stand outside any rural Court House,  look at the bulk of the attending miscreants,  and then tell me that those Courts would have any appetite for judging those who mostly live a law abiding and decent existence,  contribute to society in general,  and are appearing before them because of an ill judged and corruptly achieved law.

You can argue all you like,  but the above facts are the reasons for most Authorities,  and the general public,  feeling as they do.

Alec.


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (21 May 2012)

A monitor with an agenda aint a monitor in any sense I understand.


----------



## sweet_essence (21 May 2012)

Sorry not top address the comments with the monitors. Observation angle of the article, particulary the pic with the cub.

One very selfish young lady trying the propaganda route.... she must of turned to mummy (and daddy?) to pop in the pennies for legal/ media advice, given she is young, with a child (assume these are expensive), graduate expenses (vet course is long and expensive and requires 100% commitment over weekends, especially during term time) and assumably low income (assume if you have gone as low as nude modelling, ya might not be earning top $ in the first place). 

A case of 'get me out of here' for the cub!  Poor thing.

http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/images/stories/item-images/pdf/HWMMI-12-11.pdf


----------



## DawnRay (21 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			By all means,  I would be agreeable.  The point though,  is that these _"Monitors"_ would need to be appointed as Court Officials,  in that they would then give a truly unbiased opinion and evidence.  _"Monitors"_ appointed by those opposed to hunting,  or for it,  for that matter,  would hardly be in a position to give impartial evidence.   

The Courts are already at bursting point,  and I think it highly unlikely that such a suggestion would be taken seriously,  as the only people who seem to take the ban on hunting,  seriously,  seem to be those who are opposed to it.  Parliament,  and the vote begging Blair have all admitted that the law,  when it was changed,  was both unworkable and unjust,  the Police have better things to do than hide in holly bushes spying on those carrying out a mostly legally conducted sport,  and as for the courts,  I'd suggest that you stand outside any rural Court House,  look at the bulk of the attending miscreants,  and then tell me that those Courts would have any appetite for judging those who mostly live a law abiding and decent existence,  contribute to society in general,  and are appearing before them because of an ill judged and corruptly achieved law.

You can argue all you like,  but the above facts are the reasons for most Authorities,  and the general public,  feeling as they do.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. Guess we will be left with things as they are for the time being. It would be nice if everybody just obeyed the law but then that is hardly likely I know.


----------



## Fiagai (21 May 2012)

lachlanandmarcus said:



			A monitor with an agenda aint a monitor in any sense I understand.
		
Click to expand...

Ah - a world of wisdom contained in a single sentence!


----------



## combat_claire (21 May 2012)

Dawnray,

Do you think we would have gone to the expense of buying a golden eagle, employing a falconer, building the mews and then training the eagle if we weren't going to abide by the law?


----------



## DawnRay (22 May 2012)

Possibly not. However, 40 odd thousand hunt supporters arrogantly claimed they would break the law. Three members of a hunt have just been convicted of breaking the law and four members of the Heythrop are facing 52 charges and the whole hunt over ten charges. If your hunt is abiding by the law then good on you all honestly. Do you really believe with the wink winking and nudge nudging all of the other hunts are abiding by the law also?


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (22 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			Possibly not. However, 40 odd thousand hunt supporters arrogantly claimed they would break the law. Three members of a hunt have just been convicted of breaking the law and four members of the Heythrop are facing 52 charges and the whole hunt over ten charges. If your hunt is abiding by the law then good on you all honestly. Do you really believe with the wink winking and nudge nudging all of the other hunts are abiding by the law also?
		
Click to expand...

yes, Heythrop are 'facing charges' ummmm there is such a thing as a trial - perhaps you would like to wait for the legal process. Also charges brought by a discredited political campaigning anti hunt organisation does not have the same credibility as those brought by due process of the state. Long time the privatisation of justice was stopped IMO.


----------



## combat_claire (22 May 2012)

So lets crunch some numbers to get to the facts of this.

There are 284 registered packs of hounds in the UK

If we say on average this equals 2 days out per week (as some do less and many do a lot more days than this)

This equals 15,904 meets and draws per year

Meaning there have been 111,328 days in total when a registered pack of hounds has been out since the ban. 

7 packs have been convicted of offences under the Hunting Act, the remaining convictions have been by individuals for poaching type offences, already illegal under existing laws prior to the Hunting Act 2005.

This means that 0.000062% of registered hunts have been found guilty in a court of law. 

These figures and my own experiences convince me that the the vast majority of hunts are doing their best to stay within the law, no matter how ridiculous its content is and are largely succeeding in doing so.

I further challenge you to examine the absurdity of this piece of legislation that makes it okay to chase a rat or a rabbit but not to hunt a hare or a mink. Why is it okay to hunt an animal with two hounds, but take three hounds out and it is illegal. How can it be humane to insist that only 2 hounds may be used to track an injured deer when using the full pack as part of the pre-ban Deer Casualty Service means the wounded deer can be found much quicker. If you truly are concerned with animal welfare then these are questions you need to examine before continuing to support the Hunting Act.

If you re-read the Hunting Act text then you will also note that the Act is silent on how wildlife should be managed once the tool of hunting with hounds in the traditional sense was removed. In my opinion if the Act was truly bound up and concerned with the welfare of the animals then it would have detailed an alternative strategy for population  management. I've checked in none of the guidance notes or the text of the Act there is nothing on what should happen post-ban. 

What makes this piece of legislation even more 'Alice in Wonderland' like is that your guilt under the Act all hinges on your intentions when you leave kennels of a morning. How can a court possibly determine what was in the minds of the huntsman and staff at a particular moment in time. This burden of proof was examined in R v Anthony Wright.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			....... Three members of a hunt have just been convicted of breaking the law .......
		
Click to expand...

Think about it,  and I'm sure that you'll realise that there's a world of difference between being charged,  and being convicted.

I've just found this,  and assuming the facts to be correct,  I find this a little disturbing;

"The RSPCA has issued summons on 52 Hunting Act charges relating to the Heythrop Hunt, its Masters and employees as part of a private prosecution. The allegations have not been the subject of police investigation or any charging decision by the Crown Prosecution Service. None of those summonsed, nor anyone else involved with the Heythrop Hunt has been questioned by the police or RSPCA over any of the allegations which all allegedly occurred in the 2011/12 hunting season. The Heythrop Hunt operates in the Prime Ministers Witney constituency and the kennels are just outside Chipping Norton."

Whilst hardly being an authority on law,  I find it disturbing that private prosecutions can be brought by charities with clear agendas,  and place evidence before Courts which will,  by the very definition of the accuser,  run the risk of being warped.  If the CPS are hiving off their responsibilities,  in the certain knowledge that win or lose,  there will be no risk to their own budget,  then the principles of justice must be at serious risk.

The rspca are also at huge risk here.  There's no doubt that as a fund raising drive,  they will probably raise far more money than the Court costs,  considering the profile of the accused.  The risk that they run,  is that naturally and correctly,  those who support or represent the accused,  will take every step to discredit the accusers,  and the simple fact is that the rspca really are a shambles,  they have demonstrated dubious working practices,  and their ethics must surely be in question,  and it can be reliably argued that they are not fit for purpose.

Were I in the shoes of The Heythrop,  I would defend my self,  by any means possible,  and with vigour!!

Alec.


----------



## JanetGeorge (22 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Think about it,  and I'm sure that you'll realise that there's a world of difference between being charged,  and being convicted.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not a lot - when it's Magistrates' Court and the prosection is being brought by the RSPCA!  9 times out of 10 it's a conviction - and 9 times out of 10 it's overturned on Appeal!  Keeps the lawyers busy, I guess.

For the RSPCA, it's a win/win situation, because a conviction ALWAYS gets more publicity than a successful Appeal!


----------



## solitairex (22 May 2012)

Lets not forget she reported this man to the police for assault.... hypocriteee and incredibly stupid haha


----------



## Hunters (22 May 2012)

Janetgeorge, I'm with you again. In my humble opinion this is a huge publicity stunt which could carry on as far as the elections. It's a clever move to discredit many more than just the Heythrop.

The MFHA are out of their depth & it is poignant that Vanessa Lambert is being charged. The MFHA do not have the power and influence of Rebekah Brooks anymore either. Worrying times I should imagine..,


----------



## Vulpinator (7 June 2012)

DawnRay said:



			I would be 100% happy to have impartial monitors who would report wrongdoing from either side if they were allowed full access to the hunt and the land they were 'trail', hunting on. Yes. Would you?
		
Click to expand...

Please pinch me and wake me up I niavely thought that what you are reffering to was called the police force or am i now living in the world of vigilanty britain where the police force has been replaced by a self appointed anarchistic organisation led by unelected unrepresentative and unanswerable but well meaning group of self deprevating quasi judicial individuals.


----------



## Queenofdiamonds (13 June 2012)

I think it's a bit hypocritical of her to be moaning about him holding the 'Sabs' up... They're the ones following and usually sabotaging what is, for all intents and purposes, a drag hunt. No law broken.. I don't understand how sabs are allowed to behave in this manner. They are not the law. If the law is being broken and hunts are hunting foxes that is for the police to deal with, Not for random people to take the law into their own hands, On the off chance that someone *could* be breaking the law.

You wouldn't see me barging into my neighbours house just to 'monitor' their dog... Or following a shopper around tesco 'incase' they're stealing.


----------

