# person charged with murder



## the watcher (11 March 2009)

http://onlinenews.warwickshire.police.uk/appeals/2009311Manchargedfoll


changes things a bit...doesn't it


----------



## CorvusCorax (11 March 2009)

Bloody hell.


----------



## DollyDolls (11 March 2009)

Quite a bit.


----------



## Girlracer (11 March 2009)

Echo the bloody hell. Certainly does change it. 

Spoke to someone who knew him today (this is all extremely close to home for me), understandably all extremely distraught.


----------



## Grumpy Herbert (11 March 2009)

Makes the whole thing even more senseless.  

It's frightening what lengths some people will go to in the name of a 'cause'.


----------



## joe_carby (12 March 2009)

well another instance of their ridiculous antics is my mums old hunter he only had 1 eye but trusted her so much he would always jump anything (this is pre ban) and could be relied upon to get up with hounds and help whip-in if needed. he was turned out in the field 1day when the hunt was near but mum wasnt out hunting and the hunt sabs followed the hounds past the field went into my mums horse paddock and spray gas in his 1 good eye. that day 11 hounds were also blinded all recovered after about 2 weeks thankfully. all done for animal welfare i expect?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (12 March 2009)

the sabs aren't concerned with animal welfare, never have been, they've nothing better to do than to be seen to be doing SOMETHING, they have sad, empty, insular lives and have no respect for man nor beast. thank heavens your good oldboy recovered, and the hounds-


----------



## peakpark (12 March 2009)

As Salimali says, sabs couldon't give a damn about animal welfare. What a terrible thing to have done to your mother's horse. And these are the people who the government agreed with.


----------



## Nailed (12 March 2009)

I saw a sab pull a duch gag through a horses mouth trying to stop the rider moving.. The mouth got shreded and as far as i remember the horse was retired and had a foal as the damage was too much. They are sick.
My hearts with his family and friends

Lou x


----------



## joeanne (12 March 2009)

the sabs aren't concerned with animal welfare, never have been,
		
Click to expand...

Have to agree, they stand and scream about animal rights and how cruel hunting is, yet think nothing of harming hounds or horses in their quest.
Sab should have the description "terrorist" next to it in the dictionary.
Lets hope for once the law is just!


----------



## combat_claire (12 March 2009)

Bryan Griffiths of Bedworth, an anti-hunt campaigner has appeared before Nuneaton magistrates charged with murder. 

http://www.warwickcourier.co.uk/newsl/Long-Marston-Airfield-gyrocopter-death.5067996.jp


----------



## Girlracer (12 March 2009)

"the collision was caught on camera by eyewitnesses"

Blimey, that was surely what swung it then?


----------



## CorvusCorax (12 March 2009)

And just to remind you all it is now a live court case so we'd all better be on our best behaviour.


----------



## cavalo branco (12 March 2009)

My thoughts and prayers are for Trevor's family and friends.


----------



## Springs (13 March 2009)

This all so sad. 

a life has been lost all in a cause for the what! antis attacking hunt horses and hounds, there seams to be little sence in all of this!

all very odd


----------



## lastrebel (14 March 2009)

I couldnt give a damn about morley, I'm sure we will discover he was trying to cause trouble with the hunt monitor.
I do take offence though with you saying antis attack horses and hounds , the tactic of scaring a horse so it will throw the rider is I believe legitamate, but I would never purposefuly hurt them.


----------



## SnowPhony (14 March 2009)

And the brains of britain award goes to ^^ So scaring a horse and causing it alarm isn't unneccesary cruelty and distress to an animal then?? 

Hunt sabs are just terrorists.

And have a bit of respect. A man has been murdered.


----------



## lastrebel (14 March 2009)

tashy, you have no respect when hunt monitors get injured or pets get killed or wildlife gets scared or ripped apart.
just because one of your lot gets whats deserved dont expect everyone to show remorse or respect.
your lot wanted it this way.


----------



## horseguy (14 March 2009)

Lastrebel is a creep that has been hanging around the forums trying to cause trouble for the last few days, there have been posts in the "Latest News" where he has made threats, also the cretin cannot understand the English lanuage and thinks some of my comments are written in German.....the person is just a prick, and I have reported his posts regarding Trevor to the Mod's here, let's have rid of this prat.


----------



## M_G (14 March 2009)

Last revel you really are a nasty piece of work, a man has lost his life while another has been charged with murder!!!

You dont care about life its obvious from your post, might I ask what happens if said horse rears and goes over backwards on its rider would you feel bad then?

RIP Trevor my thoughts are with family and friends


----------



## lastrebel (14 March 2009)

probably a bit high brow for you, we both know the meaning of the word I was talking of its origin, a bunch of Germans who hated knowledge. you would have fitted in well.


----------



## lastrebel (14 March 2009)

I have to work most days, but when I can I make myself known.
the last meet I attended was Broadway on boxing day. I was alone and there was several hundred of you but not one of you would come and have a little chat with me.
So no, I'm happy to play with the big boys, please dont be afraid to introduce yourself.
as for the fact your lot have killed 3 sabs (I can only think of two who have died directly from your lots actions) , given your history thats not a suprise.


----------



## M_G (14 March 2009)

So how would you feel if one of the horses you were scaring into dumping its rider fell over backwards on top of said rider?


----------



## lastrebel (14 March 2009)

M_G good question, the reson I despise fox hunting is I hate all forms of bullying, child abuse, animal abuse racism etc.
sat bravely in front of my PC the death of a paedophile, a rapist or a fox hunter has no effect upon me whatsoever.

If I was to blame then obviously that would be different as I dont see myself as a murderer but then neither do the hunt supporters who throw their weight around (usualy against women.)

in the heat of the moment things happen


----------



## M_G (14 March 2009)

I dont like bullying either but see no reason in this day and age to scare horses and the likes, surely if a hunt is breaking the law then all you need is photographic evidence. 

Admittedly the law is very convoluted and difficult to follow however I think you will find hunts put an awful lot of effort into following the law I really dont understand what all the fuss is about the Anti hunt protesters have won hunting as was is now illegal, yes you will see hounds out following a trail. 

Surely the life of a person is more important than scoring points &amp; I mean pro or anti


----------



## jrp204 (14 March 2009)

LR, you are very righteous, how do you stand on speeding drivers, drinkdrivers etc, you obviously never drive over the limit (whateva!) Do you follow car drivers around harrassing them, videoing them as they have broken the speed limit. Remember speed kills, people and animals. You say you despise bullying, from your posts that is exactly how you come over.


----------



## connemaras (14 March 2009)

at the end of the day- a man very well known round my area has been killed, he was not just a follower but a true huntsman too. for some reason this day he choose to follow our hunt and a horrid accident happend. this grynocopter had been following the hunt for more than 3 weeks and was being a pest! i was not out hunting the day this happend although i was out the past 2 weeks before and the grnocopter was out following our every move- we do hunt within the law- and the antis on foot are no gooders- have nothing better to do than to make our horses and riders upset- i have seen antis out where theyhave upset children! what is the point. i was very happy when 1 anti who had a pull at my leg once, went and stood behind a horse with red tape on its tail- although the horse moved away and did not kick apart of me wished it did- but then who would be in the wrong?? 
the gentleman who lost his life was very close friends with a friend of mine and her family- but thoughts are with everyone who knew him- what a horrid way to end the season.....


----------



## rosie fronfelen (14 March 2009)

to make matters worse i gather complaints had been made  before to the civil aviation authority about this flying menace!why wasn't that looked into then i wonder? who is now looking after Trevor Morse's owl, is it ok?


----------



## connemaras (14 March 2009)

yes complaints had been made- i was out gate shutting a few weeks back and not only did we have antis but lots of police- the huntmaster went and spoke to police but they did nothing- they said as long as its above soo many ft. it was allowed to fly :angry: Mr.Morse has a wife but no children of his own although his wife has 2 from prev marriage. nothing can be done to make this 'right' i hope the people who did this get life-as thats what they've done-taken a man life.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (14 March 2009)

the police don't want to know. if they have a report, whether it be by a hunt or an anti whatever, they have to respond but... that's it. mind you, not surprising really as the amount of paperwork involved for it is horrendous. back to portion blame on the government!!


----------



## henryhorn (14 March 2009)

You see sadly Lastrebel you alienate people like me who read your comments about scaring an animal enough to make it throw it's rider and instantly think, "Well he's got no credibilty whatsoever with a comment like that!"
What's the difference in chasing a fox or hare and scaring it and scaring a horse enough to make it so frightned it throws it's rider? 
I always had a sneaking sympathy for the antis because I don't like seeing an animal killed either. 
Then I was driving through a local village where a meet was happening and saw their landrover entirely covered in wire grills and with blacked out faced balaclavar wearing people inside. 
They didn't emerge at all but pushed a couple of kids ponies along the road with their vehicle.. 
I'm afraid the image that gave me reminded me of the scum who murdered people in N Ireland recently, cowards one and all...
You are really wasting your efforts on here, most of us are reasonable minded people who make up our own minds on facts and what we see; boasting you think it's clever to scare horses is not really going to make anyone support your ideas now is it?


----------



## faerie666 (14 March 2009)

the tactic of scaring a horse so it will throw the rider is I believe legitamate, but I would never purposefuly hurt them.
		
Click to expand...

So, what about after you have scared the horse, the rider has fallen off, and said horse then gallops onto the nearest road in a panic and gets hit by some poor innocent car driver who was just minding his own business?
Chances are the horse will be severely injured and have to stand/lie there in great pain waiting for the vet to come and put it down, and the car driver may also be seriously injured.
If you think scaring a horse into throwing it's rider is ok, then you really are an idiot!


----------



## palomino698 (14 March 2009)

LR get back in the pond.

What a blindingly stupid thing to say.  Deliberately causing an accident takes a peculiarly perverted mentality, it's no wonder most of us cannot empathise with your type.


----------



## smirnoff_ice07 (14 March 2009)

LR, how the f*** can u compare fox hunters with rapists and paedophiles? At the end of the day a man has been killed by antis deliberatey or not who knows? You make all these self righteous remarks and then make stupid comments like it's fine to scare a horse in to throwing its rider. Dont think any one on here can take u seriously tbh!


----------



## JanetGeorge (15 March 2009)

as for the fact your lot have killed 3 sabs (I can only think of two who have died directly from your lots actions) , given your history thats not a suprise.
		
Click to expand...

NO sab has died directly as a result of hunt supporters actions!  Two have unfortunately died as a result of their own actions!

The first was at the Cheshire Beagles - from memory I think it was the '92-'93 season. Hunting had been abandoned and a sab named Mike Hill fell off the back of the hunt pick-up which was towing the hound trailer. Reports of what he was doing at the time vary but at one stage he had allegedly taken the cap off the fuel tank and was brandishing a lighter near it.  

The huntsman's house was attacked that night and later burnt down. The police investigated thoroughly and decided it was an accident. The sabs brought a private prosecution against the huntsman - that failed. The huntsman had to leave hunt service as he and his family were constantly targetted and harrassed.

The second was at the Cambridgeshire - in 1994 I think.  A young lad called Tom Worby was taken out by a particularly unsavoury female sab (who the sab organisations tried to distance themselves from later!)  Again, hunting had been abandoned due to the violence of the sab attack.  The huntsman was driving the lorry with horses and hounds on board slowly down a lane when he was surrounded by a large number of sabs, shouting abuse and trying to climb on the vehicle.  The huntsman continued driving very slowly and in the melee, the lad got his clothing hooked up on the wing mirror and fell under the lorry.  Again, coroner's court/police decided it was an accident and that the huntsman had no case to answer.  Even the boy's grandparents blamed the sabs for his death!!  The huntsman - despite being cleared of all blame - was so distressed by the accident he took early retirement (unlike the sabs!).

The third death of an animal 'rights' campaigner (Jill Phipps) was nothing to do with hunting.  She died under a livestock lorry at Coventry airport.  Again, it was an accident and the driver was not charged even with dangerous driving (he was travelling slowly and just couldn't stop in time when she tried to block the lorry.)

But I don't suppose we can expect a sab to get his facts right!!


----------



## fIsHiNg (15 March 2009)

all hunters are scum


----------



## lastrebel (15 March 2009)

Thanks for all your kind comments.
I think the cases of the two men who were killed were sufficiently covered in the press. I'm sure some of your number were overjoyed when it happend.
Lets not forget that whilst your insulting my thoughts and actions I'm not the one who is getting their kicks from killing  things. Any action I have ever taken has been to stop a hunt not because I get off on it.


----------



## horseguy (15 March 2009)

You just carry on hiding behind your computer screen you pathetic little inadequate person, why don't you go and play somewhere else, I am sure there are plenty of Hunt Sab forums you can play on to your litlle hearts content.


----------



## fIsHiNg (15 March 2009)

Hunters killed 3 sabs that is a fact.  Sabs have only killed one hunter.


----------



## horseguy (15 March 2009)

Instead of coming on here being the "Prick" that you are, why don't you go and do something useful, like.....

Why not start a campaign against the ritual slaughter of animals here in the E.U., where many thousands of animals are slaughtered without being stunned, and die a painful death, Hal Al, Kosher, Shechita.

These practices should be outlawed

WARNING*      Do not view these video's unless you are fully aware that they show ritual animal slaughter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEAtaLp137E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIMoQVnPn4Q&amp;feature=related

Do something useful, and leave us alone


----------



## lastrebel (15 March 2009)

Horseguy dont say I'm hiding behind my computer I'm not scared of a few farm labourers.You being in Lancashire makes it difficult. 
I wish I could meet you then we would see who backs down.
maybe someone will invite you to Warks or worcs for the day.
Then you could tell me to my face.


----------



## Izaac_Walton (15 March 2009)

You're sick!


----------



## the watcher (15 March 2009)

lastrebel, normally I don't bother responding to idiots - well one or two perhaps when they are in real danger of injuring themselves - but I will make an exception in your case.

You claim that people hunt because they get some kind of thrill out of chasing and terrorising animals. I can tell you from experience that drag hunting is just as exciting and there is absolutely no kind of live quarry needed to make galloping across country in the company of friends and fit horses exciting. In fact the fox, when they were part of the package, was of little consequence to most of the following field who often didn't see a fox all day. The was always a very small group of hunt professionals who might be in at the kill, if there was a kill.

People hunted, and now trail ride, primarily for the exhilaration, because it is good discipline and training for the horses and because the funds raised support the countryside. Also it is the only way to support yet another dying countryside tradition.

To suggest that people only hunt because they relish hurting any kind of animals is all about you attributing YOUR values to other people.


----------



## lastrebel (15 March 2009)

mother hen, I agree so why do so many of your kind defend so ademently your right to kill wild animals.
Why do they flout the laws of the land by still chasing foxes if its such a small part of your day.

if what you said was true we wouldn't be having this conversation.

this arguement has raged for a hundred years we wont be able to answer it.


----------



## the watcher (15 March 2009)

My kind?

What kind would that be?

The kind that is happy to shoot rats where they are causing a problem? Yup

The kind that will dispatch moles instantly where they are causing a problem? Yup

Will happily do that, but will never never poison them. Do you know why? Because it is a nasty lingering death and THAT is cruel.

Life is nasty, sometimes we are overrun with disease spreading vermin. As long as we deal with those in the most effective way, identifying problem animals and not disposing all of a species locally indiscriminately, I have ot say I don't see a problem.

I am comfortable that hunting was one of the most effective methods for controlling fox population, it culled the old and the weak and never left an animal injured and suffering. However, that is not the point here.

Your point was that people hunt because they enjoyed killing foxes, mine is that the death of a fox was mostly incidental and irrelevant to most people who follow hounds. Just as shooting rats is not fun, it just needs to be done - poisoning would be easier.


----------



## JanetGeorge (15 March 2009)

Hunters killed 3 sabs that is a fact.  Sabs have only killed one hunter.
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear - another one with no understanding of FACTS!!

2 sabs have died in accidents connected with hunting.  No charges were brought against the huntsmen involved by police - and private prosecutions failed.  It didn't make anyone feel 'better' - the two huntsmen involved effectively lost their homes and jobs because of the accidents because the sabs wouldn't accept the verdict of the courts.

One hunt supporter has now died - and animal rights activist has been charged with murder.  Hunt supporters will wait for a court verdict and WILL respect it - whatever it is.


----------



## horseguy (15 March 2009)

Horseguy dont say I'm hiding behind my computer I'm not scared of a few farm labourers.You being in Lancashire makes it difficult. 
I wish I could meet you then we would see who backs down.
maybe someone will invite you to Warks or worcs for the day.
Then you could tell me to my face.
		
Click to expand...

Oh look...more threats!

Isn't it about time you crawled out of the school playground and grew up?
Making childish threats on an Internet forum, not very adult is it?

You are here on the Horse &amp; Hound forums, you have made it very obvious you are here to cause trouble, why don't you go and play on your "Sabs" web sites, so you can all play at saying how really tough you all are, brag to each other how many woman and children you have terrorised.

Infact, you are no different than a terrorist, you have so much in common with Bin Laden.


Just go away


----------



## lastrebel (15 March 2009)

Peter, no threats, just telling it like it is.You should pleased that you have made such an impression.


----------



## lastrebel (15 March 2009)

Janet 




			. Hunt supporters will wait for a court verdict and WILL respect it - whatever it is. 
Your lot respecting the law that will be a first, have you heard of the hunting act.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## lastrebel (15 March 2009)

My kind ?  The kind who kill for pleasure and then try to justify it to themselves.

Mother hen, "I am comfortable that hunting was one of the most effective methods for controlling fox population, it culled the old and the weak and never left an animal injured and suffering. "
I agree, but that isnt the whole story. how do you justify cubbing, traping foxes and letting them lose for a hunt.
etc etc thats where my issues lie.


----------



## smirnoff_ice07 (15 March 2009)

LR, will you give it a rest!!! Yes everyone has a right to voice their opinion but we don't need it rammed down our throats!!
Is it not pretty obvious this is a PRO hunting forum, for people who support hunting for all the good it does for the countryside. If you can't see that you are plain stupid, you can't really expect anyone on here to agree with you so stop annoying us!!


----------



## lastrebel (15 March 2009)

ok I'm off


----------



## the watcher (15 March 2009)

lastrebel, we have moved on a bit from the opening post.

Cubbing - mostly training new hounds in my experience, lots of standing around and scent following, very few kills.

Digging in and releasing foxes for hunts. Not something I would ever have supported, I understand it happened occasionally although I never saw it.

Licensing hunting would have dealt with these issues without the requirement for a complete ban - and even amongst those who have hunted and remain in favour of fox hunting, there would have been widespread support for a limit on some of the activities of some terrier men.

Not everybody who has hunted foxes is a complete monster, just as not everybody who objects to hunting is wrong to hold that opinion. It is how we deal with our differences that matters. I would never gloat over the death of a hunt protester, perhaps you could have the good manners not to do the same, at least on a public forum.


----------



## peakpark (16 March 2009)

ok I'm off
		
Click to expand...

But are you Last Rebel? Are you really?
We've read similar heartening news from Monkey Magic in the past, but then he finds he just can't resist one more post.
You should try and break the mould and stick to your word.


----------



## combat_claire (16 March 2009)

Janet 




			. Hunt supporters will wait for a court verdict and WILL respect it - whatever it is. 
Your lot respecting the law that will be a first, have you heard of the hunting act.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, which is why every hunt is doing their utmost to abide by the exemptions contained within it. If we didn't care about the law, do you think we'd have spent thousands of pounds on eagles, obscure urine samples for trail laying and appropriate weapons for dispatching mink??
		
Click to expand...


----------



## kindofanti (16 March 2009)

I'm an "anti" in that I don't accept all the pro arguments. I've never been hunting or even seen a hunt, but I find the thought of some aspects of this sport pretty unsavoury. On balance, though, I disagree with the ban, especially this ban which in a way has united pros and antis alike because it satisfies neither. 

Anyway, that's my view on hunting. I just wanted to say how sorry I feel about this man's death. What an awful thing to happen. It must be like a nightmare to his family and friends. If justice needs to be done I hope it will be. In the meantime, for what it's worth, I sincerely hope that everyone touched by this tragedy can eventually find a kind of solace, perhaps in remembering the life of the victim, who was clearly a popular and decent man.


----------



## lastrebel (16 March 2009)

only the good die young


----------



## Doormouse (16 March 2009)

How very refreshing to have someone who admits that they do not agree with the pro hunting people but can post a sympathetic and polite message without bias.  Good on you.

Re: Lastrebel - what exactly do you mean when you say 'only the good die young'?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (16 March 2009)

last rebel keeps saying he/she is going, well, just go. you have nothing to contribute on what is a hunting forum. i appreciate that there are people who are anti hunting, that is a bit different from being a saboteur. an anti has his opinion the same as a supporter, but the need for violence is extreme and does nothing but create animosity between all concerned. sabs need to take a step back and give a thought for their actions.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (16 March 2009)

post script- definition of a saboteur is someone who partakes in sabotage which is a deliberate action aimed at weakening an opponent through obstruction, disruption and/or destruction. not a very pleasant "handle" to bear, is it!!


----------



## Springs (18 March 2009)

last turnip,

It's about time you just buggerd off and started doing something worth while, I bet you're the type that promotes animal welfare but enjoys a good steak!

Odd that you hide behind your key board and only logged on when this incident started to make some news!

For the record I take my horses hunting as it is good training for them, it helps them to go forward, I can normally be found at the back of the field enjoying the day and the company and hip flask with those around me. I have only ever seen one fox come to harm, lots of chasing but rarely caught anything! seen loads of fox's etc.

Are you sure that your not just getting off having a go and all the rush of been a sab? In fact if i consider your actions, no better that a foot ball thug!


----------



## Scratchline (19 March 2009)

post script- definition of a saboteur is someone who partakes in sabotage which is a deliberate action aimed at weakening an opponent through obstruction, disruption and/or destruction. not a very pleasant "handle" to bear, is it!!
		
Click to expand...

And the definition of killer is...........?


----------



## Scratchline (19 March 2009)

last turnip,       What a well thought out name change lol lol

It's about time you just buggerd off and started doing something worth while, I bet you're the type that promotes animal welfare but enjoys a good steak!      

This is a public forum and my guess is you dont know anything about lastrebels lifestyle so why just attack them?!

Odd that you hide behind your key board and only logged on when this incident started to make some news!

You are posting/hiding  behind your keybaord but not yet on topic!

For the record I take my horses hunting as it is good training for them, it helps them to go forward, I can normally be found at the back of the field enjoying the day and the company and hip flask with those around me. I have only ever seen one fox come to harm, lots of chasing but rarely caught anything! seen loads of fox's etc.

So you are unable to think of a way to excercise your animal without your little friends? How about someone with their uncontrolled doggies chases you and your little pony for miles and miles then lets you both escape at the end of the little jaunt. A bit of fear will make you and pippa the pony work even harder if in fear of losing your life   My guess is, you would soon change your mind.

Are you sure that your not just getting off having a go and all the rush of been a sab? In fact if i consider your actions, no better that a foot ball thug! 

Click to expand...

Are YOU not having a go at someone YOU believe to be a sab and ignoring the topic because hunting is banned, rightly so and you dont like it?!


----------



## Springs (19 March 2009)

yes scratchline it is a forum and everyone has their own opinion.   Hunting is for training you have to excercise your horse before you hunt it. 

Pippa and I frequently get chased by dogs and Pippa loves it I can tell this by the way she shakes with excitement and poos a lot!


----------



## lastrebel (19 March 2009)

I was being Ironic


----------



## lastrebel (19 March 2009)

yes I do enjoy a good steak, but I dont dress up like a twat and get off on killing it.


----------



## YorksG (20 March 2009)

Can anyone explain to me the relevance of the clothing worn, in terms of why that of itsef makes hunting a bad thing ?


----------



## spaniel (20 March 2009)

yes I do enjoy a good steak, but I dont dress up like a twat and get off on killing it.
		
Click to expand...


The bitterness and hatred shown in your posts proves to me that you have no concern at all with animal welfare......we are back to class war here when there is no war to fight.


----------



## lastrebel (20 March 2009)

yes I can, lets say someone goes out drinkdriving, this is bad.
If someone goes out drink driving dresses like  a clown ignores any drink driving laws gets upperty when people dont like it and post on the internet about how clever it is and then try to apply political pressure to have the drink driving laws changed then that's a lot worse and can get people angry.
hope this helps.


----------



## lastrebel (20 March 2009)

I take it you presume I'm working class as I dont like hunting.
a lot of hunt supporters are working class.
I have a HND and a skiiled job I think that makes me middle class nowadays.(lol)
Anyway, no nothing to do with class.


----------



## majicmoment (20 March 2009)

yes I do enjoy a good steak, but I dont dress up like a twat and get off on killing it.
		
Click to expand...

So its about class now....nothing to do with animal welfare?

Congratulations, you have just admitted the Act has nothing to do with Animal Welfare, and everything to do with deep routed prejudice and hatred. Which is why the Act is a ill thought out piece of legeslation and does nothing for Animal Welfare. 

NO FOXES HAVE BEEN SAVED AS A RESULT OF THE HUNTING ACT. 

Welcome to the 'other side'

REPEAL is the only way.....

Enjoy your steak. I suppose its OK if you didnt kill it....the animal didnt suffer in any way, did it? 

Course not. 

 :grin:


----------



## majicmoment (20 March 2009)

ps, can I add, that my parents are through and through cockney Londoners. They are grafters, grew up in proper London estates, and worked hard to move out to the country.

The main thing, they say, having worked hard to get where they are, is the work ethic of pretty much everyone in the countryside is the same - down to earth , hard working grafters, committed to community and passionate about who they are and what they do.

What you do, or have, does not distinguish 'class' per say, my parents are sucessful and are fortunate to have London, Coastal and Country properties, my father is at the top of his trade, however if you asked him, he is working class - not middle. 

Similarly, I dated a Baron (LOL!!!) who shunned the life he inherited and is now a carpenter, however retains his title - even though he has a traide - you would never know his background. Whats he? A toff? I dont think so. 

I wish everything was so black and white in my world....

Simples  :grin:


----------



## combat_claire (20 March 2009)

yes I can, lets say someone goes out drinkdriving, this is bad.
If someone goes out drink driving dresses like  a clown ignores any drink driving laws gets upperty when people dont like it and post on the internet about how clever it is and then try to apply political pressure to have the drink driving laws changed then that's a lot worse and can get people angry.
hope this helps.
		
Click to expand...

But the crux is that despite 4 years of effort there has still only been one conviction for illegal hunting with hounds, which rather suggests that hunts are staying within the law. Lets face it 30 hounds accompanied by 100 people on horseback dressed as you put it 'like twats' with more people following them in cars are a bit hard to hide...

Just look back over Hansard and see some of the comments made by parliamentarians during the 700 hours spent on the political debate, and you can see the spite and prejudice with which the Hunting Act was passed. Is it any wonder that those who are involved with hunting or who depend on it for their trade were so angry and are consequently fighting for repeal.


----------



## combat_claire (20 March 2009)

Simples  :grin:
		
Click to expand...

comparethemeerkat.com......  :grin:


----------



## lastrebel (20 March 2009)

Claire 

putting our differences aside for a moment.
I agree the hunting act in its present form is no use to man nor beast (excuse the pun).
However as far livelihoods go and I dont know any figures but from what I have seen since the ban more people are hunting. 
I would take a guess these people are those who didnt want to be involved in chasing foxes but now feel drag hunting is acceptable.
This is a positive for anyone involved in the hunting industry. could it not be possible that a repeal of the ban would mean some of these people would no longer hunt.
Therfore jobs could really be lost.
From what I have seen and its not much over the last 4 years and only concerns two particular Hunt, foxes are still being chased and killed and not by accident or chance but by design.
For example why are terrirer men still following hunts.
The truth is the ban has not really changed anything and if like a lot of posters say the 'Kill' is not important why is there such an uproar over it.


----------



## Scratchline (21 March 2009)

However as far livelihoods go and I dont know any figures but from what I have seen since the ban more people are hunting. 
I would take a guess these people are those who didnt want to be involved in chasing foxes but now feel drag hunting is acceptable.
This is a positive for anyone involved in the hunting industry. could it not be possible that a repeal of the ban would mean some of these people would no longer hunt.
Therfore jobs could really be lost.
		
Click to expand...

Couldnt agree with you more )  Those that purely want a return to a situation were foxes are chased and chased, running for their lives ( not fun or "sport"), are simply deluded, cruel and completely out of touch with humanity! They want the kill, they hope for the kill. It has absolutely nothing to do with pest control and everything to do with the fun of the chase. That is not right, not humane and is the very reason hunting was banned and will never be allowed to return.

They should forget that. It has gone and rightly so.

Go out and enjoy your horses and your hounds if that is what people want. It is without a doubt great fun and a fabulous spectacle but do so legally. If not it turns the stomach of most people, it becomes a blood sport. No better than dog or cock fighting. Bear and badger baiting. It produces only victims, no winners and mans selfish hand covered in blood!

Chasing a terrified animal, running for its life is why the people of this country do not want fox hunting allowed. It is certainly not town against countryside. Many people hunt for the pot. Many kill for the necessary pest control and I do both. However what they and I do not do is terrify an animal, run it to exhaustion and then slaughter it in some macabe, pathetic show of our supposed strength and skill!

Hunting as it was has no place in our beautiful countryside or in the hands of of countryfolk. It is a cruel reminder of our past ignorance and should stay well and truely in the past.


----------



## Hebegebe (21 March 2009)

I disagree.

The law now requires them to be shot staright away.  But why is trhis better.  It means healthy and sick foxes all get killed.

The chase meant that statistically the healthier foxes were more likely to survive.

Hunting is about all sorts of things.  One is wildlife management.

I use my dogs to manage the wildlife on my farm.  It may be illegal but that won't stop me.  The police know the law is absurd and refuise to enforce it.  Quite right too.

My methods are welfare friendly and non lethal.  So it is not all about killing as you say it is.


----------



## lastrebel (21 March 2009)

Sorry  hebegebe I'm confused

Quote {I use my dogs to manage the wildlife on my farm. It may be illegal but that won't stop me. The police know the law is absurd and refuise to enforce it. Quite right too.}
is that really what you want to say, please think about it and maybe rewrite.

How are your methods non lethal and friendly ? how does this fit in with the above.

BTW I agree with your comments on sick and healthy foxes however when they run cover, as you and I would if being chased, they are dug out and thrown to the pack healty or not.
So the wilflife management arguement goes out the window I'm afraid and it does go back to the killing.


----------



## the watcher (21 March 2009)

lastrebel

the problem, as I see it, as that you, and others, are inclined to believe that everybody who has ever hunted is motivated solely by blood lust. This simply isn't true and is hugely offensive and insulting to the vast majority of people who ride to hounds or simply follow or support them.


----------



## Scratchline (21 March 2009)

lastrebel

the problem, as I see it, as that you, and others, are inclined to believe that everybody who has ever hunted is motivated solely by blood lust. This simply isn't true and is hugely offensive and insulting to the vast majority of people who ride to hounds or simply follow or support them.
		
Click to expand...

Like a man who goes to dog fights because he enjoys betting?


----------



## Scratchline (21 March 2009)

Are healthy foxes not the greatest threat to landowners as hunters of their livestock now and throughout the foxes life. The only reason there is to class them as a pest and therefore need to kill them in the first place?


----------



## the watcher (21 March 2009)

'Like a man who goes to dog fights because he enjoys betting? '

Dog fighting never had any purpose other than 'entertainment', and of course the betting was a large part of it. Hunting has always had an equal purpose in vermin control and countryside management.


----------



## Hebegebe (21 March 2009)

Are healthy foxes not the greatest threat to landowners as hunters of their livestock now and throughout the foxes life. The only reason there is to class them as a pest and therefore need to kill them in the first place?
		
Click to expand...

In my opinion no.  Unhealthy foxes are more likely to go for easier to catch but higher risk prey.

Also they spread disease which is a major problem.

Furthermore and you may find this hard to understand but a lot of landowners ally their interest with the general health and well being of the countryside.

Why do you think landowners do a lot of conservation work.

Personally I want healthy floiurishing and diverse wildlife where i live.  I don't want my surroundings to be a desert.

As I tried to explain hunting is about lots of things for lots of people.


----------



## Hebegebe (21 March 2009)

I have beef cattle and hence a massive interest in healthy wildlife.

If you allow mid range predators like foxes and badgers to multiply until there populations are only limited by starvation and disease then you will have problems.

The same goes for deer.  They should not be allowed to multiply until they exhaust resources and sick deer should be culled.

If you see a deer near death from lungworm and TB you will know what I mean.

Hunting with dogs compliments control by shooting as the dogs easily track down and kill wounded animals.

This dawned on me a bout ten years ago when I came across a fox with it's leg hanging off having been shot.

The hunt came out, found and killed it very quickly.

Dogs are much much better at locating wild animals than people are.


----------



## lastrebel (21 March 2009)

yes mother hen like Holocaust denial I guess


----------



## Scratchline (21 March 2009)

Dog fighting never had any purpose other than 'entertainment', and of course the betting was a large part of it. 

To be fair I think that shows a lack of understanding about dog fighting but of course that is not what we are talking about.

My point was clearly about those that take part in an activity at various levels. None can seperate themselves from the actual event with any honesty and if it involves cruelty all are culprable.


----------



## Scratchline (21 March 2009)

Sorry, very interesting posts which I will reply to. It is good to read the opinion of others very much at the heart of these issues ( without all the added 'aggro'), )  But the rugby is calling me lol


----------



## the watcher (21 March 2009)

If you have any interest in an adult debate, then equating those who have any connection with hunting (even from the greatest distance) with Holocaust denial or engaging in country activies purely out of blood lust is not going to either win you friends or influence people. 

Just as I am not ill mannered or intolerant enough to assume that every person who objects to hunting is an ignorant bunny hugger and understand that many would find the concept distasteful or even repugnant. In fact I can completely understand a position of not supporting hunting in any way - there are aspects of it that I would not support.

However, if your presence on this site is simply to hurl insults at people who happen not to agree with you, you will find, ultimately, that you are talking to yourself.


----------



## Hebegebe (21 March 2009)

Moreover if the H&amp;H article this week is right and the Thames Valley Police were colluding with the gyrocopter killers then there will be merry hell for them to pay.

If this was happening in the inner cities there would be riots on the streets by now.

The simple truth is that the reason that the Warwickshire hunt have not been prosecuted despite constant surveillance by these idiot sab/monitors is that they were not breaking the law and the police may have broken a cardinal policing rule by taking the side of one part of the community against another.


----------



## lastrebel (21 March 2009)

hebegebe I can assure you when hunting was legal the police always sided with you.


----------



## lastrebel (21 March 2009)

Mother Hen wrongly or rightly I genuinely beleive that saying you are not aware the law gets broken week in and week out and even if you have never even seen a fox whilst out on a hunt let alone been there for the kill and even if you really believe terier men are goood country people taking there little dogs for a nice day out. Then that is still no excuse. if you want to kid yourself that's fine but dont expect any respect.
I wont retract my statement about Holocaust denial and a blinkered view of hunting as I find both repugnant.


----------



## lastrebel (21 March 2009)

No complaints from me


----------



## the watcher (21 March 2009)

lastrebel, I am not so blind as to not be aware that occasionally the law will be broken. what I object to is your assumption that everybody who hunt/trail rides now, call it what you will, is in it for the kill. You are very mistaken and the generalisation is offensive to hundreds of people


----------



## lastrebel (21 March 2009)

But if that is the case and Hunting is more popular than ever  why do so many of you go to such lengths to bring back the killing part.
I'm honestly confused.


----------



## the watcher (21 March 2009)

Not all of us do - in fact the vast majority don't. Although at the time I would have been in favour of the licensing suggestion and can still see an arguement for it.

the fact is that nearly all of the time hunts are genuinely following a pre laid trail. Yes the hounds sometimes divert to live quarry, sometimes there may not be a tearing hurry to get them back on line and on large private estates i suppose they can pretty much do as they please, being mindful that most of their followers are intending to hunt within the law - so that keeps them in check as much as any 'anti' activity.

i am sure there are still terrier men, and there will be a minority of hunt staff and masters who say that they will continue to hunt foxes irrespective of the law ( and we all know how badly research and written that was). They are not representative of the majority.


----------



## lastrebel (21 March 2009)

mother hen, I find it very hard to fall out with you.
you do talk a lot of sense, which is quite infuriating for us Antis.

I agree the law is a mess and licenced hunts with monitors and no terrier men would have been better all round.


----------



## Hebegebe (21 March 2009)

hebegebe I can assure you when hunting was legal the police always sided with you.
		
Click to expand...

well of course they did!  The police should always be on the side of what is legal.

The warwickshire hunt are hunting legally.


----------



## JanetGeorge (21 March 2009)

But if that is the case and Hunting is more popular than ever  why do so many of you go to such lengths to bring back the killing part.
I'm honestly confused.
		
Click to expand...

Several reasons:

1.  Whether a hunt is operating within the law or not, it is STILL likely to be harrassed by monitors/sabs.  There ARE times when - no matter how carefully a hunt is trying to hunt an artificial trail - hounds will riot onto a fo (it is, after all, what they have been bred for over hundreds of years.)  Then the huntsman risks prosecution - which can be expensive, worrying and time-wasting!

2.  Many hunts are now killing FAR more foxes than they did before the ban - just not as part of the day's hunting.  This is because in sheep and poultry areas, most farmers WANT foxes killed.  It's why they let hunts onto their land.  So the hunts have an arrangement with farmers - we'll kill foxes LEGALLY on Tuesday - and come trail hunting on Saturday.  Using hounds to flush foxes to guns is a VERY efficient method of killing a LOT of foxes quickly!  A morning's fox control - by hunt staff and a dozen licenced shotgun shooters - can kill anything from 10 - 30 foxes in a morning!!  It's totally unselective - but it keeps the farmers happy - and that's what hunts must do if we are to be welcomed onto their land.

Foxes were FAR better off the old way - one or two of the older, less healthy foxes would be caught and killed - and the rest of the population was 'safe' for another couple of months.

In some areas - particularly those that are well keepered also, this type of fox control is decimating the number of foxes.  No-one who hunts wanted foxes exterminated - but in some areas it's going that way.  And all TOTALLY within the law.


----------



## Girlracer (21 March 2009)

Nice to see some nice sensible discussion. 

I'd just like to put my point across as i think it may be of some benefit to the discussion. Now up until the ban i was extremely anti, as is my dad. I was one of these that joined every group that was against hunting i spoke so negatively about it and had a very stereotypical opinion of all that went hunting. I have to say i wasn't at all pro-active in going against hunting, i was more one of these that bitched about it on the internet and that was aabout it. All coming out now isn't it. However i have to say i hugely regret having this assumption of it all. 

It wasn't until the ban was enforced my interest in hunting grew. My mum had always spoke about going hunting/drag hunting (she's more middle ground doesn't entirely agree but nor does she entirely disagree) and how much of a thrill the riding is. 

Then i looked after a friends hunter in 2006 over new years in return she said i could take her hunting. I was a bit dubious at first, in going to support something i had been so totally against. But i was convinced into it after talking to a friend. 

Now i wouldn't say in that one day i suddenly turned pro, ofcourse not. However i thoroughly enjoyed the day and was shocked by how friendly and close net it was. After that i decided to take my horse out to a local meet. Early '07 i think. Other than the fact my horse was a total idiot the whole time i had yet another enjoyable day. 

It was then i started looking into hunting more, i started re-searching about it... speaking to people who hunted. Making friends who i'm now very close with. I have to say at that point i started to get turned around. I was now middle ground, my opinion was changing but i still didn't fully understand it. 

Cue no hunting, interest fadeing then came along Lantern. A horse that had hunted every season since a 9yo. He had '07/'08 season off with me then i decided i'd hunt him for the '08'09 season. This was a real turning point for me. Going out on a regular basis ment i met people who were a real part of the hunting community. I wiggled my way in there and so far i've not met one person i've dis-liked. 

Once i started talking to the people who's livlihood is hunting i began to realise, no it's not a bunch of people killing for the fun of it it's for a reason. Then i began to understand that actually 'proper' pre-ban hunting was infact better for the fox than post-ban. Now don't get me wrong i am not saying if i saw a fox being killed i'm not saying i'd like to see it. 

However i do believe it's a more natural method of control than just shooting any fox you find. I'm not saying it's more comfortable for said fox however i think controlling it is important and IMO this is the best way to do it. 

That does not mean ofcourse i don't love animals, infact i love foxes but i also love lambs and a healthy countryside. The fox should never be taken away, but why would a hunt do that? Then they definately would loose their livlihoods. 

I think some people have to realise not all of us are out there because we want to see foxes killed in front of our eyes and get a huge amount of pleasure from it. However i will keep supporting hunts and the repeal of the ban forever. (although all that said there are ofcourse a few that are in it for the wrong reasons IMO and that i don't agree with)

I'm expecting to get ripped apart for this post. However as i said already i don't expect everyone to agree with me.


----------



## lastrebel (22 March 2009)

Lanin and Janet, very good posts by both of you.


----------



## horseygal90 (22 March 2009)

I'm not quite sure whether my opinions will be welcomed around here or not (I actually said to myself I wouldn't come into this section when I joined this board for good reasons, but hey) but I thought I might as well add them into the melee. 

I'm anti hunting, always have been, always will be. Likewise, I'm anti fur, anti badger baiting, anti hare coursing, anti bear baiting, anti animal cruelty and anti whale hunting. Basically, anti anything that kills an animal _without just cause or reason_. To put that more simply - If I don't get something worthwhile out of the kill, like food, or clothing (not for fashion, if I needed furs to survive) then I don't kill it and I won't support people who do kill it. (Even spiders, I'm horribly arachnophobic!)

Anyway, enough about my stance... Anti/pro hunting debates irritate me, because very few people are prepared to say 'Yeah, actually, I can see where you're coming from, and whilst I still have my opinion, I respect yours'. I hate to say it but most pro arguments I have seen consist of recycled arguments and most anti arguments seem to take the moral high ground. 

I just don't understand hunting to kill tbh... Fair enough, it's a great day out with your horse and it's fun all round, good training etc. however we're meant to be animal lovers. I just know that I couldn't live with myself knowing that I'd killed an animal for fun. 

Not sure what the point of this post was but just thought I'd get it out... Lol. Argh, it's late!


----------



## wurzel (22 March 2009)

Claire 

putting our differences aside for a moment.
I agree the hunting act in its present form is no use to man nor beast (excuse the pun).
However as far livelihoods go and I dont know any figures but from what I have seen since the ban more people are hunting. 
I would take a guess these people are those who didnt want to be involved in chasing foxes but now feel drag hunting is acceptable.
This is a positive for anyone involved in the hunting industry. could it not be possible that a repeal of the ban would mean some of these people would no longer hunt.
Therfore jobs could really be lost.
From what I have seen and its not much over the last 4 years and only concerns two particular Hunt, foxes are still being chased and killed and not by accident or chance but by design.
For example why are terrirer men still following hunts.
The truth is the ban has not really changed anything and if like a lot of posters say the 'Kill' is not important why is there such an uproar over it.
		
Click to expand...

Why do you think the ban was worded as it was?

And why do you think LACS agreed with the way it was worded initially only to change their mind later?


----------



## jrp204 (22 March 2009)

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/en/ukpgaen_20040037_en_1
Use of dogs below ground to protect birds for shooting
29.     The first condition in sub-paragraph (2) is that the stalking or flushing out is undertaken for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage to game birds or wild birds which are being kept or preserved for shooting. Game birds and wild birds are defined by reference to section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (see paragraph 22 above).


30.     The second condition in sub-paragraph (3) requires the person doing the stalking or flushing out to carry written evidence either that the relevant land belongs to him or that he has been given permission to use it for that purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs. This evidence must be shown to a police constable immediately on request.

31.     The third condition in sub-paragraph (4) is that only one dog is used below ground at any time to stalk or flush out a wild mammal.

32.     The fourth condition in sub-paragraph (5) requires that:


-     reasonable steps are taken to ensure that as soon as possible after being found the wild mammal is flushed out from below ground;


-     reasonable steps are taken to ensure that as soon as possible after being flushed out from below ground the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person;


-     the dog used is brought under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct the shooting of the wild mammal;


-     reasonable steps are taken to prevent injury to the dog; and


-     the dog is used in compliance with any code of practice which is issued or approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of this exemption.

These conditions replace those applicable under paragraph 1(7) to stalking and flushing out not involving the use of a dog below ground

I may just add that i do not personally hunt, we have chickens and sheep on a commercial basis. Out of interest i looked at the 04 Act after some of the comments about the terrier men. I actually feel if a fox had gone to ground during a hunt it should be left but do understand that some landowners do request  the terrier men to dig out a fox in order to protect game or stock. I wouldn't hesitate to use an animal (ferret or dog) to flush out rabbits or rats, andwhen we recently had a fox problem, after badgers dug under our stock netting allowing a fox through which went onto kill 30 hens in broad daylight i contacted the terrier men who came along and within the law the fox was dispatched. Does that make me blood thirsty or just someone who is trying to make a living in a business that is struggling anyway?


----------



## the watcher (22 March 2009)

jrp204

I do take your point about terrier men and why digging out might be required. The conflict for me, I suppose, is about the basis on which people hunt foxes - whether that is mounted or with a gun. I always felt, following a mounted hunt, that if the fox got away then it deserved to be free and that digging out really wasn't 'sporting'. I can't rationalise that but make no apology for it. In the same way 'stopping up' seemed equally wrong.

However if one looks at it from the perspective of vermin control then of course the hunt should continue to the ultimate conclusion - otherwise how can you justify the exercise at all? 

Knowing this doesn't make the final end, being trapped underground, any less unpleasant to consider.


----------



## JanetGeorge (22 March 2009)

The conflict for me, I suppose, is about the basis on which people hunt foxes - whether that is mounted or with a gun. I always felt, following a mounted hunt, that if the fox got away then it deserved to be free and that digging out really wasn't 'sporting'. I can't rationalise that but make no apology for it. In the same way 'stopping up' seemed equally wrong.
		
Click to expand...

This is where confusion reigns!  

There are two parts to mounted foxhunting:

1.  Pest control: and that is solely the preserve of the hunt staff, the hounds, and the terrierman.  It is done for the farmers - they are the ones whol allow the hunt on their land and while some are just generous in allowing the use of their land without expecting to gain, the majority want something in return.  In MANY cases, that something is fox control!

2.  The 'sport' of following hounds - whether on foot or on a horse.  Hound work is fascinating and watching it is seriously interesting - whether or not you do it from the back of a horse - or on foot.  (Actually, the foot followers tend to see more of the hound work than the mounted followers who are too busy trying to stay on top and in control.

You can't usually have one without the other.  There's nothing for the farmer in draghunting - so many don't allow it.  And the mounted followers pay for the upkeep of the hounds, hunt horses and hunt staff.  Most mounted followers (and many foot followers) would rather not SEE a fox killed - although they appreciate that fox control is why the hounds are there.

Of course, now that the fox cannot be hunted in the 'traditional' way - he still has to be controlled.  And most hunts are arranging fox control - within the law - as a quid pro quo.  It's just become somewhat separated.


----------



## Hebegebe (22 March 2009)

It's a strange one because what they thought they were legislating against was all the people on horses but in fact  nothing they do is really against the law and it's hard to see how it could be.

The times I have been hunting on horse back I spent the whole time concentrating on staying on.  Maybe if I had been a really good rider I might have given some thought to complying or otherwise with the law but it really didn't cross my mind at all.

TBH once everyone galloped off I didn't really have much option but to follow them all.


----------



## combat_claire (22 March 2009)

Claire 

putting our differences aside for a moment.
I agree the hunting act in its present form is no use to man nor beast (excuse the pun).
However as far livelihoods go and I dont know any figures but from what I have seen since the ban more people are hunting. 
I would take a guess these people are those who didnt want to be involved in chasing foxes but now feel drag hunting is acceptable.
This is a positive for anyone involved in the hunting industry. could it not be possible that a repeal of the ban would mean some of these people would no longer hunt.
Therfore jobs could really be lost.
From what I have seen and its not much over the last 4 years and only concerns two particular Hunt, foxes are still being chased and killed and not by accident or chance but by design.
For example why are terrirer men still following hunts.
The truth is the ban has not really changed anything and if like a lot of posters say the 'Kill' is not important why is there such an uproar over it.
		
Click to expand...

More people are indeed following but as yet there has been no survey of the reasons behind this - certainly in recent years there has been more of a focus on PR and getting people involved through newcomers days, I would hazard a guess that significant numbers now hunting are people who don't like being pushed around by prejudiced parliamentarians who have no idea how the countryside worked and in general refused to even come and see for themselves what happens there. 

We are fortunate that the law gave us so many exemptions that we can hunt legally, still provide pretty much everything that happened pre-ban and not make many people redundant, but it could have turned out very differently. 

As for the terrierwork, dogs may still be used below ground under the terms of the Act for use in protecting gamebirds and with the written permission of the landowner. I am as baffled as you are as to why gamebirds deserve greater protection than lambs and other livestock, but then when did any part of this Act make any sense whatsoever.


----------



## Girlracer (22 March 2009)

I'd have to agree hunting is a lot more accesible now than it has been in the past, and that's definately contributed to the rise in numbers.

I think links to pony clubs is a big thing too, we get so many pony clubbers out on weekends and in school holidays. Sometimes it pretty much doubles the field!


----------



## JanetGeorge (22 March 2009)

I am as baffled as you are as to why gamebirds deserve greater protection than lambs and other livestock, but then when did any part of this Act make any sense whatsoever.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing baffling about it!   Labour had spent years sucking up to BASC and assuring them that shooting was safe in an attempt to divide the shooting sports (numerically stronger) from hunting!  The exemption for gamekeepers to use terriers was part of the deal!

The bill never DID have anything to do with animal welfare!!


----------



## majicmoment (23 March 2009)

But if that is the case and Hunting is more popular than ever  why do so many of you go to such lengths to bring back the killing part.
I'm honestly confused.
		
Click to expand...

What is most amusing from this sentence is the killing part has not stopped - there are exemptions and the government realise that the fox population need to be controlled. 

The law needs to be repealed becasue it is ill founded legeslation which puts law obiting people at risk of prosecution. NOT becasue people want to kill foxes, to be honest that goes on anyway under the exemptions (flush to gun, bird of pray, terrier rule....as well as the increased usage of shotguns/snares) 

NO FOXES have been saved as a result of the Hunting Act, and therefore it is completely pointless, has not done what it set out to do and should be repealed.


----------



## Vicki1986 (23 March 2009)

Sab's could really do with a decent PR person to sort them out. I cant feel myself being won over any time soon by the aggressive ramblings and images conjured up by people who think its ok to say someone deserved to die in the wake of it being announced they have been murdered !! Cause or beliefs set aside, still a person at the end of the day, and if your sitting on the fence i would rather side with someone who has a bit of compassion albeit they kill a fox, than someone made out of stone who thinks its ok to murder someone to save a few vermin.


----------



## lastrebel (23 March 2009)

majicmoment,

We were generalising, I cant remember who it was but someone had posted how clever it was to go around killing foxes like before the law, whilst idiot Joe public thought it had stopped.
So I was saying if the public believe it has stopped and hunts and sabs no it hasnt why the fuss to bring it back.

Anyway Just to confirm my convictions. Its ok to say repeal the law but replace it with what.


----------



## lastrebel (23 March 2009)

Vicki, I must confess I came on here just to upset a few people. As I had preconseption about people who hunted.
this was nothing to do with PR or media. it was through first hand experience.
However although the people I wnated to be here Like Claire and horseguy were, there were also people like Mother hen and Lanin who have come across as decent people.
I'll ignore your last sentence.


----------



## Hebegebe (23 March 2009)

"Its ok to say repeal the law but replace it with what. "

a law against deliberate cruelty to any wild animal howsoever caused.

That was proposed beforehand but rejected by anti hunt MPs


----------



## lastrebel (23 March 2009)

Sounds good to me, but try and sell it to majic et al


----------



## Hebegebe (23 March 2009)

Sounds good to me, but try and sell it to majic et al
		
Click to expand...

well that was basically the policy of the CA last rebel

it was the anti hunt MPs that blocked it.

why do you think they did?


----------



## Kevin (23 March 2009)

Having read this long thread I feel vindicated in having come down on the pro side of the argument
 after a prolonged  period of fence sitting.A person is a person at the end of the day whether pro or
 anti and no one deserves to die over an issue like fox hunting. Human life,in my opinion,should
 take priority over animal. The anti side,with which I once sympathised,seems to have lost sight 
 of that fact.The pro`s on here have not.


----------



## lastrebel (23 March 2009)

Kevin, If this thread can make you change your opinion then your opinion was not very strong.
most antis are soft and cuddley both sides have their extremes.
The thing I always say to people is make your own mind up, dont be swayed by something hear or read.
think it through then decide.


----------



## Hebegebe (23 March 2009)

what and ignore the evidence?


----------



## lastrebel (23 March 2009)

this should be a new thread now


----------



## combat_claire (24 March 2009)

Vicki, I must confess I came on here just to upset a few people. As I had preconseption about people who hunted.
this was nothing to do with PR or media. it was through first hand experience.
However although the people I wnated to be here Like Claire and horseguy were, there were also people like Mother hen and Lanin who have come across as decent people.
I'll ignore your last sentence.
		
Click to expand...

I'd quite like to know what gives you the right (without knowing anything about me) judge me in this way. Despite severe provocation I have tried to be courteous and answer your questions as honestly as possible.


----------



## EstherSupporter (24 March 2009)

I use my dogs to manage the wildlife on my farm.  It may be illegal but that won't stop me.  The police know the law is absurd and refuise to enforce it.  Quite right too.
		
Click to expand...

I must say...........I find this attitude very very disturbing!

Do you think so highly of yourself that you above the law?

But sadly this seems to be the general attitude in favour of hunting.


----------



## combat_claire (24 March 2009)

The law states that dogs may be used to flush deer from woods to be shot, therefore if Hebegebe does not shoot the deer on his farm after flushing them, he is breaking the law. 

That is the context of the posting that you are quoting. 

This shows just how absurd the Hunting Act 2004 actually is. Yet in 4 years there has been just one conviction that has not been successfully appealed and overturned. This rather suggests to me that the majority of hunts within the UK are staying within the law. After all it is rather tricky to hide 30 hounds, 4 men in red coats and 50 plus mounted followers, not to mention the others following on foot and car!!


----------



## EstherSupporter (24 March 2009)

It's the attitude of......

" it may be illegal but that wont stop me"

I find disturbing.


----------



## combat_claire (24 March 2009)

So you are saying that Hebegebe should be shooting the deer on his land because that is what the law says?? Regardless of any animal welfare concerns...

If I have summarised your position correctly then it is your attitude that I find disturbing.


----------



## EstherSupporter (24 March 2009)

So your telling me that someone who makes a statement .....

"it may be illegal but that wont stop me" 

Is the correct attitude to have in life?

And by the way combact clare DO NOT start getting personal towards me............I am mearly questioning  the attitude of someone who makes the statement shown above.......no matter in what context it is used.......so your telling me that should young lads on the street making this statement it would be fine?


----------



## combat_claire (24 March 2009)

Have you read Civil Disobedience by David Thoreau?? If not go away and do so.


----------



## combat_claire (24 March 2009)

So let me get this right, it is okay for you to get personal with Hebegebe and call their attitude disturbing, but if anyone turns that statement around onto you then you'll throw your toys out of the pram and tell them not to get personal with you. Oh please....


----------



## combat_claire (24 March 2009)

It has taken me three attempts to try and work out what on earth that last paragraph was trying to get at. A bit of punctuation and a quick spell check might not go amiss. 

Life is not black and white, it never has been and never will be. There is law (such as the laws relating to murder, ABH &amp; GBH) and there is bad law. In my opinion and in the opinion of several eminent legal commentators the Hunting Act 2004 is bad law. It was passed using the Parliament Act 1929, itself needing the earlier Parliament Act to get it on the statute books. As such they argue that it is ultra vires. The Parliament Act was originally only intended for the passing of financial budgets, not controversial legislation relating to War Crimes, Hunting and the Age of Homosexual Consent. 

The Upper House sits for a reason, to scrutinise law coming from the commons and ensure that we have good law. The commons couldn't accept that what they were passing was a dog's breakfast and continued to use the Parliament Act. 

Just read what Nicholas Mostyn QC writes in this month's edition of The Field. P31 if you want to flick to that page in the supermarket. He demonstrates the sheer illogicality of the Act. 

Incidentally 700 hours was spent arguing this law, 7 hours took us to war into Iraq.

Yet despite the spitefulness and bizarre content of such a law, we still obey it - over 300 hunts have been out on hundreds of hunting days and worked with the exemptions that have been allowed. It would probably have been easier and cheaper to stick two fingers up and carry on before.  However being law abiding people, we didn't. Instead we made major investments of both time and money to ensure we stayed on the right side of the law. A move that has shown just how ridiculous this law is.

Just as a quick reminder of some of the main points. This is a law which allows terriers to be used underground to protect game birds, but not lambs; it allows a fox to be killed by a bird of prey but not by hounds; it states that quarry can be flushed but only to be shot; that allows mink to be shot out of trees and one that allows you to hunt rats and rabbits with hounds, but not hares and foxes.


----------



## lastrebel (24 March 2009)

claire, I'm not going over all the post but I thought you came across as a bit of a militant pro.
I may be wrong but I guess the easiest way to answer is would you;
scap the law and tough to anyone who doesnt like it 
or find a way to try to keep everyone happy (if possible).


----------



## combat_claire (24 March 2009)

I won't deny that I would like to see this law repealed, but I am also in favour of a revised piece of legislation, as has been mooted by several prominent commentators that would enshrine within it good wildlife management. After all when this act was originally passed, legislators were very quick to say what shouldn't be done, but had no realistic solutions for how things should be done. 

Let us be realistic, there is unlikely to be a solution that keeps everyone happy, but I believe the law as it stands is a bad law (see above), but I will continue to obey it as best I can - both in my capacities as follower and amateur hunt staff.


----------



## lastrebel (24 March 2009)

Claire I think thats a fair comment, I also believe there is a better middle ground, no you cant keep everyone happy but at least try and keep the poor old fox central to it.
I shall continue to er um monitor.


----------



## Doormouse (24 March 2009)

It would obviously be very hard to create a law that completely satisfied the extremes of each side but I suspect that the majority of people would be happy with a sensible compromise.  You would have to think that licensing hunting (as was suggested before the ban) would stop the inhumane aspects but enable efficient and reliable pest control measures.  

It is interesting that by your own admission you had a preconceived idea of all hunting people and horse people too and I am delighted that by being on this forum you have come to see most of us in a different light.  As we have said time and time again to people, come and see what we do, come and meet us and then make your decision, don't tar us all with the same brush through 1 bad experience or be swayed by other people and their opinions.  Maybe if some more anti hunting people were to join this forum they might find we are not all monsters, not militant, not bloodthirsty but simply reasonable people who love the countryside, appreciate country ways and above all have huge respect for mother nature.


----------



## guido16 (24 March 2009)

OK, not posted here before but felt I should, just to allow us all to take stock.

No matter what side of the fence any of us are sitting on, a man has died and another now has the prospect of spending a long time in jail. 2 lifes have been wasted, not to mention the families and friends of those involved.
I hope that we all take heed and realise that this has gone to far. This argument has now reached a level where I`m sure none of us wanted to be, death, murder, however you dress it up it needs to stop.

Surely nobody can say they are happy with the point we have all reached. mindless and NEEDLESS loss of human life (both through death and imprisonment)


----------



## lastrebel (24 March 2009)

I only based my opinions on what I have seen, more than one bad experience I'm afraid.Though I will admit I probably should not catergorise everyone.
I've seen things that I now think would make many of you feel in part as I do.
Again though a good post.


----------



## guido16 (24 March 2009)

Hunting is a hot topic like religion, politics etc, best kept away from dinner party tadles (so to speak...)

We just need to stay focussed on the losses that have occurred, no matter who is to blame I think we can be sure that two grown men acting out of character on this occasion and its resulted in a tragic situation.


----------



## JanetGeorge (24 March 2009)

I must say...........I find this attitude very very disturbing!
Do you think so highly of yourself that you above the law?
But sadly this seems to be the general attitude in favour of hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Bad law NEEDS to be challenged - bycivil disobedience if necessary.  If people had not been prepared to break the law and risk prison - or worse - women would not have the vote, South Africa would still have apartheid - do I need to go on??

Hunting people have - in the main part - obeyed this flawed law - but it is only by challenging it (and - as part of that challenge occasionally breaking it!) that it can be exposed for the farce that it is.

The deer parts of the law highlighted by hebegebe are particularly farcical.  It has always been the case that deer can be dispersed with the use of hounds/dogs to prevent damage to forestry, crops etc.  If a herd of hinds - for example - is disturbed it will usually break up into smaller groups and spread out; thus the damage to any one area is minimised, with no killing required.  To do that now is illegal - if youwant to use dogs to move deer out of an area in which they are congregating and doing damage, you have to shoot them all to stay within the law!!  How ANYONE who cares about wildlife can support, respect or obey THAT!!!!!!


----------



## Hebegebe (24 March 2009)

Yeap

The judge ruled in the case against the quantock staghounds that you need TEN guns in case there is an entire herd so as to make sure they all die.

Previously the hunt would only have shot at the most one and if one is merely dispersing then none.

How does that make sense?


----------



## Girlracer (24 March 2009)

Yeap

The judge ruled in the case against the quantock staghounds that you need TEN guns in case there is an entire herd so as to make sure they all die.

Previously the hunt would only have shot at the most one and if one is merely dispersing then none.

How does that make sense?
		
Click to expand...

That is ridiculous (not you, the whole 10 guns bit), just sums the whole thing up really.


----------



## Hebegebe (24 March 2009)

Quite!

and the thing is they preach at everyone about how we all have to respect the ;law and then they knowingly allow thois rubbish to remain on the statute book.

No one in their right mind could  possibly expect me to obey the Hunting Act.

It's absurd.


----------



## lastrebel (24 March 2009)

Hunting people have - in the main part - obeyed this flawed law - but it is only by challenging it (and - as part of that challenge occasionally breaking it!) that it can be exposed for the farce that it is.

or from a sab point of view :
Hunt sabs - in the main part - obeyed this flawed law - but it is only by challenging it (and - as part of that challenge occasionally breaking it!) that it can be exposed for the farce that it is.


----------



## Hebegebe (25 March 2009)

I don't think the law against murder is a farce though, do you?

I think the difference with the Hunting Acvt5 is everyone knows it is a farce including those that passed it.


----------



## the watcher (25 March 2009)

Hunting people have - in the main part - obeyed this flawed law - but it is only by challenging it (and - as part of that challenge occasionally breaking it!) that it can be exposed for the farce that it is.

or from a sab point of view :
Hunt sabs - in the main part - obeyed this flawed law - but it is only by challenging it (and - as part of that challenge occasionally breaking it!) that it can be exposed for the farce that it is.
		
Click to expand...

I can see the potential for hunts breaking this law, whether by accident or design.

Can't quite see how sabs could do so, however imagine it is quite possible they could breach the Public Order Act or the Protection from Harassment Act. However both these pieces of legislation are well established and no amount of civil disobedience is going to significantly change them, nor can it be easily justified.


----------



## lastrebel (25 March 2009)

Hebegebe

I think the law was designed to try to keep everyone happy and kept no one happy


----------



## lastrebel (25 March 2009)

Mother hen 
{quote}I can see the potential for hunts breaking this law, whether by accident or design.Can't quite see how sabs could do so, however imagine it is quite possible they could breach the Public Order Act or the Protection from Harassment Act. However both these pieces of legislation are well established and no amount of civil disobedience is going to significantly change them, nor can it be easily justified. 

From my point of view I'm a law abiding citizen, however if to save a life it means breaking the I will do so without hesitation. I take this a moral law higher than the law of the land.


----------



## Hebegebe (25 March 2009)

Mother hen 
{quote}I can see the potential for hunts breaking this law, whether by accident or design.Can't quite see how sabs could do so, however imagine it is quite possible they could breach the Public Order Act or the Protection from Harassment Act. However both these pieces of legislation are well established and no amount of civil disobedience is going to significantly change them, nor can it be easily justified. 

From my point of view I'm a law abiding citizen, however if to save a life it means breaking the I will do so without hesitation. I take this a moral law higher than the law of the land.
		
Click to expand...

So broadly speaking if you don't agree with a lw it's fine to break it?


----------



## the watcher (25 March 2009)

I agree, sometimes unusual circumstances call for unusual actions and in order to save a human life (certainly) or animal life (depending on circumstances) I would hope we would all act first and deal with the fallout later. Whether I would extend that willingness to a wild animal is another matter - on balance I think I would just prefer it to have a quick end to any suffering.

Mind you, this is from the person who took a deer with a broken leg from the roadside to the Blue Cross and in spite of their horror at being confronted with something that was not clearly a pet, insisted that it could be fixed, and since they were an animal welfare charity they couldn't be fussy. It duly was healed and released after the next rutting season. I couldn't have just left it and it wasn't so badly injured to require shooting.


----------



## lastrebel (25 March 2009)

Hebegebe, 

lets put it another way, you are being mugged, your lay on the floor being stamped on and I walk past.
shall I shout at them and call the police, walk on by or try to save you I'm not a black belt so I need some assistance I pick up a stick I'm about to break the law, its your call what shall I do.


----------



## lastrebel (25 March 2009)

I guess it all depends on value we put on life. I struggle sometimes to differenciate (?) between the 3


----------



## Puppy (8 April 2009)

I do take offence though with you saying antis attack horses and hounds , the tactic of scaring a horse so it will throw the rider is I believe legitamate, but I would never purposefuly hurt them.
		
Click to expand...

Haven't read the whole thread, but no, having studied criminal law I can tell you that purposely unseating someone can constitute assault.


----------



## Hebegebe (8 April 2009)

I do take offence though with you saying antis attack horses and hounds , the tactic of scaring a horse so it will throw the rider is I believe legitamate, but I would never purposefuly hurt them.
		
Click to expand...

Haven't read the whole thread, but no, having studied criminal law I can tell you that purposely unseating someone can constitute assault.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed and if they then die it can constitute murder or at the very least manslaughter.

It's an act of violence.


----------

