# Have I heard Right? Repeal? Might Be Back To 'Proper' Hunting Next Season?



## chancing (14 March 2011)

Have I heard these whispers right? could there be a chance of repeal being as soon as next season?


----------



## Ahunter (14 March 2011)

Certainly the anti hunt Brigade think something is going down thats why Binkle has shown up.


----------



## Fiagai (14 March 2011)

cooliorulz said:



			Have I heard these whispers right? could there be a chance of repeal being as soon as next season?
		
Click to expand...

I'll vote for that!


----------



## Binkle&Flip (14 March 2011)

cooliorulz said:



			Have I heard these whispers right? could there be a chance of repeal being as soon as next season?
		
Click to expand...

Yearly end of season 'whispers', time again then


----------



## Binkle&Flip (14 March 2011)

Ahunter said:



			Certainly the anti hunt Brigade think something is going down thats why Binkle has shown up.
		
Click to expand...

Now that was funny Ahunter. Great post


----------



## Fiagai (14 March 2011)

If its rumour/whispers time...then have you heard the one about the Troll who shot itself in the foot with a shotgun and then got caught in a snare of its own devising!


----------



## houndsplease (14 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			If its rumour/whispers time...then have you heard the one about the Troll who shot itself in the foot with a shotgun and then got caught in a snare of its own devising!
		
Click to expand...

like button needed


----------



## rosie fronfelen (14 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			If its rumour/whispers time...then have you heard the one about the Troll who shot itself in the foot with a shotgun and then got caught in a snare of its own devising!
		
Click to expand...

PMSL- Very good Fiagai-


----------



## JenHunt (14 March 2011)

houndsplease said:



			like button needed
		
Click to expand...

ditto!


----------



## Judgemental (14 March 2011)

I have been too busy recently and not really followed all the various threads.

Have I winded some who are not with us, posting on this forum?

Perhaps the 'old hinds' would be kind enough to identify those who need to be ..........*#* now wounded /z/

..................= line of shotgun pellets! 

Shooting on a hunting forum, well I suppose we could put a wire or two down, perish the thought that they are hunted, that would be far too cruel.


----------



## Giles (14 March 2011)

From what I understand there is a proposal for a much wider ranging anti cruelty law.  This would make all cruelty (defined as undue or unnecessary suffering) to any wild mammal illegal however it was caused.  Once this law is on place there will be a much stronger case for repeal of the Hunting Act.

Needless to say LACS &c are vehemently opposed to cruelty per se being made illegal so there could be quite a fight over it.


----------



## Giles (14 March 2011)

As far as proper hunting is concerned hunting would be treated in the same way as any other activity.  If a hunt could be shown to be being cruel it would be liable to prosecution.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (15 March 2011)

"As far as proper hunting is concerned hunting would be treated in the same way as any other activity. If a hunt could be shown to be being cruel it would be liable to prosecution."

Can you help me understand this proposed new anti cruelty law please Giles. At present the hunting ban makes it illegal to chase and kill with dogs because it is deemed cruel. If the new cruelty law is brought in then chasing and killing with dogs would no longer be deemed cruel so would be legal. Is that correct?
If so then are LACS against a general cruelty law as you are suggesting or against a law for the sole reason that it would make chasing and killing with dogs legal again?

i.e If the new cruelty law also deemed chasing and killing with dogs cruel to start with and only addressed other cruelty issues would LACS support it 100% perhaps?

Thankyou in advance for your help.


----------



## Herne (15 March 2011)

An "anti-cruelty" Law would be a very bad idea, because cruelty is an abstract concept. It is impossible to quantify and very difficult, if not impossible, to prove.

Much more sensible to use words that are specific and quantifiable.


----------



## Lizzie66 (15 March 2011)

Binkle: The anti hunting legislation currently in place has absolutely nothing to do with cruelty. The government commissioned report into hunting found that hunting foxes with hounds was one of the least "cruel" methods available. 
However despite this an overwhelming number of backbench Labour MPs voted to pass the the current law banning hunting with hounds. They voted based upon their own misconceptions, due to being totally blinkered to the facts and the perception that they were getting one over on the "toffs". 
With any luck this Law will shortly be repealed and we will be able to get back to humanely despatching foxes with hounds.


----------



## EAST KENT (15 March 2011)

Not forgetting the generous amounts Labour recieved from Lacs and the bloody RSPCA!!


----------



## Giles (15 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			"As far as proper hunting is concerned hunting would be treated in the same way as any other activity. If a hunt could be shown to be being cruel it would be liable to prosecution."

Can you help me understand this proposed new anti cruelty law please Giles. At present the hunting ban makes it illegal to chase and kill with dogs because it is deemed cruel. If the new cruelty law is brought in then chasing and killing with dogs would no longer be deemed cruel so would be legal. Is that correct?
If so then are LACS against a general cruelty law as you are suggesting or against a law for the sole reason that it would make chasing and killing with dogs legal again?

i.e If the new cruelty law also deemed chasing and killing with dogs cruel to start with and only addressed other cruelty issues would LACS support it 100% perhaps?

Thankyou in advance for your help.
		
Click to expand...

The law would not deem chasing and/or killing with dogs cruel or uncruel.  It would provide a legal definition of cruelty and ban any activity which a court found as causing cruelty.  All wild mammals would be protected from all actions which could be found to be cruel.

LACS oppose this because in instances where people were not being cruel they could not prosecute them.  They've gone on record as saying that.


----------



## Giles (15 March 2011)

I can find the LACS quote fro you if you want Binkle in case you are confused as to why you should oppose all deliberate cruelty to wild mammals being made illegal.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (15 March 2011)

IMO i dont think hunting will ever be the same again, if there is repeal i think there will be reams of licences and heaven knows what rules and regulations, never mind the Sabs.I hate to say it but i am not at all optimistic.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (15 March 2011)

Giles said:



			I can find the LACS quote fro you if you want Binkle in case you are confused as to why you should oppose all deliberate cruelty to wild mammals being made illegal.
		
Click to expand...

Thankyou Giles for your intial post. Reference above no I dont need the quote from LACS thanks as their stance does not influence me either way. I fully support any law that deals with those who are deliberately cruel to animals as I am sure we all are. What I dont get is the need for a new law unless our current laws do not deal with these individuals at present


----------



## Binkle&Flip (15 March 2011)

They voted based upon their own misconceptions, due to being totally blinkered to the facts and the perception that they were getting one over on the "toffs". 
With any luck this Law will shortly be repealed and we will be able to get back to humanely despatching foxes with hounds.
		
Click to expand...

To be fair I cannot speak nor can anybody else for the individual MP's and their reasons for voting in this ban. Some most probably as you say voted to get one over on the "toffs". Similarly there will no doubt be many pro repeal MP's who take that stance due to class/political belief, knowing little themselves about hunting. That is really the politics of life.
Regarding peoples misconceptions or blinkers there is really only so much you can do to change peoples minds. Once all of the sides have given their opinion it has to be left to all to decide how they feel about the humaness of killing with dogs. At some point it may be time to accept most people will never support it being made legal again.


----------



## Fiagai (15 March 2011)

Giles said:



			From what I understand there is a proposal for a much wider ranging anti cruelty law.  This would make all cruelty (defined as undue or unnecessary suffering) to any wild mammal illegal however it was caused.  Once this law is on place there will be a much stronger case for repeal of the Hunting Act.
...
		
Click to expand...


OK Just to clarify - the 2004 Hunting Act is and I quote "*An Act to make provision about hunting wild mammals with dogs; to prohibit hare coursing; and for connected purposes*".   There is not one mention of "cruelty" in the body of this Act.   

The 2004 Act actually enshrines the situations where / how hunters etc can / cannot hunt wild animals with dogs for pest control, reseach, recapture, controling predation of other species.  Its defines and specifies the methods how wild animals can be culled / killed for the above reasons from more traditional methods to dispatch by shooting or bird of prey.

"Cruelty" is a subjective term that cannot easily be enshrined within objective legislation.  Specific practices that certain groups deem to be cruel may be prohibited by new legislation  for ethical or political reasons. When enacted this then becomes the law of the land prohibiting such a practice and becomes enforceable under the remit of the relevant law enforcement authorities.

There are many individuals who deem the slaughter and eating of farmed animals as "cruel".  There are those that believe that "owning" pets is a cruel practice.  There are people who believe that observed religous methods of animal slaughter where animals bleed out to death are cruel.  However it is unlikely that any of these practises are going to be legislated against in the near future. 

It remains that there are wild animals that are termed as vermin under existing legislation that are controlled by various means.  The definition of "undue or unecessary suffering" is for practical purposes undefinable as it is nearly impossible to measure objectively.  Where it is put that a practice is wrong for ethical reasons or political  maneuvering and these beliefs gain a majority view, new legislation may then be enacted to prohibit such an existing practice.


----------



## Giles (16 March 2011)

So are you saying we should repeal the lawmaking it illegal to cause unnecessary suffering to domestic animals?


----------



## Giles (16 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			Thankyou Giles for your intial post. Reference above no I dont need the quote from LACS thanks as their stance does not influence me either way. I fully support any law that deals with those who are deliberately cruel to animals as I am sure we all are. What I dont get is the need for a new law unless our current laws do not deal with these individuals at present 

Click to expand...

Hi Binkle there is not law making it illegal to be deliberately cruel to wild mammals.  There are only laws proscribing certain specific actions.

This contrasts with domestic animal protection where all cruelty is proscribed.

One has to ask why should it be legal to be cruel to wild mammals in some ways but not in others.  And if a court can be convinced that someone is not being cruel then surely they should not be criminally liable.

Under the current law you can only be prosecuted if you cause cruelty by :
mutilating, kicking, beating, nailing or otherwise impaling, stabing, burning, stoning, crushing, drowning, dragging or asphyxiating any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering.

or

if you hunt a wild mammal with a dog whether or not it causes cruelty.


----------



## Fiagai (16 March 2011)

Giles said:



			So are you saying we should repeal the lawmaking it illegal to cause unnecessary suffering to domestic animals?
		
Click to expand...

No. Was giving examples showing that current legislation only proscribes certain practises against domestic & farmed animals. Other practises that maybe deemed to be "cruel" are not.  Cruely as a concept is nearly impossible to define as an abstract.


----------



## Giles (16 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			No. Was giving examples showing that current legislation only proscribes certain practises against domestic & farmed animals. Other practises that maybe deemed to be "cruel" are not.  Cruely as a concept is nearly impossible to define as an abstract.
		
Click to expand...

That isn't true.  The animal welfare act imposes a duty of care to protect domestic animals from suffering.  There are plenty of examples of laws defining cruelty both to animals and to people.

Any practice involving a pet animal and found by a court to be cruel is made illegal under the animal welfare act.


----------



## Giles (16 March 2011)

Just to avoid any doubt this is what the law says. It proscribes all acts or omissions that cause unnecessary suffering

(1)A person commits an offence if

(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,

(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,

(c)the animal is a protected animal, and

(d)the suffering is unnecessary.


----------



## Fiagai (16 March 2011)

Giles said:



			That isn't true.  The animal welfare act imposes a duty of care to protect domestic animals from suffering.  There are plenty of examples of laws defining cruelty both to animals and to people.

Any practice involving a pet animal and found by a court to be cruel is made illegal under the animal welfare act.
		
Click to expand...


Ok I believe we are talking about the same thing here but there is a techical difference between the outlawing of certain practices and making pronouncements about what is deemed "cruel".   In law it is certain specific practices that are categorised as causing suffering based on best evidence or ethics.  In Law the term "cruelty" therefore can only be only used in the abstract sense relating to a specific practice.  Courts cannot make something illegal - courts can only enforce the existing body of law.  This is the role of legislation.  The provisions of the Animal Welfare Act are already enshrined in law.


----------



## Giles (16 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Ok I believe we are talking about the same thing here but there is a techical difference between the outlawing of certain practices and making pronouncements about what is deemed "cruel".   In law it is certain specific practices that are categorised as causing suffering based on best evidence or ethics.  In Law the term "cruelty" therefore can only be only used in the abstract sense relating to a specific practice.  Courts cannot make something illegal - courts can only enforce the existing body of law.  This is the role of legislation.  The provisions of the Animal Welfare Act are already enshrined in law.
		
Click to expand...

The approach suggested is to provide a legal definition of cruelty for example causing undue suffering and then to outlaw any activity which the courts deem cruel according to that definition.  This would follow the approach taken by the animal welfare act. 

The hunting act proscribes hunting regardless of whether t is cruel.  Parliament did however recognise that it is not always cruel.  Any sensible person would recognise that hunting CAN be cruel and if they think cruelty should be outlawed would accept that it should be banned insofar as it is.

LACS oppose cruelty to animals being made illegal because such a law would not allow them to prosecute people who were not being cruel.


----------



## Fiagai (16 March 2011)

Giles said:



			The approach suggested is to provide a legal definition of cruelty for example causing undue suffering and then to outlaw any activity which the courts deem cruel according to that definition.  This would follow the approach taken by the animal welfare act. ..The hunting act proscribes hunting regardless of whether t is cruel.  Parliament did however recognise that it is not always cruel.  Any sensible person would recognise that hunting CAN be cruel and if they think cruelty should be outlawed would accept that it should be banned insofar as it is..
		
Click to expand...

Good we are on level ground I think.  Do you have a source for the proposed Cruelty Act and a definition of "cruelty" for further reference by any chance?  

As stated the major problem here is to seperate activities or practices that people "believe" to be cruel and a definition of cruelty that stands by itself.
What one person may deem to be cruel another person may not. Unfortuanetly or otherwise the law makes no notice what the "sensible" person believes or thinks.
An example I gave earlier is a case in point where observed religous methods of animal slaughter where animals bleed out may be viewed as cruel.  Yet in the UK this is not legislated against under the terms of current Act

The 2004 Hunting Act does not include the term "cruelty" in the Act itself.  Similarily neither does the 2006 Animal Welfare Act.  The AWA 2006 states that it is...




			An Act to make provision about animal welfare; and for connected purposes.
		
Click to expand...

The focus of the act is to prohibit unnecessary suffering within the terms of the following activities

Meeting the needs of an animal as required by good practice
Mutilation
Docking
Poisoning
Fighting
Selling animals to minors

The courts can only prosecuted those who break existing laws.  They are tied by the provisions of enabled legislation such as the AWA 2006 and must decide whether a party or parties have caused unnecessary suffering with regard only to those activities defined within that legislation.

LINK to 2006 Animal Welfare Act


----------



## Giles (16 March 2011)

That is true it doesn't define 'cruelty' what it prohibits is any act or omission which causes 'unnecessary suffering' as per the wording:

(1)A person commits an offence if

(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,

(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,

(c)the animal is a protected animal, and

(d)the suffering is unnecessary. 

Inspite of what you claim it does not define a list of acts or omissions and state only those are illegal.

The current protection of wild mammals act does define such a list and makes only thise actions illegal.


From what I understand the proposal is to remove the list of actions so that ANY act that causes unnecessary suffering becomes illegal.

I am equating the causing of unnecessary suffering with cruelty.

I believe the proposals are along the same lines as this:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/vo010309/text/10309-01.htm


----------



## Giles (16 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			must decide whether a party or parties have caused unnecessary suffering with regard only to those activities defined within that legislation.
		
Click to expand...

This statement is wrong.  The AWA does not define a list of actions and make only them illegal.  Have you read it?  It is very clear that any act or omission that causes unnecessary suffering to a protected is illegal (with a few other conditions).  It does have other sections covering specific activities however no where does ot state that it ONLY covers those activities.  You need to read section 1

(1)A person commits an offence if&#8212;

(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,

(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,

(c)the animal is a protected animal, and

(d)the suffering is unnecessary.


----------



## Fiagai (16 March 2011)

Giles said:



			This statement is wrong.  The AWA does not define a list of actions and make only them illegal.  Have you read it?  It is very clear that any act or omission that causes unnecessary suffering to a protected is illegal (with a few other conditions).  It does have other sections covering specific activities however no where does ot state that it ONLY covers those activities. You need to read section 1
		
Click to expand...

G - thanks I am quite familiar with the AWA (I provided the link in my last post!). I think there are some cross wires again. Btw *Section 1* actually deals with _Animals to which the Act applies_.

The Act requires that all provisions of the Act be considered where prosecutions are being pursued.  I said that courts_ must decide whether a party or parties have caused unnecessary suffering with regard only to those activities defined within that legislation _ and not an abstract notion of cruelty  etc. By that I mean all the provisions contained within the specified Act.  The abstract you have quoted falls under  *Section 4* dealing with *Prevention of Harm *which in addition includes the following Sub Sections:

Unnecessary suffering.
Mutilation.
Docking of dogs' tails.
Administration of poisons etc..
Fighting
(all of which I listed previously btw)

A comprehensive list of the Main Sections of the 2006 AWA (abrv.) Act are as follows:
**Prevention of harm
*Promotion of Welfare
*Licensing and registration
*Codes of practice
*Animals in distress
*Enforcement powers
*Prosecutions
*Post-conviction powers**

Interesting link btw to the Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) 2001 - it didn't make much headway though....








u


.


----------



## Giles (16 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			must decide whether a party or parties have caused unnecessary suffering with regard only to those activities defined within that legislation
		
Click to expand...

Exactly.  And you are wrong.  Any activity that causes unnecessary suffering (that could have been foreseen avoided etc is an offense under the AWA not specific ones.

You don't have to do something that contravenes ALL the sections of the act that would be absurd and make it almost impossible to break.  You;d have to cause unnecessary sufferibg to a dog while fighting it, docking it's tail and poisoning it!


----------



## Giles (16 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Interesting link btw to the Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) 2001 - it didn't make much headway though....
		
Click to expand...

It didn't because it was talked out by anti hunt MPs.  However it is a similar Bill which may well replace the Hunting Act which was my original point.


----------



## Fiagai (16 March 2011)

Giles said:



			Exactly.  And you are wrong.  Any activity that causes unnecessary suffering (that could have been foreseen avoided etc is an offense under the AWA not specific ones.
You don't have to do something that contravenes ALL the sections of the act that would be absurd and make it almost impossible to break.  You;d have to cause unnecessary sufferibg to a dog while fighting it, docking it's tail and poisoning it!
		
Click to expand...

Giles I dont mean to be pedantic but you are deliberatly misquoting the above posts.

Considering you dont appear to have read the original AWA before I posted the Link I am starting to believe that you are being deliberatly obtuse.

How "Exactly" And "you are wrong" at the same time - very very confsed by your replies...

Activity is not a reference to any specific clause or the Sub jections but the Whole of the Act.  And I repeat *By that I mean all the provisions contained within the specified Act*

Dont be daft! of course you dont have contravene all sections of the Act to have a conviction.  Please reread ....



			The Act requires that all provisions of the Act be considered where prosecutions (plural) are being pursued
		
Click to expand...

.    

And * Please *note emphasis on last part of this sentance and then reread for correct interpretation.  




			courts must decide whether a party or parties have caused unnecessary suffering with regard only to those activities defined within that legislation *and not an abstract notion of cruelty etc*

Click to expand...

Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) 2001 
...and about as relevant as used toilet tissue now.

END OF.....


----------



## Giles (17 March 2011)

You are wrong because you keep stating that the AWA only applies to certain activities - it doesn't it applies to any activity or omission that causes unnecessary suffering to a protected animal (that could have been foreseen and avoided).  I'm surprised you find that confusing it's actually a pretty simple concept.


In a similar way the legislation that Donoghue is proposing will apply to any act that deliberately causes undue suffering to a wild mammal - without exemption.

By exactly and you are wrong I mean exactly - that is what I have said you are saying - and you are wrong.

The Wild Mammals Protection bill 2001 is not as "relevant as toilet tissue now" because it is the basis of the legislation that Lord Donoghue is currently proposing.  If that bill gets passed then it will provide the basis for the Hunting Act to be repealed.

"courts must decide whether a party or parties have caused unnecessary suffering with regard only to those activities defined within that legislation and not an abstract notion of cruelty etc"

this is pretty much the precise opposite of the true situation.  The law does not define a set of activities it proscribes any activities which cause unnecessary suffering.  The causation of unnecessary suffering IS an abstract notion of cruelty.


----------



## AengusOg (17 March 2011)

Repeal of the Hunting Act is the way forward. Then we only need the police to recognise the legal situation for the hunts, and to take appropriate action to protect them from balaclava-clad terrorists. If hunting were legal, surely any interference with it should be illegal.

There is nothing cruel about a pack of hounds killing a fox. It is a natural act.


----------



## VoR (17 March 2011)

Wouldn't hold my breath on any repeal at the moment, I think this country and the world as a whole have bigger fish to fry! Nor, would I hold my breath on any form of anti-hunt supporters taking any notice of a repeal, despite those who have posted on this forum that (and I paraphrase) 'sabs only get involved where they observe illegal hunting activity'. That would suggest no hunting = no sabs, in reality pre the act they 'sabbed' if there is a repeal, they'll 'sab'. The legalities I am unsure of except that the police and courts would take a 'dim view' of my stopping people doing their weekly shopping (for instance), so presumably obstructing someone doing a legal activity would be unlawful.
I suggest we wait and see what happens over the next 4 years of this government.


----------



## Fiagai (17 March 2011)

Giles said:



			You are wrong because you keep stating that the AWA only applies to certain activities - it doesn't it applies to any activity or omission that causes unnecessary suffering to a protected animal (that could have been foreseen and avoided).  I'm surprised you find that confusing it's actually a pretty simple concept.
.
		
Click to expand...

No Giles you are "WRONG" as you so like saying. This is NOT what I posted.   Please reread the other posts.  I repeat what you have stated here is NOt what I have posted.  You clearly havent understood what was said. I have already explained.  Not going to bother anymore. 

Def used toilet tissue ...


----------



## Fiagai (17 March 2011)

VoR said:



			Wouldn't hold my breath on any repeal at the moment, I think this country and the world as a whole have bigger fish to fry! Nor, would I hold my breath on any form of anti-hunt supporters taking any notice of a repeal, despite those who have posted on this forum that (and I paraphrase) 'sabs only get involved where they observe illegal hunting activity'. That would suggest no hunting = no sabs, in reality pre the act they 'sabbed' if there is a repeal, they'll 'sab'. The legalities I am unsure of except that the police and courts would take a 'dim view' of my stopping people doing their weekly shopping (for instance), so presumably obstructing someone doing a legal activity would be unlawful.
I suggest we wait and see what happens over the next 4 years of this government.
		
Click to expand...

Vor - I agree.  Its a case of as the french say - Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

It will take more than just talking nicely to anti-hunt supporters to bring around any real change in the status quo


----------



## combat_claire (17 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			It will take more than just talking nicely to anti-hunt supporters to bring around any real change in the status quo
		
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to know how many of the regular forum users actually lifted a finger during the recent Vote Okay campaigns to try and alter the political make up and bring repeal a step closer or who do something positive in another sphere to promote hunting and country sports to the wider public. 

I for one can say I have a clear conscience as far as this score is concerned having done my stint of election campaigning and being on hand to parade hounds and man the CA stand at local and national country events.


----------



## VoR (17 March 2011)

combat_claire said:



			I'd be interested to know how many of the regular forum users actually lifted a finger during the recent Vote Okay campaigns to try and alter the political make up and bring repeal a step closer or who do something positive in another sphere to promote hunting and country sports to the wider public. 

I for one can say I have a clear conscience as far as this score is concerned having done my stint of election campaigning and being on hand to parade hounds and man the CA stand at local and national country events.
		
Click to expand...

Well one thing we can all do is to be up-front with those we have contact with, work, friends, etc and not 'hide our light under a bushell' when it comes to our participation in hunting. I have found that many have been surprised that I hunt, having had the view promoted by the media that all those involved are 'upper-class' (whatever that is now!!??) something I certainly ain't . This simple act in itself, I believe, has improved their understanding as it often promotes conversation, very simple but very effective. I too have a clear conscience thanks


----------



## Fiagai (17 March 2011)

combat_claire said:



			I'd be interested to know how many of the regular forum users actually lifted a finger during the recent Vote Okay campaigns to try and alter the political make up and bring repeal a step closer or who do something positive in another sphere to promote hunting and country sports to the wider public. 

I for one can say I have a clear conscience as far as this score is concerned having done my stint of election campaigning and being on hand to parade hounds and man the CA stand at local and national country events.
		
Click to expand...

Well done CC.  I could tell you how I have been involved but then I would have to have you let the anti's know too and I dont think they are ready tbh.


----------



## Giles (17 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			No Giles you are "WRONG" as you so like saying. This is NOT what I posted.   Please reread the other posts.  I repeat what you have stated here is NOt what I have posted.  You clearly havent understood what was said. I have already explained.  Not going to bother anymore. 

Def used toilet tissue ...
		
Click to expand...

Great so you accept that the AWA does not ban specific activities but any activity that causes unnecessary suffering?  That's pretty much what the 'used toilet tissue' that the CA wants to replace the Hunting Act with does.  Except with the case of wild mammals it is deliberately causing such suffering.

Some more info on the 'used toilet tissue' here.  It is also to set up an HRA

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...-compromise-deal-to-try-and-overturn-ban.html

and some more stuff here http://www.bailyshuntingdirectory.com/story-405_An-Evening-with-Lord-Donoughue.php


----------



## combat_claire (17 March 2011)

VoR said:



			Well one thing we can all do is to be up-front with those we have contact with, work, friends, etc and not 'hide our light under a bushell' when it comes to our participation in hunting. I have found that many have been surprised that I hunt, having had the view promoted by the media that all those involved are 'upper-class' (whatever that is now!!??) something I certainly ain't . This simple act in itself, I believe, has improved their understanding as it often promotes conversation, very simple but very effective. I too have a clear conscience thanks 

Click to expand...

Great stuff VoR. I too am totally proud of what I do, verging on the obsessed as far as conversation topics go. I wish more people were happy to stand up and shout for what they believe in rather than restricting themselves to action behind a keyboard.


----------



## Giles (17 March 2011)

combat_claire said:



			Great stuff VoR. I too am totally proud of what I do, verging on the obsessed as far as conversation topics go. I wish more people were happy to stand up and shout for what they believe in rather than restricting themselves to action behind a keyboard.
		
Click to expand...

My main thing has been letter writing and the court case stuff with the human rights challenge


----------



## Fiagai (17 March 2011)

combat_claire said:



			I wish more people were happy to stand up and shout for what they believe in rather than restricting themselves to action behind a keyboard.
		
Click to expand...




Giles said:



			My main thing has been letter writing and the court case stuff with the human rights challenge
		
Click to expand...

Lol....

I believe there is a place in the process of helping to change the current legislation for both "shouting" and "letter writing".


----------



## EAST KENT (18 March 2011)

Personaly I love a good demo........


----------



## combat_claire (18 March 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Personaly I love a good demo........

Click to expand...

I hated all those trips to London, I'm such a bumpkin...


----------



## Fiagai (18 March 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Personaly I love a good demo...
		
Click to expand...

I agree

Ok thats 3 things "shouting", "letter writing" and a "good demo" that that can be used to help to change the current legislation


----------



## Giles (18 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			I agree

Ok thats 3 things "shouting", "letter writing" and a "good demo" that that can be used to help to change the current legislation 

Click to expand...

What about ruthless dedication to the pope?


----------



## Fiagai (18 March 2011)

Giles said:



			What about ruthless dedication to the pope?
		
Click to expand...

"fanatical" my dear...

Monthy Pythons - No one expects the Spanish Inquisition....




			Our chief weapon is surprise!... Surprise and fear... fear and surprise... Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency! Our three weapons are fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency... _and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope_

Click to expand...


----------

