# Heythrop plead Guilty



## happyhunter123 (17 December 2012)

Apparently, the Heythrop have plead guilty to four charges of illegal hunting. 

http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-20758022


----------



## combat_claire (17 December 2012)

More here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/17/david-cameron-hunt-convicted-rspca


----------



## happyhunter123 (17 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			Apparently, the Heythrop have plead guilty to four charges of illegal hunting. 

http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-20758022

Click to expand...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-20758022

Sorry doesn't work. And that should be *pleaded* guilty


----------



## Judgemental (17 December 2012)

Assuming my arithmatic is correct, that's a very expensive fox!

*£28,000.00* worth of fox and presumably that did not include Counsel's costs for representing the Heythrop.

Hunting with a hunt that is a body corporate has some very interesting fiscal issues. 

Simples, don't even think about contravening the Hunting Act 2004.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 December 2012)

Judgemental said:



			.......

Simples, don't even think about contravening the Hunting Act 2004.
		
Click to expand...

Had they only listened to you,  before embarking on a life of crime.

Alec.


----------



## happyhunter123 (17 December 2012)

It could have been much worse for the Heythrop I suppose. This is the sixth  hunt to be successfully prosecuted under the act, I think?


----------



## Judgemental (17 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Had they only listened to you,  before embarking on a life of crime.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Well Alec it will serve as a clear warning to others.

I don't want to see money that some little person on a Therwellellian type pony has saved from their pocket money, that they drop into the Hunt Secretary's outstreached money bag, going to line the coffers of Counsel for the RSPCA!!!

Because that is exactly what this feckless conduct boils down to!


----------



## Countryman (17 December 2012)

Spending £350,000 of the taxpayers money on this prosecution is ridiculously irresponsible of the RSPCA. I believe I'm right in saying that the taxpayer has paid for a significant part of their massive legal bill. 

I don't think you can blame the Heythrop. If you follow someone around every day they leave their house for 3 years, eventually, however law abiding you are, you'll slip up somewhere -even if it's just doing 75mph on a motorway. 

I wonder, if I set up a charity to 'Prevent Crime in the Countryside' and based it around hunts and spent our time following Penny Little etc around filming them, if I'd be able to get all my legal costs paid for if I hired a top QC to prosecute her for say, harassment or to get an injunction against her...


----------



## happyhunter123 (17 December 2012)

Countryman said:



			Spending £350,000 of the taxpayers money on this prosecution is ridiculously irresponsible of the RSPCA. I believe I'm right in saying that the taxpayer has paid for a significant part of their massive legal bill. 

I don't think you can blame the Heythrop. If you follow someone around every day they leave their house for 3 years, eventually, however law abiding you are, you'll slip up somewhere -even if it's just doing 75mph on a motorway. 

I wonder, if I set up a charity to 'Prevent Crime in the Countryside' and based it around hunts and spent our time following Penny Little etc around filming them, if I'd be able to get all my legal costs paid for if I hired a top QC to prosecute her for say, harassment or to get an injunction against her...
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. I get the impression that 'monitors' have been harassing the Heythrop for years, a bit like with the Crawley and Horsham. This prosecution was only based on a few seconds of three of four days hunting out of many, many days hunting by the Heythrop since the ban. It was still bound to happen. 
It seems to me that some hunts seem to get antis all the time, while others are much more lucky.

For the RSPCA the cost is great. Think of how many animals might have been helped if the money spent on this had been used. A total waste. It won't make any difference to hunting and it's future anyway.


----------



## Moomin1 (17 December 2012)

Countryman said:



			Spending £350,000 of the taxpayers money on this prosecution is ridiculously irresponsible of the RSPCA. I believe I'm right in saying that the taxpayer has paid for a significant part of their massive legal bill. 

I don't think you can blame the Heythrop. If you follow someone around every day they leave their house for 3 years, eventually, however law abiding you are, you'll slip up somewhere -even if it's just doing 75mph on a motorway. 

I wonder, if I set up a charity to 'Prevent Crime in the Countryside' and based it around hunts and spent our time following Penny Little etc around filming them, if I'd be able to get all my legal costs paid for if I hired a top QC to prosecute her for say, harassment or to get an injunction against her...
		
Click to expand...

The RSPCA are solely funded by donations. If a taxpayer wants to donate their money to support the RSPCA then that's up to them.  I assume donators are clued up as to what the RSPCA do, and agree with it.


----------



## EAST KENT (17 December 2012)

They were off my list of "charities" as soon as they became political, charity and politics do not sit well with each other.Not much the Heythrop could do to deny it after this film,bring back proper hunting I say. And the sooner the better.


----------



## Moomin1 (17 December 2012)

See I always get confused when people say that the RSPCA are political just for being involved and supporting the Hunting Ban.  Why does that make them politically motivated?  It merely just represents their opinions and beliefs of the welfare of the foxes involved.  Just like lab animals etc.


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			This prosecution was only based on a few seconds of three of four days hunting out of many, many days hunting by the Heythrop since the ban. .
		
Click to expand...

You aren't seriously suggesting that they were hunting legally the rest of the time? If so, please don't make me laugh   There are four hunts within a not too severe travelling distance of me all hunting fox. I doubt very much that the rest of the country is any different, they just aren't getting caught.


----------



## Moomin1 (17 December 2012)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			You aren't seriously suggesting that they were hunting legally the rest of the time? If so, please don't make me laugh   There are four hunts within a not too severe travelling distance of me all hunting fox. I doubt very much that the rest of the country is any different, they just aren't getting caught.
		
Click to expand...

Quite!


----------



## happyhunter123 (17 December 2012)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			You aren't seriously suggesting that they were hunting legally the rest of the time? If so, please don't make me laugh   There are four hunts within a not too severe travelling distance of me all hunting fox. I doubt very much that the rest of the country is any different, they just aren't getting caught.
		
Click to expand...

If so many days of the Heythrop hunting were monitored, why weren't they caught before then?


----------



## Moomin1 (17 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			If so many days of the Heythrop hunting were monitored, why weren't they caught before then?
		
Click to expand...

Because getting information and tip offs through, then organisation of monitors etc and police presence takes a lot of planning and time.  You don't just amble out to any old hunt, with no info, with a camera in your hand, and hope to see something happen which will incriminate them.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (17 December 2012)

Don't you just love it when the guilty become the victimised and those who prepare the case for the prosecution are the bad guys ?

Perhaps MP's fiddling their expenses shouldn't be prosecuted either in case, heaven forbid, it's seen as political ? 

Respecting the law is not an optional extra no matter who you are.


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2012)

horserider said:



			Respecting the law is not an optional extra no matter who you are.
		
Click to expand...

This.


----------



## Moomin1 (17 December 2012)

horserider said:



			Don't you just love it when the guilty become the victimised and those who prepare the case for the prosecution are the bad guys ?

Perhaps MP's fiddling their expenses shouldn't be prosecuted either in case, heaven forbid, it's seen as political ? 

Respecting the law is not an optional extra no matter who you are.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly!  

They broke the law.  They should be punished.  End of.


----------



## Countryman (17 December 2012)

I'm sure that if they'd been hunting illegally all year round it would all be on tape. Was it though? No. Just 15 minutes worth.
And don't try and suggest the monitors were rarely out! The Heythrop have, over the last few years, had 'monitors' out every single hunting day-and usually plenty of them.


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2012)

Countryman said:



			don't try and suggest the monitors were rarely out! The Heythrop have, over the last few years, had 'monitors' out every single hunting day-and usually plenty of them.
		
Click to expand...

So what then - they hunted fox illegally on four occasions the moment that they thought the monitors weren't watching?

Is that supposed to make it BETTER?


----------



## happyhunter123 (17 December 2012)

Countryman said:



			I'm sure that if they'd been hunting illegally all year round it would all be on tape. Was it though? No. Just 15 minutes worth.
And don't try and suggest the monitors were rarely out! The Heythrop have, over the last few years, had 'monitors' out every single hunting day-and usually plenty of them.
		
Click to expand...

If that's the case, thank you, Heythrop from taking so many 'monitors' and therefore keeping them away from the rest of us! I wonder why they get such trouble?


----------



## Moomin1 (17 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			If that's the case, thank you, Heythrop from taking so many 'monitors' and therefore keeping them away from the rest of us! I wonder why they get such trouble?
		
Click to expand...

Have the rest of you got something to hide too then?


----------



## Countryman (17 December 2012)

*hunted foxes. I'm not sure where you get this expression 'to hunt fox' from....

But no I'm not convinced from the footage I've seen that they were hunting illegally, but we'll see -I'm sure it'll be up on YouTube soon. Mind you, I might be wrong - I could easily see somebody getting a bit carried away one day and just for a minute encouraging hounds rather than whipping them off.


----------



## Moomin1 (17 December 2012)

A genuine question to all of the pro fox hunt supporters.  

Do you think it's acceptable to break the law?


----------



## happyhunter123 (17 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			Have the rest of you got something to hide too then?

Click to expand...

Nope, nothing to hide. Just don't like being harassed by antis.


----------



## Moomin1 (17 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			Nope, nothing to hide. Just don't like being harassed by antis.
		
Click to expand...

I suppose those who steal and get caught by the police say the same about them too!


----------



## happyhunter123 (17 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			A genuine question to all of the pro fox hunt supporters.  

Do you think it's acceptable to break the law?
		
Click to expand...

No, but not because it is wrong to break this particular one. Breaking the law, and being caught is not going to help our cause, which is to get repeal of this piece of legislation. But I can fully understand why some packs do choose to.


----------



## Moomin1 (17 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			No, but not because it is wrong to break this particular one. Breaking the law, and being caught is not going to help our cause, which is to get repeal of this piece of legislation. But I can fully understand why some packs do choose to.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it will ever be repealed.  

I hope not for one, it's barbaric and completely unnecessary.


----------



## happyhunter123 (17 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			I suppose those who steal and get caught by the police say the same about them too!  

Click to expand...

I shall refer you too a post I made several months ago on a different thread:

I think it's more a dislike and mistrust of the people to be honest. Many of the monitors are ex. sabs or employees of anti organisations, and so are hated by the hunting people! There is a feeling of 'you've got your ban, now leave us alone and find something else to do'. Some people worry that antis may edit footage to show illegal hunting. I have to say, I don't trust any of them an inch. They hate us and would do anything to get us into court. I have no problem in the existence of hunt monitors, I would happily welcome them if they were neutral on hunting, and were just here to see if we were keeping to the law. As most hunts are, I don't think that's an issue. The trouble is they are far from neutral.

Antis are NOT the police. I would hope the police are fairer.




			I don't think it will ever be repealed.
		
Click to expand...

Who knows?


----------



## Moomin1 (17 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			I shall refer you too a post I made several months ago on a different thread:

I think it's more a dislike and mistrust of the people to be honest. Many of the monitors are ex. sabs or employees of anti organisations, and so are hated by the hunting people! There is a feeling of 'you've got your ban, now leave us alone and find something else to do'. Some people worry that antis may edit footage to show illegal hunting. I have to say, I don't trust any of them an inch. They hate us and would do anything to get us into court. I have no problem in the existence of hunt monitors, I would happily welcome them if they were neutral on hunting, and were just here to see if we were keeping to the law. As most hunts are, I don't think that's an issue. The trouble is they are far from neutral.
		
Click to expand...

Well I don't personally know any hunt sabs or 'monitors' so I couldn't comment on their behaviour or stance.  

If that is the case, then it's a shame that there isn't another way of policing hunts.


----------



## happyhunter123 (17 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			Well I don't personally know any hunt sabs or 'monitors' so I couldn't comment on their behaviour or stance.  

If that is the case, then it's a shame that there isn't another way of policing hunts.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Like I said, I (personally) would be genuinely happy with neutral monitors.


----------



## Halfpast (17 December 2012)

I am not a favour of hunting, but keep my opinions to myself and respect the opinions of those that do.

However it would appear that a law ,no matter who or who doesn't agree with, has been broken and therefore those need to face the consequences.


----------



## perfect11s (18 December 2012)

EAST KENT said:



			They were off my list of "charities" as soon as they became political, charity and politics do not sit well with each other.Not much the Heythrop could do to deny it after this film,bring back proper hunting I say. And the sooner the better.
		
Click to expand...

 This ... and I can't remember the numbers but did'ent they waste about 700 hours of parlimentry time on this and use the parliment act to ram it through  and the  war in the middle east about 8 hours !!!  and RSPA  I hate to think how much money our family has raised over the years for them,  we stoped  giving this politicaly motivated gravy train our support a few years ago  what was once a great force for animal welfare is now top heavy and  rotten to the core ..


----------



## MerrySherryRider (18 December 2012)

Now here's a radical idea, how about the Heythrop stop breaking the law and then all the money donated to the RSPCA can go to saving kittens ?

Or.. how about the Heythrop start saving kittens ?

If all the Outraged and Principled stop donating to the RSPCA what will happen to the kittens ?

I love kittens, especially fluffy ones.


----------



## Keimanp (18 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			Do you think it's acceptable to break the law?
		
Click to expand...

I think it is acceptable to break the law if provided the person breaking the law is aware of the consequences of their actions and deem it to be reasonable.

I enjoy driving and on occasion I have been known to go above the speed limit of the road when I deem the visibility, conditions, my ability and the car I am driving permit it.

People pay cash as they are after a bargain really knowing they are paying less than they should due to the person receiving the cash payment not declaring the income.

People are complicit in breaking the law and only get annoyed about the ones being broken that they themselves are unable to justify.


----------



## luckyoldme (18 December 2012)

Don t get what all the fuss is about.
Break the law
get caught
go to court
get done.
happens to the best of us!


----------



## Pale Rider (18 December 2012)

Funny how folk of a certain ilk think it's ok to break laws that don't suit.

I remember years ago the Master of another hunt and his cronies, got done for being involved in dog fighting and cock fighting.

I suppose if your into blood sports almost any animal will do.

These s***houses got caught breaking the law, and got done, so what.
Pity they caused so much of the RSPCA funds to be wasted, but I suppose thats a small victory for them as they are obviously into cruelty to animals.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (18 December 2012)

Keimanp said:



			I think it is acceptable to break the law if provided the person breaking the law is aware of the consequences of their actions and deem it to be reasonable.
		
Click to expand...

That is when Democracy ends and anarchy slips in the back door. So if you have two houses and I am homeless, can I take one of your homes? I think that's perfectly reasonable.

I think the Jedi flag should be on the pole outside Belfast city hall. I don't care if the people of Belfast didn't vote to have it there. I want it and think its perfectly reasonable. Am I entitled to cause mayhem because I want it ?

In a democracy, we are entitled to campaign for changes in law. If not enough people feel sufficiently supportive of change, it stays.

Just a Christmas thought, those who refuse to support the RSPCA, what will you do if over the holidays, you discover a dog locked in a shed with out food or water while its owners are away ? Will you call the RSPCA  or the Heythrop ?


----------



## Keimanp (18 December 2012)

horserider said:



			That is when Democracy ends and anarchy slips in the back door. So if you have two houses and I am homeless, can I take one of your homes? I think that's perfectly reasonable.

I think the Jedi flag should be on the pole outside Belfast city hall. I don't care if the people of Belfast didn't vote to have it there. I want it and think its perfectly reasonable. Am I entitled to cause mayhem because I want it ?

In a democracy, we are entitled to campaign for changes in law. If not enough people feel sufficiently supportive of change, it stays.

Just a Christmas thought, those who refuse to support the RSPCA, what will you do if over the holidays, you discover a dog locked in a shed with out food or water while its owners are away ? Will you call the RSPCA  or the Heythrop ?
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps my wording of that initial sentence wasn't the best.

Everyone has the freedom to break any law they want to, yes you can squat in one of my houses, yes you can put the Jedi flag on Belfast City Hall. Squatting until recently was only considered a civil matter and not criminal and I now thanks to it being criminal have additional powers to have assistance in having you removed from my property should *I* choose to have the law enforced (Police aren't going to turn up to remove a squatter from a building should it not be requested by the land/building owner).

You can choose to speed or impede the flow of traffic (possibly due to being unaware of the speed of the road, when towing, driving anything other than a car or what unrestricted means on different types of road), you can choose to have the electricity meter in your house bridged so you don't run up bills, you can grow your own 'herbs' for personal use or resale, you can run a cash in hand business without declaring the income. It isn't until someone takes offence to your actions that proceedings against you may start.

You have the freedom to do as you choose but you have to face the consequences of your actions. In many cases people have broken the law to protest and bring focus to an injustice they feel they are recieving to enable to law to be changed. So I think in certain circumstances it is acceptable and common place to break the law. I also believe the vast majority of people do break the law at some point or another.

Particularly if you drive or have home improvements undertaken you are likely to knowingly or unwittingly break the law in some respect.

If I found a dog locked in a shed over winter without food or water whilst the owners are away I would make sure it had water and put a note on the shed door for the potential nominated person who is possibly looking after the dog to contact me, should I get no joy I would call back at a convenient time and talk to the neighbours. My parents dogs are barmy and knock their water over quite regularly. My initial and first response would not be to inform the RSPCA, they may get a call should my enquiries be fruitless, that doesn't mean that I feel they are brilliant but because there is no other choice!


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2012)

Keimanp said:



			I think it is acceptable to break the law if provided the person breaking the law is aware of the consequences of their actions and deem it to be reasonable.
		
Click to expand...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Speechless.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK, got my breath back. Trust me keimanp you would not want to live in a world where this was accepted.

...


----------



## MerrySherryRider (18 December 2012)

*Keimanp* here's an estimate of the £34 BILLION people 'choosing what laws to obey cost the UK last year.http://www.victimsupport.org.uk/About-us/News/2011/01/Economic-impact-of-crime
 That's your taxes, your insurance costs, your increased NHS waiting time for a hospital bed etc, etc, not to mention the human cost of crime.

 You seem surprised that some people are law abiding but fortunately morality is still important to many people, they just don't make the newspapers.


----------



## BBH (18 December 2012)

Am glad they were prosecuted.

You can't pick n choose which laws to abide by.

As for the RSPCA I wish they'd put similar energy into closing down puppy farms.


----------



## marmalade76 (18 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			I shall refer you too a post I made several months ago on a different thread:

I think it's more a dislike and mistrust of the people to be honest. Many of the monitors are ex. sabs or employees of anti organisations, and so are hated by the hunting people! There is a feeling of 'you've got your ban, now leave us alone and find something else to do'. Some people worry that antis may edit footage to show illegal hunting. I have to say, I don't trust any of them an inch. They hate us and would do anything to get us into court. I have no problem in the existence of hunt monitors, I would happily welcome them if they were neutral on hunting, and were just here to see if we were keeping to the law. As most hunts are, I don't think that's an issue. The trouble is they are far from neutral.

Antis are NOT the police. I would hope the police are fairer.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree with every word. 

One of my local hunts (the one I hunt with regularly) suffers terribly with the attentions of antis, they shout abuse, called my god-daughter (who was only thirteen at the time) a slut at a children's meet, called hounds on to a main road (again, at a children's meet, one was killed) and then crowed about how lucky the hounds were that _they_ just 'happened' to be there to save the rest (animal lovers, my arse!). My other local hunt gets not a dicky bird...


----------



## Keimanp (18 December 2012)

Horserider I live in a world where this is common place and my eyes are open to it and I realise that it does happen.

I was stood in the post office the other day listening to numerous older women complaining that they had been caught speeding. They knowingly drive, they have passed a test I hope, but they are unable to obey (either through lack of awareness or choice) the speed limit of the roads and complain at the consequences of their actions.

I used to do a paper round as a teenager, I was paid £1.15 per round which took an hour, I then worked in the local chip shop through my later teens whilst I went to univeristy it wasn't until I got my first bar job that I recieved my first wage slip.

I have had repair work undertaken on my car by the local body shop I was given two prices one for cash and one for any other payment... there was a 20% difference.

I booked a holiday to a cottage close to paignton April this year and was given a price, informed it must be cash as they paperwork is a bit of a headache.

I have had a quallified electrician undertake work within the kitchen and bathroom areas of a house that I rent out. I know he didn't fill in the paperwork for submission to Building Control 'its too much red tape'

I have had a window fitted as a replacement to a timber unit that used to exist in a rental property. Again Building Control were not informed of the change of window as required by the company that I had fit the window.

The number of people who don't know the speed limit for different vehicles using the road on different types of road is staggering. The number of caravaners, lorry drivers who speed but are below the sign posted limit of the road.

I work in Civil Engineering and have seen people extracting water from the road without a stand pipe with a meter.

I am involved in the rental of property with my family and am aware of numerous tenants that have given false meter readings to lower bills and have been left with the supplier chasing for the money.

Riding a horse on a public footpath isn't a permitted vehicle, quadbikes/trials bikes on footpaths and bridleways.

I can keep going, my examples may be from the fringes of the law or the grey area but I am not naive to believe that the majority of people are law abiding. The majority of people are not aware of the laws that they break, that does not mean that the law has not been broken it just means that it is not a significant enough breach for it to be enforced.

That would suggest that the majority of people deem it to be acceptable to break the law as claiming 'not to know' is not a defence. I would also suggest that the majority of those people would consider themselves to have morals and be law abiding.

You seem surprised that the small and regular transgressions of the law actually occur!


----------



## MerrySherryRider (18 December 2012)

Keimanp, you choose to regularly break the law, I do not. 

No, its not ok if others do it, its ok that good, honest people still hold society together. 

The blurring of the lines between right and wrong only means that morality gets further sidelined.


----------



## Shay (18 December 2012)

Don't loose track of the fact they Heythrop were NOT prosecuted.  The CPS did not see the footage - so far as I know the Police didn't either.  This was not a criminal prosecution.

They were sued in a civil suit - that is why they were not able to fund a defence.

This is the same as your neighbour taking you to court for putting your bins out badly.  Or someone you met on the tube suing you for bumping into them.

This is not about breaking a law - althugh I don't debate that deliberately hunting a wild mammal with dogs is a criminal offence.  Criminal law never came into this.  If LACS / RSPCA were so sure a criminal act had taken place why not just hand the footage to the police.  Perhaps because they could not proove a CRIMINAL offence.  Only the civil offence of causing distress to the monitor filming them.

I have no objection to the police catching criminals and prosecuting them - including hunts if a criminal offence takes place.  I do object to any private citizen following someone else around filiming them over a period of years and then when something does happen taking out a private civil suit rather than handing the matter over to the police.

We have a rule of law.  This wasn't it.


----------



## marmalade76 (18 December 2012)

horserider said:



			Keimanp, you choose to regularly break the law, I do not. 

No, its not ok if others do it, its ok that good, honest people still hold society together. 

The blurring of the lines between right and wrong only means that morality gets further sidelined.
		
Click to expand...

So you've never ever broken the law? 

No good, honest person ever broken the law? Never broke the speed limit, never drove without tax/ins/MOT, never had under age sex/bought drink or fags underage, never paid for a job in cash, never taken cash for something without declaring it, never rode on the pavement/foot path? I consider myself a good, honest person, but I can't say I've done none of the things I've listed, how about you?


----------



## MerrySherryRider (18 December 2012)

marmalade76 said:



			So you've never ever broken the law? 

No good, honest person ever broken the law? Never broke the speed limit, never drove without tax/ins/MOT, never had under age sex/bought drink or fags underage, never paid for a job in cash, never taken cash for something without declaring it, never rode on the pavement/foot path? I consider myself a good, honest person, but I can't say I've done none of the things I've listed, how about you?
		
Click to expand...

Never even got a speeding ticket, although probably have gone over the speeding limit unwittingly as the council round here like to change the limits regularly but certainly wouldn't drive without tax/ins/MOT eek.

No to paying in cash in order to avoid tax, or ever taken cash without declaring it.
Do not ride on pavements, footpaths or behave in a way that is antisocial. 

I don't think I'm unusual, I just believe in good citizenship and being a responsible member of society. Its not so hard.

PS, no to underage sex and smoking/drinking. Made up for it since and it was worth the wait.


----------



## marmalade76 (18 December 2012)

horserider said:



			Never even got a speeding ticket, 

Nor have I, yet I speed regularly, not by much, but still over.  

certainly wouldn't drive without tax/ins/MOT eek. 

I didn't ask if you would, I asked have you ever.

No to paying in cash in order to avoid tax, or ever taken cash without declaring it.
Do not ride on pavements, footpaths or behave in a way that is antisocial. 

I don't think I'm unusual, I just believe in good citizenship and being a responsible member of society. Its not so hard.

PS, no to underage sex and smoking/drinking. Made up for it since and it was worth the wait.
		
Click to expand...

Good for you, but I would say that you're in a tiny minority, if, of course, you are telling the truth


----------



## MerrySherryRider (18 December 2012)

i think its quite sad that some of you think its so unlikely or unusual that the concept of law abiding citizens is something you can't comprehend.

Crikey. what a miserable thought.


----------



## Keimanp (18 December 2012)

HorseRider Do you pay your livery in Cash? do you get a reciept?

Have you ever sold any item for profit?

Have you driven with your number plate obscured by dirt?

I admit to driving above the speed limit from time to time but in places where I can see clearly and I drive a more than capable car for the roads (I like my car)

"I Choose to regularly break the law", the only one that I have said I have committed is the one relating to the speed of the car, the other are instances where I am aware it happening through both hindsight and being aware of laws and acts through my career and education. It isn't black and white and most transgressions of the law aren't really of much detriment.

I have just been round to the accountants at lunch from my day job and it is only 1.5 miles and I passed a number of people who are breaking various laws, innapropriate number plates, a lorry who's tractor plate had come loose on one side so the continental plate of the trailer was visibly displayed not matching the tractor, brake lights and tail lights not working. A flat bed transit running between sites with an unsecurred load.

Shay that is interesting that it wasn't a criminal case and was a civil suit!

ChristmasPTrees that is a very badly worded sentence but with the examples I have given across my other posts I hope that you are able to see the point I was trying to make. An individual finds it acceptable in certain instances to make a transgression against certain laws, fully accepting that the consequences of those actions should they be caught/tried. If they didn't believe it was acceptable then they wouldn't break the respective law??


----------



## Maesfen (18 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			Nope, nothing to hide. Just don't like being harassed by antis.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The sad thing in all of this is if we (pro hunters) were to harass the monitors as they do us, WE would be up for intimidation.  It really is one law for them (anything goes to cause disruption) and one for us when we defend our cause.  If you or I walked down a high street dressed in full combat gear with balaclavas, we'd be called to account for intimidating the public; they can do anything they like and don't get a dickey bird said to them, almost exactly the same if it were travellers thieving, the police won't touch them and they know it.


----------



## Rowreach (18 December 2012)

The Heythrop get a lot of flak from the antis because they happen to be in Mr Cameron's constituency (and he has sort of promised a free vote on the hunting issue).

Indeed the antis do go out on spec waving cameras in order to try and catch something incriminating on film.  One of the reasons this case cost the RSPCA so much money was because they had to pay people to sit through approximately 300 hours of film in order to find the incriminating bits.

The hunt didn't launch a robust defence, preferring to plead guilty, but say that there was never any intention to hunt foxes, rather that some hounds which separated from those hunting a trail put up a fox and killed it.  This happens when you take a pack of hounds out into the countryside where "wild foxes" live.

Apparently the RSPCA never presented their evidence to the police or to the CPS in order to establish whether they had a viable case for a criminal prosecution, hence the very expensive civil one.


----------



## Keimanp (18 December 2012)

horserider said:



			i think its quite sad that some of you think its so unlikely or unusual that the concept of law abiding citizens is something you can't comprehend.

Crikey. what a miserable thought.
		
Click to expand...

I think that people believe themselves to be law abiding citizens but in reality dont fully appreciate the scope of the law.

I believe I have a good understanding/knowledge of a number of laws and requirements under varying legislation but I am only aware of a fraction and it is likely that from time to time I may break some of the other requirements/legislation that I am not yet aware of.


----------



## Alec Swan (18 December 2012)

Keimanp said:



			.......

People are complicit in breaking the law and only get annoyed about the ones being broken that they themselves are unable to justify.
		
Click to expand...




ChristmasPTrees said:



			.

Speechless.

OK, got my breath back. Trust me keimanp you would not want to live in a world where this was accepted.

...
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry C_P_T,  but I think that the poster who we've both just quoted,  has a point.  A good point too.

Now we can't live in a society where just because we believe a law,  to be wrong,  that we simply ignore it.  That wont do and of course I accept that.  

However,  there are laws which fall clearly into two categories.  There are those which are created to protect man from his own kind,  motoring laws for instance,  and then there are those where we have one side of Society which decides that from a moral or ethical stand point,  another section os society should abide by the way that THEY see fit.  As an example,  the major chain stores in the UK  "Tested" the Sunday trading laws.  There was not an evident prosecution of any of them.  Why?  Because the law was considered ridiculous,  and was struck from the Statute Book.  The ban on hunting is an equally preposterous law,  and should keep the Sunday Trading Law company.

You wont agree with me,  I accept,  but on those occasions when you speed in your car,  and you don't report yourself to the Authorities,  then you are as complicit in Law breaking as the person who hunts,  except of course,  you've got away with it.

Alec.

ps.  I hope that you're Whooping Cough is easing. a.


----------



## Moomin1 (18 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			I'm sorry C_P_T,  but I think that the poster who we've both just quoted,  has a point.  A good point too.

Now we can't live in a society where just because we believe a law,  to be wrong,  that we simply ignore it.  That wont do and of course I accept that.  

However,  there are laws which fall clearly into two categories.  There are those which are created to protect man from his own kind,  motoring laws for instance,  and then there are those where we have one side of Society which decides that from a moral or ethical stand point,  another section os society should abide by the way that THEY see fit.  As an example,  the major chain stores in the UK  "Tested" the Sunday trading laws.  There was not an evident prosecution of any of them.  Why?  Because the law was considered ridiculous,  and was struck from the Statute Book.  The ban on hunting is an equally preposterous law,  and should keep the Sunday Trading Law company.

You wont agree with me,  I accept,  but on those occasions when you speed in your car,  and you don't report yourself to the Authorities,  then you are as complicit in Law breaking as the person who hunts,  except of course,  you've got away with it.

Alec.

ps.  I hope that you're Whooping Cough is easing. a.
		
Click to expand...

But that is just your opinion of hunting foxes.  It is not a whole lot of other people's opinions.   The law was passed because it is believed that foxes are caused to suffer unnecessarily.  

If someone neglects, starves, beats, or sets their dog on another dog causing major suffering, then they are falling foul of the law, so what's the difference?


----------



## marmalade76 (18 December 2012)

Rowreach said:



			One of the reasons this case cost the RSPCA so much money was because they had to pay people to sit through approximately 300 hours of film in order to find the incriminating bits.
		
Click to expand...

Lol!! There's dedication for you!! 

This really needs to be posted on a fluffy bunny site so all those rspca supporters can see exactly where their donations go


----------



## Moomin1 (18 December 2012)

marmalade76 said:



			Lol!! There's dedication for you!! 

This really needs to be posted on a fluffy bunny site so all those rspca supporters can see exactly where their donations go 

Click to expand...

Given the amount of coverage it has recieved, I am quite sure the majority of them will have an inkling don't you?

Plus, I would like to bet the a good percentage of donators would be in support of the hunting ban and it's enforcement.


----------



## happyhunter123 (18 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			The law was passed because it is believed that foxes are caused to suffer unnecessarily.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think that's _entirely_ why the law was passed. I don't really, to be honest want to get into another hunting debate though.
Why is it whenever there is a hunting prosecution, all the antis come out of the woodwork telling everyone how awful it is to break the law?

I don't know why you bother arguing so much. It must be really stressful. Get a new hobby!


----------



## Moomin1 (18 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			I don't think that's _entirely_ why the law was passed. I don't really, to be honest want to get into another hunting debate though.
Why is it whenever there is a hunting prosecution, all the antis come out of the woodwork telling everyone how awful it is to break the law?
I don't know why you bother arguing, it won't get you far. It must be really stressful. Get a new hobby! 

Click to expand...

PMSL!  No it's not stressful, it's quite funny seeing how all the pro fox hunters get their knickers in a twist trying to justify their 'sport'.


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			I'm sorry C_P_T,  but I think that the poster who we've both just quoted,  has a point.  A good point too.

Now we can't live in a society where just because we believe a law,  to be wrong,  that we simply ignore it.  That wont do and of course I accept that.  

However,  there are laws which fall clearly into two categories.  There are those which are created to protect man from his own kind,  motoring laws for instance,  and then there are those where we have one side of Society which decides that from a moral or ethical stand point,  another section os society should abide by the way that THEY see fit.  As an example,  the major chain stores in the UK  "Tested" the Sunday trading laws.  There was not an evident prosecution of any of them.  Why?  Because the law was considered ridiculous,  and was struck from the Statute Book.  The ban on hunting is an equally preposterous law,  and should keep the Sunday Trading Law company.
		
Click to expand...

I and a lot of other people do not think that the ban is preposterous.

This is democracy Alec, the answer is to campaign to have the law changed, not to ignore it. 





			You wont agree with me,  I accept,  but on those occasions when you speed in your car,  and you don't report yourself to the Authorities,  then you are as complicit in Law breaking as the person who hunts,  except of course,  you've got away with it.
		
Click to expand...

Not so, speeding is not a criminal offence. I would never knowingly commit a criminal offence.








			ps.  I hope that you're Whooping Cough is easing. a.
		
Click to expand...

Well if you count progress being that today is the first day in several weeks that I have not coughed so hard that I have seen my breakfast tea twice, then I'm making progress, thankyou!


----------



## Moomin1 (18 December 2012)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			I and a lot of other people do not think that the ban is preposterous.

Exactly!


Well if you count progress being that today is the first day in several weeks that I have not coughed so hard that I have seen my breakfast tea twice, then I'm making progress, thankyou! 

Click to expand...

Eww!!


----------



## marmalade76 (18 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			Given the amount of coverage it has recieved, I am quite sure the majority of them will have an inkling don't you?

Plus, I would like to bet the a good percentage of donators would be in support of the hunting ban and it's enforcement.
		
Click to expand...

But don't you think's hilarious, Moonmin? 300 hours to find one little bit of something that could be deemed criminal? Lol!


----------



## happyhunter123 (18 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			PMSL!  No it's not stressful, it's quite funny seeing how all the pro fox hunters get their knickers in a twist trying to justify their 'sport'.

Click to expand...

But why do you bother? I mean, I would never go onto an anti site and challenge their ridiculous views.  Wouldn't you rather be discussing something you liked? 
This thread isn't even about 'justifying hunting' (which is easy to do but boring)!


----------



## Star_Chaser (18 December 2012)

Well the RSPCA have already started their extensive promotional propaganda machine.... I got this by email this afternoon

Dear Supporter, (PLS NOTE I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF THE RSPCA! I receive updates as part of my work with rescue)

In a landmark case under the Hunting Act 2004, the Heythrop Hunt yesterday pleaded guilty to four charges of intentionally hunting a fox with dogs on several occasions.

This case, based on footage of foxes being deliberately chased by dogs, is thought to be the first where a hunt has faced corporate charges. It is also the first case we&#8217;ve taken involving the prosecution of a mounted hunt itself. 

These defendants were well aware that they were breaking the law in that their actions would lead to a fox being torn apart by dogs.

No doubt the hunt will say that those involved have now left and they had no knowledge of this crime. But the evidence of the deliberate hunting of foxes with dogs on many occasions is crystal clear. The truth is this hunt believed that they were above the law - they were wrong.

This law protects our beautiful wild animals. We will ensure that it is enforced as Parliament intended.

Read more about this landmark case and the Hunting Act 2004.

Thank you for continuing support,

Gavin Grant
RSPCA chief executive

Personally I think the whole thing is not only a waste of time and money its tit for tat to raise more funds.  Poor little foxy woxy they wouldn't be saying that if they'd just lost loads of their chickens to the ruddy thing AGAIN!  Neither do I agree with spending donations meant for rescued animals on this sort of prosecution when they are actively helping and supporting the RSPB to poison cats in numerous numbers to protect a couple of bird species... why they aren't HUMANELY catching these cats up and rehoming them I have no idea, if I poisoned one I would soon be in the courts.  (You can see an article here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wi...sh-island-after-RSPB-kill-off-feral-cats.html given its an island its not rocket science to catch the cats and relocate them!  It annoys me that an area where a pet cat could be poisoned its not used so there will be no repercussions or negative press but its ok to use poison leaving the animals to suffer away from the public gaze) 

I keep seeing begging adverts for funds but seeing the cost that this single case has cost well to put it bluntly I think donors should be allowed to specify what they want their money to be used for.  Simple as that.

If the hunt were in the wrong well it is a little shame on them as they do have to work within the law but film just like photograph can be incredibly misleading when taken out of context to suit a persons view.


----------



## Moomin1 (18 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			But why do you bother? I mean, I would never go onto an anti site and challenge their ridiculous views. Wouldn't you rather be discussing something you liked?  
This thread isn't even about 'justifying hunting'!
		
Click to expand...

I am not challenging your views.  You are a supporter of a blood sport, which is banned.  End of.  Tough for you, not for me.

I more wonder why pro fox hunters bother discussing it, the law is there like it or not.  If you break it, face the consequences.


----------



## happyhunter123 (18 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			End of.  Tough for you, not for me.
		
Click to expand...

Seeing as you are happy enough about the current status of hunting, stop worrying about it and discuss something you like. I often think that about the antis. Hunting is banned-move on to something else, find some other people you don't like and argue with them. 
We discuss hunting because we go hunting. 

Enough with this pointless discussion. I don't care what you think!  The future of hunting will be bright, whatever happens


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			Seeing as you are happy enough about the current status of hunting, stop worrying about it and discuss something you like. I often think that about the antis. Hunting is banned-move on to something else, find some other people you don't like and argue with them. 
We discuss hunting because we go hunting. 

Enough with this pointless discussion. I don't care what you think! 

Click to expand...

It may be banned but it is actively being pursued in many parts of the country.


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2012)

marmalade76 said:



			300 hours to find one little bit of something that could be deemed criminal? Lol!
		
Click to expand...

They were given 300 hours of video and they laid 4 specimin charges. That does not mean that there were not many other prosecutable offences on that video, but court time costs  money. They probably just chose the four most easy to get a clear conviction on, which shows in the quilty plea.

Does anyone know if they pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity or did they only plead guilty once they had viewed the video?


----------



## Moomin1 (18 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			Seeing as you are happy enough about the current status of hunting, stop worrying about it and discuss something you like. I often think that about the antis. Hunting is banned-move on to something else, find some other people you don't like and argue with them. 
We discuss hunting because we go hunting. 

Enough with this pointless discussion. I don't care what you think!  The future of hunting will be bright, whatever happens
		
Click to expand...

So on that basis, if you are on here discussing hunting foxes with hounds, illegally, does that mean you must do it still?  

I am discussing the illegal hunting of foxes, which has and does take place still, and I am discussing it because I feel strongly that it needs dealing with, and I dislike the tearing apart of foxes inhumanely.  

So, actually, I am just as entitled as you to be commenting on this thread.

And the fact that you are suggesting that I don't like people that hunt is just ignorant.  I don't know you, or anybody that actively hunts, therefore I don't know if I like them or not.  I am making no comment on them as people, I am merely discussing the law being broken.


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2012)

Noels_Star_Chaser said:



			If the hunt were in the wrong well it is a little shame on them as they do have to work within the law but film just like photograph can be incredibly misleading when taken out of context to suit a persons view.
		
Click to expand...



Oh come on!  You're clutching at straws now. 

The criminal  law in this country is "beyond reasonable doubt". If there was any realistic doubt then the District Judge or Magistrates would have found them not quilty at a trial.

They PLEADED guilty. Do you think that they would have done that if there was any other slant that could have been put on the video of four separate incidents?


----------



## happyhunter123 (18 December 2012)

I am discussing the illegal hunting of foxes, which has and does take place still, and I am discussing it because I feel strongly that it needs dealing with, and I dislike the tearing apart of foxes inhumanely.
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear the 'inhumanely torn apart' nonsense again. Foxes are killed within seconds by hounds, honestly. Hounds are much quicker than a lot of things (say cats, which can take minutes to kill a mouse or bird). I never get why people are so worried about the death of the fox-it's not nice to look at but it's fast. If I was an anti, that's not the bit I'd be worried about. 



			Does that mean you must do it still?
		
Click to expand...

Who's you? I don't personally, nor does the pack I hunt with. I can't comment on everyone else, mainly because I don't know. 



Moomince Pie said:



			And the fact that you are suggesting that I don't like people that hunt is just ignorant.  I don't know you, or anybody that actively hunts, therefore I don't know if I like them or not.
		
Click to expand...

That's rare to hear from an anti, and good to hear as well. Most of them absolutely hate us. 




			So, actually, I am just as entitled as you to be commenting on this thread.
		
Click to expand...

Of course you are! I was just wondering if you were wasting your time.

And yes, in this case the Heythrop were *most definitely guilty*. It is the first case where we can say for sure that they meant to hunt those foxes. Whether they were hunting legally at other times we don't know.
Pleading guilty was, for them the safest thing to do.


----------



## springtime13 (18 December 2012)

I thought the footage was so bad, I certainly wouldn't class it as evidence.


----------



## JanetGeorge (18 December 2012)

Keimanp said:



			Shay that is interesting that it wasn't a criminal case and was a civil suit!
		
Click to expand...

But it's actually wrong!  The RSPCA regularly takes the role of 'prosecutor' in animal welfare cases where the CPS believes there is not sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution - or where the RSPCA is prepared to do their job for them in out-and-out animal cruelty cases that the RSPCA has dealt with from the start.

The Heythrop, it's former huntsman and former Master were prosecuted for breaches of the Hunting Act 2004, and the likelihood of a conviction AND the penalties for a conviction are exactly the same as if the CPS had brought the case!  The CPS DIDN'T bring the case because it was unconvinced it could win!

Julian Barnfield, the outstanding professional huntsman of the Heythrop (described by the Mirror as 'a toff'!!) made it clear that he only entered a guilty plea because he could not afford to fight the case! (He left the Heythrop and is not currently employed as far as I know, and his wife is ill - largely as a result of all the stress and worry they've had over this!)


----------



## fburton (18 December 2012)

There was a piece about this in this morning's Today programme on Radio 4.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9779000/9779536.stm

I have to say I thought Gavin Grant, RSPCA chief executive, came over a wee bit arrogant in the interview.


----------



## happyhunter123 (18 December 2012)

A good post Mrs George-we can always rely upon you to say something sensible. I must say that I have great sympathy for Mr Barnfield. These cases must be very hard to face. At least it didn't last six weeks. 
Surely the Heythrop have enough money to have fought this case?



fburton said:



			I have to say I thought Gavin Grant, RSPCA chief executive, came over a wee bit arrogant in the interview.
		
Click to expand...

I must say that he doesn't across to me as a very pleasant man. But there you go.


----------



## Moomin1 (18 December 2012)

JanetGeorge said:



			(He left the Heythrop and is not currently employed as far as I know, and his wife is ill - largely as a result of all the stress and worry they've had over this!)
		
Click to expand...

Oh well shame he didn't consider the consequences of breaking the law when he was doing so.

His poor wife.


----------



## happyhunter123 (18 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			Oh well shame he didn't consider the consequences of breaking the law when he was doing so.

His poor wife.
		
Click to expand...

But he-you must remember-isn't the man in charge. He is an employee of the hunt, and therefore he will carry out the actions that they ask him to do.


----------



## fburton (18 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			But he-you must remember-isn't the man in charge. He is an employee of the hunt, and therefore he will carry out the actions that they ask him to do.
		
Click to expand...

So who should have been responsible?


----------



## VoR (18 December 2012)

I will say this, next time the RSPCA ask us to take in a starved, near to death pony and nurse it back to health when they can't find anywhere for it to go, then not even bother to pay us for the time, sleepless nights, hay, feed and hours of care we provided and in fact not even bother to write a note of thanks or even say 'thank you', they can seriously 'do one'! 
Perhaps if they spent the generous donations people make on better facilities and staff they would have been able to home the poor animal!!??
Of course animals need protection from cruelty, but domestic animals are far more 'at risk' than 'Mr Fox' and there are far more cruel people out there than hunts and hunt staff that need prosecuting, or maybe there is, as suggested,  some other agenda here.....................


----------



## JanetGeorge (18 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			A good post Mrs George-we can always rely upon you to say something sensible. I must say that I have great sympathy for Mr Barnfield. These cases must be very hard to face. At least it didn't last six weeks. 
Surely the Heythrop have enough money to have fought this case?
		
Click to expand...

Sadly, I was wrong on one point.  The CPS was NOT given the opportunity to bring this prosecution!  All the POWA monitors had to do was to take their video to the police and say:  'Investigate - or else!"  Then the CPS would have had to review the 'evidence' and decide if the law had been broken.  But that DIDN'T happen - POWA went straight to the RSPCA, the RSPCA saw an opportunity for LOTS of headlines (let's face it, from some of the headlines you'd think David Cameron was MFH at the Heythrop!)

I've just listened to the Jeremy Vine show from earlier - replay: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...queeze_play_live_and_foxhunting_prosecutions/  - starts about 9 minutes in.  Julian Barnfield, Gavin Grant and Jim Barrington (former CE of the League Against Cruel Sports) were all interviewed.  Julian made it clear he couldn't afford to fight the case (it was estimated a full trial would have run for 25 days or more, and legal costs for Julian alone would have been upwards of £50,000!!!)

Gavin Grant justified the expenditure by saying they spend over £1 million a year on Freedom Foods (which aims to 'protect' hundreds of thousands of farm livestock!!) - and only a third of a million on THIS case (over one dead fox!)  Barrington made a strong case!


----------



## VoR (18 December 2012)

However, the CPS (used to at least) require an 80% chance of a guilty verdict based on the evidence put before them and they probably wouldn't have had that level of certainty in this case so they would not have pursued the case and so, back to the RSPCA.........


----------



## ester (18 December 2012)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			Oh come on!  You're clutching at straws now. 

The criminal  law in this country is "beyond reasonable doubt". If there was any realistic doubt then the District Judge or Magistrates would have found them not quilty at a trial. 

They PLEADED guilty. Do you think that they would have done that if there was any other slant that could have been put on the video of four separate incidents?
		
Click to expand...

If they pleaded guilty surely the judge/magistrate would not go against this and say actually you're not?

and are we dealing with criminal law if it was a civil case? I don't know the answer as not closely followed the case over than the R4 interview this morning where Mr RSPCA was about as good as answering a straight question as Ed Balls was the other week (I think it was him!)


----------



## Alec Swan (18 December 2012)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			I and a lot of other people do not think that the ban is preposterous.

This is democracy Alec, the answer is to campaign to have the law changed, not to ignore it. 

*I do so agree with you.  Would you consider,  "Testing the law" to be acceptable?*




Not so, *speeding is not a criminal offence*. I would never knowingly commit a criminal offence.

*Speeding is not a criminal offence?  I tried that one once.  It didn't work. *







Well if you count progress being that today is the first day in several weeks that I have not coughed so hard that I have seen my breakfast tea twice, then I'm making progress, thankyou! 

Click to expand...

I thought that it was children who contracted Whooping Cough.  I'm wrong it seems.  Honestly,  it must be 'orrid and genuinely,  I feel for you.

Get Well Soon.

Alec. x


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2012)

ester said:



			If they pleaded guilty surely the judge/magistrate would not go against this and say actually you're not?
		
Click to expand...

The Magistrates/District Judge are not allowed to accept a guilty plea which they feel in insincerely given. It happens that guilty pleas are advised against and sometimes rejected.

The evidence is not seen in a guilty plea, of course, so in this case my impression is that they pleaded guilty because they did not feel that they had a hope in hell of achieving a not guilty verdict if it went to trial. 




			and are we dealing with criminal law if it was a civil case?
		
Click to expand...

The Hunting Act is criminal law. 

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, a much higher bar than balance of probabilities which is civil cases.


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2012)

JanetGeorge said:



			Sadly, I was wrong on one point.  The CPS was NOT given the opportunity to bring this prosecution!  All the POWA monitors had to do was to take their video to the police and say:  'Investigate - or else!"  Then the CPS would have had to review the 'evidence' and decide if the law had been broken.  But that DIDN'T happen - POWA went straight to the RSPCA, the RSPCA saw an opportunity for LOTS of headlines
		
Click to expand...




VoR said:



			However, the CPS (used to at least) require an 80% chance of a guilty verdict based on the evidence put before them and they probably wouldn't have had that level of certainty in this case so they would not have pursued the case and so, back to the RSPCA.........
		
Click to expand...




rightly or wrongly, and personally I think it is wrong for a charity to be in this position, the RSPCA prosecute ALL animal cruelty cases. The CPS would never have prosecuted this.


----------



## Alec Swan (18 December 2012)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			The Magistrates/District Judge are not allowed to accept a guilty plea which they feel in insincerely given. 

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

When those who are charged,  plead guilty,  trust me on this one,  the plea is accepted,  especially when the proletariat are seen as hounding gentry. 

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			When those who are charged,  plead guilty,  trust me on this one,  the plea is accepted,  especially when the proletariat are seen as hounding gentry. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

This is not correct if the plea is clearly insincere. I have seen it done.


----------



## fburton (18 December 2012)

VoR said:



			However, the CPS (used to at least) require an 80% chance of a guilty verdict based on the evidence put before them and they probably wouldn't have had that level of certainty in this case so they would not have pursued the case and so, back to the RSPCA.........
		
Click to expand...

Presumably the CPS do not (because they cannot) take into account the high success rate of prosecutions brought by the RSPCA in deciding to prosecute? Or would that not work because the RSPCA would then refer cases to the CPS that they thought they couldn't win?


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2012)

fburton said:



			Presumably the CPS do not (because they cannot) take into account the high success rate of prosecutions brought by the RSPCA in deciding to prosecute? Or would that not work because the RSPCA would then refer cases to the CPS that they thought they couldn't win?
		
Click to expand...

The RSPCA prosecute ALL animal cruelty cases using their own barrister. The CPS are not involved.


----------



## AengusOg (18 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			The law was passed because it is believed that foxes are caused to suffer unnecessarily.
		
Click to expand...

If that is true and you believe it to be so, what alternative methods of fox control do you deem acceptable, and which will save foxes unnecessary suffering, or are you one of those who sees no case for controlling numbers of foxes?




Moomince Pie said:



			If someone neglects, starves, beats, or sets their dog on another dog causing major suffering, then they are falling foul of the law, so what's the difference?
		
Click to expand...

Those examples would be deliberate acts upon which I would expect the RSPCA to act and, if possible, pursue a conviction, even at great expense. There seems to be no evidence that the Hunt in this case set out to deliberately hunt a fox.


----------



## Judgemental (18 December 2012)

It seems that the fulcrum upon which the Heythrop and masters had to plead guilty, was the issue that they could not afford the legal fees.

Presumably they are above the threshold to qualify for Legal Aid.

I keep wondering if in fact the corporate position might therefore be self defeating.

In other words it might be better to be wholly impecunious and let the state pay your legal costs, win or lose?


----------



## Alec Swan (18 December 2012)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			This is not correct if the plea is clearly insincere.
		
Click to expand...

So are we to assume that a Guilty plea will be offered,  even when the defendant clearly has a defence?  Come on now,  that can't be right.  Better to represent oneself in Court,  as I have on occasion,  and face the wrath of the Resident Magistrate,  than role over and give in,  especially when the matter would clearly be as close to the defendant's heart,  as it is.

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (18 December 2012)

VoR said:



			I will say this, next time the RSPCA ask us to take in a starved, near to death pony and nurse it back to health when they can't find anywhere for it to go, then not even bother to pay us for the time, sleepless nights, hay, feed and hours of care we provided and in fact not even bother to write a note of thanks or even say 'thank you', they can seriously 'do one'! 
Perhaps if they spent the generous donations people make on better facilities and staff they would have been able to home the poor animal!!??
Of course animals need protection from cruelty, but domestic animals are far more 'at risk' than 'Mr Fox' and there are far more cruel people out there than hunts and hunt staff that need prosecuting, or maybe there is, as suggested,  some other agenda here.....................
		
Click to expand...

Well that's nice and welfare minded.  Take it out on a horse in need.


----------



## Moomin1 (18 December 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			But he-you must remember-isn't the man in charge. He is an employee of the hunt, and therefore he will carry out the actions that they ask him to do.
		
Click to expand...

If somebody told me to commit murder I wouldn't do it, not sure about anyone else on here?!


----------



## stormhill (18 December 2012)

But if you were then found guilty would you be liable for their costs? If the RSPCA have spent over £300,000 without a trial that sounds terrifying!


----------



## Moomin1 (18 December 2012)

stormhill said:



			But if you were then found guilty would you be liable for their costs? If the RSPCA have spent over £300,000 without a trial that sounds terrifying!
		
Click to expand...

Cost reimbursement will be dependant on the defendant/offender's means.  Plus, they would only be made to pay back what their means test indicates they could afford per week.  Some people end up only paying £1 per week!


----------



## Alec Swan (18 December 2012)

stormhill said:



			But if you were then found guilty would you be liable for their costs? If the RSPCA have spent over £300,000 without a trial that sounds terrifying!
		
Click to expand...

So can we take it from what you say,  that there are those cases,  when the defendant is up against a wealthy body,  such as the rspca,  that rather than face the possibly wilfully run-up costs that a charity which seems to have "Only have to ask,  and it shall be given",  as a precept,  then it would be better to admit defeat than to face the responsibility of overbearing costs?  

That,  to me anyway,  smacks more of bullying,  than justice.

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (18 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			So can we take it from what you say,  that there are those cases,  when the defendant is up against a wealthy body,  such as the rspca,  that rather than face the possibly wilfully run-up costs that a charity which seems to have "Only have to ask,  and it shall be given",  as a precept,  then it would be better to admit defeat than to face the responsibility of overbearing costs?  

That,  to me anyway,  smacks more of bullying,  than justice.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Read my post above.

Just to clarify, the sentencing is done just like any other prosecution, any fines or costs awarded are means tested, and if a person cannot afford that amount, they won't get fined that amount.  They would only have to pay off an affordable amount per week anyway. 

If they can't afford ANY fines, without it being detrimental to their wellbeing or security, then they would perhaps be made to do community service or such like.


----------



## Alec Swan (18 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			.......

......., the sentencing is done just like any other prosecution, any fines or costs awarded are means tested, and if a person cannot afford that amount, they won't get fined that amount.  

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

That's all very well,  and I'm aware of that point,  but my question,  which I may have put a little more clearly,  is that if the Master,  is clearly able to afford,  though probably not justify,  the costs,  then should his co-defendant be placed in the position of having to plead guilty when his employer,  clearly for other reasons,  is forced to do the same thing,  regardless of whether either are guilty,  or not?

The CPS allowing or actively encouraging the rspca,  a charity,  to bring private prosecutions,  is not justice.  It places that charity in a position of being able to make decisions,  which go beyond its position,  its remit or its status.  Being unable to justify the costs of prosecution or defence,  will influence the CPS and the Defendant,  but not it seems,  the rspca.  

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (18 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			That's all very well,  and I'm aware of that point,  but my question,  which I may have put a little more clearly,  is that if the Master,  is clearly able to afford,  though probably not justify,  the costs,  then should his co-defendant be placed in the position of having to plead guilty when his employer,  clearly for other reasons,  is forced to do the same thing,  regardless of whether either are guilty,  or not?

The CPS allowing or actively encouraging the rspca,  a charity,  to bring private prosecutions,  is not justice.  It places that charity in a position of being able to make decisions,  which go beyond its position,  its remit or its status.  Being unable to justify the costs of prosecution or defence,  will influence the CPS and the Defendant,  but not it seems,  the rspca.  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

What have the RSPCA got to do with the sentencing?!  It's the magistrate that decides that, based on legislation, and on a means test.  If the co-defendant cannot afford to pay a huge amount of costs, then they quite simply won't be made to!

The RSPCA have no say in the outcome of a prosecution, just like the CPS.  It is purely the decision of a magistrate, who is made aware by the clerk of what the sentencing for each offence may entail.

Just because one person pleads guilty and gets fined a massive amount, does not mean the co-defendant has to plead guilty, or for that matter get fined a penny.  If they were someone who was living in a bedsit, with barely a penny to their name, they would probably get a very meagre fine.


----------



## ester (19 December 2012)

I suppose there is the point that although someone may be able to afford to pay the costs of the other side when we are talking such large sums of money they most probably would prefer not to/have better things to spend that money on and hence a guilty plea is preferable to them regardless of their ability to pay.


----------



## combat_claire (19 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			What have the RSPCA got to do with the sentencing?!  It's the magistrate that decides that, based on legislation, and on a means test.  If the co-defendant cannot afford to pay a huge amount of costs, then they quite simply won't be made to!

The RSPCA have no say in the outcome of a prosecution, just like the CPS.  It is purely the decision of a magistrate, who is made aware by the clerk of what the sentencing for each offence may entail.

Just because one person pleads guilty and gets fined a massive amount, does not mean the co-defendant has to plead guilty, or for that matter get fined a penny.  If they were someone who was living in a bedsit, with barely a penny to their name, they would probably get a very meagre fine.
		
Click to expand...

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/RSP...g-PM-s-local/story-17626537-detail/story.html

It would appear that the defendants did not feel they had the wherewithal to fund their defence in a case that was predicted to take until the end of February, as a result they pleaded guilty  " that on four occasions they had allowed hounds to chase foxes that had jumped up while they were hunting artificial trails"


----------



## combat_claire (19 December 2012)

It also transpires that donors responding to a specific campaign on puppy welfare were later sent letters advising them that their donation had been used to fund the Heythrop prosecution. 

This Christmas I have donated to the Crisis Christmas campaign to give a homeless person a warm meal and assistance. I would be more than a little irritated if Crisis subsequently contacted me to say they had used the money for a showboating legal trial or something other than what I thought I was funding (say sterilising homeless people). 

This is seriously misleading of the RSPCA advertising and I have lost the last remaining scraps of respect for this organisation.


----------



## combat_claire (19 December 2012)

Judgemental said:



			Assuming my arithmatic is correct, that's a very expensive fox!

*£28,000.00* worth of fox and presumably that did not include Counsel's costs for representing the Heythrop.

Hunting with a hunt that is a body corporate has some very interesting fiscal issues. 

Simples, don't even think about contravening the Hunting Act 2004.
		
Click to expand...

Have you not read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau??


----------



## Moomin1 (19 December 2012)

combat_claire said:



http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/RSP...g-PM-s-local/story-17626537-detail/story.html

It would appear that the defendants did not feel they had the wherewithal to fund their defence in a case that was predicted to take until the end of February, as a result they pleaded guilty  " that on four occasions they had allowed hounds to chase foxes that had jumped up while they were hunting artificial trails"
		
Click to expand...

If that is the case, with regards that they 'felt' they didn't have the funds to defend their case, then that is their own look out.  They should have thought about that before they broke the law.  Quite simply put, if somebody who lives on a minimum wage goes out and commits fraud or steals, should they not be taken to court just because they may feel they cannot afford the defence?  

As for the 'fox jumped up whilst following artificial trails'......yeahhhhh rigghhhhtttttt!


----------



## Judgemental (19 December 2012)

combat_claire said:



			Have you not read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau??
		
Click to expand...

No I have not and I do not have any intention of doing so.

So far as this recent debacle is concerned, I am very much of the opinion that great care now has to be taken that young people are not in any way influenced or put under duress to think the law can be broken. Nor do they find themselves involved in illegal hunting. Not that that was the situation, however it serves as very useful example for young people to understand that going to court is very expensive. 

Furthermore money taken in subs/donations should not be spent on expensive lawyers. The bill should be met exclusively by those charged

We might as well get used to the fact there is a law in place and any failure to not respect that law, will prove extremely expensive.

Yes I am the first to say it is a bad law, nevertheless it is the law.


----------



## combat_claire (19 December 2012)

Judgemental said:



			No I have not and I do not have any intention of doing so.
		
Click to expand...

You really should read make the effort. It is a philosophical statement rather than a manual on breaking the law.




			Furthermore money taken in subs/donations should not be spent on expensive lawyers. The bill should be met exclusively by those charged
		
Click to expand...

But the Heythrop case was launched against the hunt as a corporate body and not against the individuals.


----------



## combat_claire (19 December 2012)

I have a sneaking suspicion that the RSPCA deliberately ramped up the costs in the hope the defendants would pick up the tab in an award of costs. If so that has backfired. Gavin Grant failed completely in the Radio 4 interview and the Radio 2 phone-in to justify this vast expense.


----------



## FfionWinnie (19 December 2012)

I've never hunted, however I heard it discussed on Radio2 yesterday and the following points were made. 

It's was a civil case, the persons found guilty do not have a criminal record. 

It was not put before the CPS. 

Barnfield said it was stray hounds and he was not there as he was with the main pack. 

The RSPCA was founded by a fox hunter. 

The hunt had over £200,000 in their bank account. 

The RSPCA have spent over £300,000 on this and not saved an animal's life (because it would be killed by other means anyway).


----------



## cptrayes (19 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			It is purely the decision of a magistrate, who is made aware by the clerk of what the sentencing for each offence may entail.
.
		
Click to expand...

Just a slight correction moomin, sorry, it's 3 Magistrates or one District Judge.


----------



## cptrayes (19 December 2012)

FfionWinnie said:



			It's was a civil case, the persons found guilty do not have a criminal record.
		
Click to expand...

I am very unsure that this is true. The Hunting Act seems to me to be criminal law. It may have been a private prosecution by the RSPCA but that would not mean that the guilty parties do not have a criminal record. 


Later edit, it does seem that like speeding offences, this offence does not give you a criminal record. It's not very clear, still looking for more info.




			It was not put before the CPS.
		
Click to expand...

Animal cruelty prosecutions aren't, the RSPCA always do them.


----------



## cptrayes (19 December 2012)

While researching for the above question, I came across this, which does not include the latest case:




			There have been over 190 successful prosecutions under the Hunting Act.
		
Click to expand...

Funny, I'm sure I was told on this forum more than once that this law is so flawed that they can't get prosecutions?


----------



## justforfun (19 December 2012)

And to think what that amount of wasted RSPCA money could have been spent on :-(


----------



## JanetGeorge (19 December 2012)

Quote:
There have been over 190 successful prosecutions under the Hunting Act.

Funny, I'm sure I was told on this forum more than once that this law is so flawed that they can't get prosecutions? 


The vast majority of the successful prosecutions were nothing to do with hunting with hounds - although I doubt the figure given - and were brought by the CPS against individuals - mainly for coursing.  These are cases that would previously have been prosecuted under anti-poaching laws!


----------



## cptrayes (19 December 2012)

They are individually listed Janet, though I take your point that most are not for hunting fox with hounds.


----------



## cptrayes (19 December 2012)

justforfun said:



			And to think what that amount of wasted RSPCA money could have been spent on :-(
		
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that there are quite  a few of us who don't think it was wasted


----------



## JanetGeorge (19 December 2012)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			Quote:
It was not put before the CPS.
Animal cruelty prosecutions aren't, the RSPCA always do them. 

Animal cruelty prosecutions aren't, the RSPCA always do them.
		
Click to expand...

That's not true either.  The CPS DOES bring cases for animal cruelty.  The Cheale Meat case and the Anne the elephant case are just 2 recent high profile cases brought by the CPS!  The CPS - however - does require GOOD evidence and a reasonable chance of success before it brings a prosecution.  For the RSPCA, it's more about publicity - there are headlines while a case runs.  There are more headlines if there is a conviction. If a case is later thrown out on Appeal, that rarely gets the same coverage!

Of course, where cruelty to pets and horses is concerned, the RSPCA will sieze the animals (with the agreement of a police officer and a vet) and seek a ban on the defendants keeping animals - as well as rehoming the animals (if they haven't already put them down!)


----------



## JanetGeorge (19 December 2012)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			They are individually listed Janet, though I take your point that most are not for hunting fox with hounds.
		
Click to expand...

The one set of figures I found suggested that to the end of 2010 there have been 181 convictions under the Hunting Act 2004, but only six of those relate to registered hunts. 97% of convictions relate to poaching or other casual hunting activities.

In at least one of the cases relating to hunting with hounds (Tony Wright at the Exmoor) the conviction was later thrown out on Appeal!


----------



## cptrayes (19 December 2012)

JanetGeorge said:



			That's not true either.  The CPS DOES bring cases for animal cruelty.  The Cheale Meat case and the Anne the elephant case are just 2 recent high profile cases brought by the CPS!  The CPS - however - does require GOOD evidence and a reasonable chance of success before it brings a prosecution.
		
Click to expand...


Guilty is guilty Janet, it does not matter what the chance of success is, the burden of proof is the same no matter who brings the case. 

In fact I would say that the CPS cherry-picking of a very small number of very high profile cases shows exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. The  RSPCA do the bread and butter cases, the CPS pick the big ones. 

Given the current cost cutting going on in the CPS, I do not think that any conclusion about the validity of this prosecution can be drawn by the CPS standing aside and letting the RSPCA pick up the costs in this case.




			For the RSPCA, it's more about publicity - there are headlines while a case runs.  There are more headlines if there is a conviction. If a case is later thrown out on Appeal, that rarely gets the same coverage!
		
Click to expand...

This is nonsense, there are routine run of the mill starved dog and mistreated cat cases in court by the RSPCA on a frequent basis in English and Welsh courts. They may get a line or two in the local rag, if that. 

I missed the word "almost" out of my sentence, for which I apologise. But the RSPCA do all except the major headline animal cruelty cases in Magistrate's Courts.


----------



## Moomin1 (19 December 2012)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			Just a slight correction moomin, sorry, it's 3 Magistrates or one District Judge.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, yes, I just typed 'magistrate' for the example, but you are completely correct.

I fully agree with you throughout this one CPT, there are small tiny cases going through the courts day in day out brought by the RSPCA, and they mostly never reach the public's knowledge.

The press simply aren't interested unless it's high profile or very gory.


----------



## Judgemental (20 December 2012)

What may have been overlooked by many is the hideous precedent in law that has now been set.

Indeed a precedent that will cause/require magistrates to impliment the tarriff of fines and costs where there are any other cases.


----------



## ester (20 December 2012)

I thought (as discussed previously with the case of the barefoot trimmer putting on 'shoes' prosecuted by the FRC) that no precedent is set if there is no proper trial and you choose to plead guilty


----------



## MerrySherryRider (20 December 2012)

JanetGeorge said:



			That's not true either.  The CPS DOES bring cases for animal cruelty.  The Cheale Meat case and the Anne the elephant case are just 2 recent high profile cases brought by the CPS!  The CPS - however - does require GOOD evidence and a reasonable chance of success before it brings a prosecution.  For the RSPCA, it's more about publicity - there are headlines while a case runs.  There are more headlines if there is a conviction. If a case is later thrown out on Appeal, that rarely gets the same coverage!

Of course, where cruelty to pets and horses is concerned, the RSPCA will sieze the animals (with the agreement of a police officer and a vet) and seek a ban on the defendants keeping animals - as well as rehoming the animals (if they haven't already put them down!)
		
Click to expand...

It was left to the RSPCA to bring a case for cruelty to the man who starved the horse I now have, and his field mates. It was thanks to the RSPCA that he was sent to prison and the horses which were not too far gone, were saved.


 It wasn't a high profile case because no one was shouting for this lawbreaker to be spared prosecution and no one claimed the RSPCA had wasted money. 
 Of course he wasn't a huntsman. I believe he was a Traveller.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 December 2012)

Judgemental said:



			What may have been overlooked by many is the hideous precedent in law that has now been set.

Indeed a precedent that will cause/require magistrates to impliment the tarriff of fines and costs where there are any other cases.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not too sure that I understand your points,  J_M, but this I do understand;  It cannot be considered justice where a man is threatened with Court action,  and because he has the where-with-all to support himself,  runs the risk of losing far,  far more than his seemingly less than fortunate brother,  who because he has little or nothing in the way of assets,  can face up to a system which appears to have a huge bias.  The "Have",  it would seem,  is best of with a guilty plea,  regardless of his state of innocence.

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (20 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			I'm not too sure that I understand your points,  J_M, but this I do understand;  It cannot be considered justice where a man is threatened with Court action,  and because he has the where-with-all to support himself,  runs the risk of losing far,  far more than his seemingly less than fortunate brother,  who because he has little or nothing in the way of assets,  can face up to a system which appears to have a huge bias.  The "Have",  it would seem,  is best of with a guilty plea,  regardless of his state of innocence.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec my concern is that now a very high 'Tarriff' for the offence has been set, it will encourage a stream of allegations against those who are indentified as wealthy by the RSPCA or by other organisations or indeed by individuals.

I suppose it might also suggest if you are poor and/or impecunious, you will not be bothered, on the gounds one might enjoy Legal Aid. Therefore you are far more liekly to plead not-guilty. The consequences for the party making the allegation if found not-guilty, would mean they could be facing substantial costs as well as their own.

This case has opened up a whole NEW scenario for those opposed to hunting.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 December 2012)

Judgemental said:



			.......

This case has opened up a whole NEW scenario for those opposed to hunting.
		
Click to expand...

It would only need the prosecuting _authority_ confused to lose one or two high profile cases,  and for them to be found wanting,  for their coffers to be depleted.  

The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor,  which is why I'm staggered that the defendants in question offered no defence.  Madness.

I'd have represented them,  for all my short comings,  and free of charge,  too.

Alec.


----------



## Luci07 (20 December 2012)

Even the judge in the trial questioned the action of the RSPCA in bringing this to his court. The costs were well over the £300k mark, the hunt paid costs of £19,500. I accept Alec's argument but understood that the guilty plea was entered to try to prevent this going forward due to costs. The hunt might well have had £200k in their bank account but we do t know if that was for running costs etc. 

Here is a first and I can't post the link as on an iPad. Quentin Letts in today's Daily Mail questioning the direction of the RSPCA. It was a good piece! Not the normal article you tend to get. If someone else can post a link it makes great reading.


----------



## cptrayes (20 December 2012)

Luci07 said:



			Even the judge in the trial questioned the action of the RSPCA in bringing this to his court.
		
Click to expand...

Really? Can you point me to the report of that, I'd like to see it, it would be most unusual for a District Judge to comment adversely on the decision to bring a prosecution in a case where four convictions resulted out of four prosecutions.


----------



## ester (20 December 2012)

The district judge referred to the RSPCA costs of nearly £330,000 - without the expected 30 day trial - as a "quite staggering figure".

Members of the public may feel that RSPCA funds can be more usefully employed," he said.

"It is not for me to express an opinion but I merely flag it up but I do find it to be a quite staggering figure.

"Essentially I was told by Mr Mott that defence costs for all five defendants were in the region of £35,000 - so that's not much more than one tenth of the prosecution costs."

The judge said that the RSPCA has asked for a £50,000 contribution from the three defendants towards its costs.

He said he was rejecting that figure as the costs should not be "grossly disproportionate" to the fines he had already imposed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...throp-hunt-fined-for-fox-hunting-8422813.html

That also reads that it was 3 convinctions of 5 defendents I think?


----------



## cptrayes (20 December 2012)

Thanks Ester, that does make some sense. I'm at a loss to see how they racked up those costs too!


----------



## Moomin1 (20 December 2012)

JanetGeorge said:



			That's not true either.  The CPS DOES bring cases for animal cruelty.  The Cheale Meat case and the Anne the elephant case are just 2 recent high profile cases brought by the CPS!  The CPS - however - does require GOOD evidence and a reasonable chance of success before it brings a prosecution.  For the RSPCA, it's more about publicity - there are headlines while a case runs.  There are more headlines if there is a conviction. If a case is later thrown out on Appeal, that rarely gets the same coverage!

Of course, where cruelty to pets and horses is concerned, the RSPCA will sieze the animals (with the agreement of a police officer and a vet) and seek a ban on the defendants keeping animals - as well as rehoming the animals (if they haven't already put them down!)
		
Click to expand...

Just to correct you, the RSPCA do not seize any animal.  The police seize them and hand them to the RSPCA's care.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 December 2012)

ester said:



			.......
He said he was rejecting that figure as the costs should not be "grossly disproportionate" to the fines he had already imposed.

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

When I last appeared in Court (and NO I'm not a career criminal),  then the Clerk to the Court,  reminded the presiding Magistrates,  that the "Costs could not exceed the fine".  The Fine was nil........ 

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			Just to correct you, the RSPCA do not seize any animal.  The police seize them and hand them to the RSPCA's care.
		
Click to expand...

Correct,  and thankfully the rspca have no powers.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (20 December 2012)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			Thanks Ester, that does make some sense. I'm at a loss to see how they racked up those costs too!
		
Click to expand...

I suspect that the claimed figures of £330k would have shrunk,  if they were asking the Court for reimbursement,  and if they had to explain their claim.  Not even the rspca are that stupid!

Alec.


----------



## ester (20 December 2012)

I think essentially he knew he shouldn't be commenting officially but couldn't quite bring himself to not mention it!


----------



## Moomin1 (20 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			Correct,  and thankfully the rspca have no powers.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Lol, it really doesn't matter though does it Alec?  Because the police work with the RSPCA.

I assume you would prefer for neglected animals to remain with their neglectors and abusers then?


----------



## Alec Swan (20 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			Lol, it really doesn't matter though does it Alec?  Because the police work with the RSPCA.

I assume you would prefer for neglected animals to remain with their neglectors and abusers then?
		
Click to expand...

that's a silly suggestion,  as you will know.  What I object to is the thought,  that a completely inept,  a badly managed,  and a biased and twisted business,  more interested in money making than justice or animal welfare,  would ever have any powers.

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (20 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			that's a silly suggestion,  as you will know.  What I object to is the thought,  that a completely inept,  a badly managed,  and a biased and twisted business,  more interested in money making than justice or animal welfare,  would ever have any powers.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Well sadly for you Alec, the police are more than happy to do it for them and hand the cases (obviously only the amazingly high profile expensive ones! ) back to the RSPCA.  You must think that RSPCA inspectors are trained to automatically ignore any cruelty and neglect other than the high profile ones or something!  Because of course RSPCA inspectors would love that.  Seriously, it's quite laughable how some people on here are so narrow minded.


----------



## VoR (20 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			Well that's nice and welfare minded.  Take it out on a horse in need.
		
Click to expand...

10/10 for missing the point here and being selective about the points you raise pal, the RSPCA are happy to spend many hundreds of thousands pursuing a politically motivated case against a hunt rather than spending that money on animal welfare, they prefer to use the goodwill of a pro-hunting family (and yes they were aware we are pro-hunt) when it suited them though! All smacks a little bit of hypocrasy to me!


----------



## Alec Swan (20 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			.......

........  Seriously, it's quite laughable how some people on here are so narrow minded.
		
Click to expand...

Aren't they just? 

Alec.


----------



## EAST KENT (20 December 2012)

VoR said:



			10/10 for missing the point here and being selective about the points you raise pal, the RSPCA are happy to spend many hundreds of thousands pursuing a politically motivated case against a hunt rather than spending that money on animal welfare, they prefer to use the goodwill of a pro-hunting family (and yes they were aware we are pro-hunt) when it suited them though! All smacks a little bit of hypocrasy to me!
		
Click to expand...

Sincerely hope you will not fall into the trap again of being used by that so called Charity.The Charity Commission rules do state that Charities absolutely MUST NOT be political,wonder how these self styled police qualify then as a Charity.


----------



## Judgemental (20 December 2012)

My fear looking forwards is The Second Front. 

Making an educated guess and with elements that I would describe as Informed Sources, The Second Front is an attack on Landowners and Farmers who are alleged to have allowed illegal hunting on their land.

My spies suggest that there is a plot to single out a landowner in a similar manner (bearing in mind the act can specifically hold the landowner equally criminally responsible for an act of illegal hunting) and to bring them to court with equal cost features.

It has been suggested there are targets in Sussex and Wiltshire.


----------



## Moomin1 (20 December 2012)

I really don't know where you are all getting this hype about a 'precedent' being set for the amount of fines and costs imposed.  Jeez, are you people not aware that the same rules apply for every single Joe Public who goes to court.  Even a very simple thin dog or one horse case with one defendant can wrack up in the region of £20,000 in legal fees and boarding costs/vet costs, and the costs are always put to the magistrate because they ask for them in order to MEANS TEST for any fines or costs that should be imposed on the defendant.  The average Joe Public from the local homeless shelter is hardly going to be sentenced with a £20,000 fine or costs.  

It's complete and utter rubbish that people are trying to suggest that the RSPCA somehow 'bullied' the defendants into pleading guilty by wracking up such costs, because quite simply, if they haven't got the means to pay it they won't have it imposed.  They may end up paying 1p a week if that's what they can afford!


----------



## Alec Swan (20 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			.......

It's complete and utter rubbish that people are trying to suggest that the RSPCA somehow 'bullied' the defendants into pleading guilty by wracking up such costs, because quite simply, if they haven't got the means to pay it they won't have it imposed.  They may end up paying 1p a week if that's what they can afford!
		
Click to expand...

I don't think that you've quite grasped the points which have been made,  have you?  Go away and think about it,  and you'll realise that your words make little sense.

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (20 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			I don't think that you've quite grasped the points which have been made,  have you?  Go away and think about it,  and you'll realise that your words make little sense.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I am with you Alec 100%

That said, I do warn folk that specific landowners are next in line............ but that's going to be difficult because everybody hunts a trail.


----------



## Countryman (21 December 2012)

Unless the landowner is actually present at an illegal hunt I would think proving he was allowing his land to be used for hunting would be very tricky - especially as hunts are only licensed to trail hunt over the land they cross and have documents affirming that.


----------



## happyhunter123 (21 December 2012)

The RSPCA will probably bring more hunting prosecutions in the future. I believe that the Avon Vale have a case coming up against them brought by the RSPCA.
Whether it'll do them any good or not remains to be seen. Will they be running out of money any time soon?

On a different note, for such minor fines, it's amazing the media coverage! This must be the most media coverage hunting has had after several years of things keeping quiet.


----------



## Pale Rider (21 December 2012)

Hunting is a real pain and always costing money.

When it was legal vast numbers of Police were deployed to protect them from the protesters, at the tax payers expense.

Now its illegal, a charity has to fund prosecutions. The CPS should have taken over this case and the others in the pipe line. Unless of course there is some political interference on behalf of the hunts.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (21 December 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			Hunting is a real pain and always costing money.

When it was legal vast numbers of Police were deployed to protect them from the protesters, at the tax payers expense.

Now its illegal, a charity has to fund prosecutions. The CPS should have taken over this case and the others in the pipe line. Unless of course there is some political interference on behalf of the hunts.
		
Click to expand...

You've noticed too ? 

Fortunately, I think away from the blinkered world of Hunt World, there are many quiet members of the public who silently support the RSPCA's work against illegal hunting and are happy to add their donations for the continuation of the charity's long history of taking animal cruelty cases to justice. 
Its nothing new or personal. This time it isn't working class men cock fighting. Perhaps that's why the hunt are so indignant about being brought before the courts ?


----------



## marmalade76 (21 December 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			Hunting is a real pain and always costing money.

When it was legal vast numbers of Police were deployed to protect them from the protesters, at the tax payers expense.

Now its illegal, a charity has to fund prosecutions. The CPS should have taken over this case and the others in the pipe line. Unless of course there is some political interference on behalf of the hunts.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, from what I've seen, the police are still being deployed to protect the hunt from 'monitors' and their balaclavad pals.


----------



## Countryman (21 December 2012)

I think the police presence before the ban was more to keep the two sides apart than protect the hunt - Almost always, hunts could deal with the protestors pretty 'robustly'!


----------



## Moomin1 (22 December 2012)

horserider said:



			You've noticed too ? 

Fortunately, I think away from the blinkered world of Hunt World, there are many quiet members of the public who silently support the RSPCA's work against illegal hunting and are happy to add their donations for the continuation of the charity's long history of taking animal cruelty cases to justice. 
Its nothing new or personal. This time it isn't working class men cock fighting. Perhaps that's why the hunt are so indignant about being brought before the courts ?
		
Click to expand...

That's the funny thing, pro hunters always seem to think that donators and supporters of the RSPCA would be horrified and upset at the fact their donations have been spent on hunt related cases etc, just because they disagree with it themselves.  They don't seem to grasp the fact that many RSPCA supporters will support the Hunting Ban and any prosecution which may be the result of it.


----------



## Pale Rider (22 December 2012)

Countryman said:



			I think the police presence before the ban was more to keep the two sides apart than protect the hunt - Almost always, hunts could deal with the protestors pretty 'robustly'!
		
Click to expand...

Yes I know what you mean, I witnessed some hunt supporters 'deal' with some young girls who were protesting one day.

I gave evidence against them and helped convict them of assault, cowardly bullies in my view.


----------



## AengusOg (22 December 2012)

horserider said:



			there are many quiet members of the public who silently support the RSPCA's work against illegal hunting and are happy to add their donations for the continuation of the charity's long history of taking animal cruelty cases to justice.
		
Click to expand...

That will be the driving force behind their taking such cases on with such fervour. They have to get their donations from somewhere, and where better than from the ill-informed masses who hysterically reach for their purses at the slightest whiff of 'Lord Snooty' and his awful dogs chasing cuddly foxes.



horserider said:



			Its nothing new or personal. This time it isn't working class men cock fighting.
		
Click to expand...

That's a bit ill-informed as well. If you knew anything about cock-fighting, you'd know that the 'working class men' were most often employed as handlers/feeders (cockers) to the aristocrats who bred and owned hundreds of cocks. Lord Derby had a particular strain of light reds which were famour for their tenacity and stamina.

Actually, the tenacity and determination of many of the working class men who fought in the wars prior to the demise of cock-fighting was widely attributed to the affinity they had with the fighting cocks of the day. Men who would look the enemy in the eye and fight to the last, were the same men who stood around the pits and wagered their money on fighting cocks. Mains were attended by men from all walks of life.

I don't condone cock-fighting (or wars) but I do keep a few old-fashioned game fowl, purely because they have become so rare since the law was passed to ban their fighting. The are, however, not so rare as brave, principled, hard-working men these days.


----------



## Pale Rider (22 December 2012)

AengusOg said:



			.



That's a bit ill-informed as well. If you knew anything about cock-fighting, you'd know that the 'working class men' were most often employed as handlers/feeders (cockers) to the aristocrats who bred and owned hundreds of cocks. Lord Derby had a particular strain of light reds which were famour for their tenacity and stamina.

Actually, the tenacity and determination of many of the working class men who fought in the wars prior to the demise of cock-fighting was widely attributed to the affinity they had with the fighting cocks of the day. Men who would look the enemy in the eye and fight to the last, were the same men who stood around the pits and wagered their money on fighting cocks. Mains were attended by men from all walks of life.

I don't condone cock-fighting (or wars) but I do keep a few old-fashioned game fowl, purely because they have become so rare since the law was passed to ban their fighting. The are, however, not so rare as brave, principled, hard-working men these days.
		
Click to expand...

Barmy, absolutely barmy.


----------



## Moomin1 (22 December 2012)

AengusOg said:



			That will be the driving force behind their taking such cases on with such fervour. They have to get their donations from somewhere, and where better than from the ill-informed masses who hysterically reach for their purses at the slightest whiff of 'Lord Snooty' and his awful dogs chasing cuddly foxes.



That's a bit ill-informed as well. If you knew anything about cock-fighting, you'd know that the 'working class men' were most often employed as handlers/feeders (cockers) to the aristocrats who bred and owned hundreds of cocks. Lord Derby had a particular strain of light reds which were famour for their tenacity and stamina.

Actually, the tenacity and determination of many of the working class men who fought in the wars prior to the demise of cock-fighting was widely attributed to the affinity they had with the fighting cocks of the day. Men who would look the enemy in the eye and fight to the last, were the same men who stood around the pits and wagered their money on fighting cocks. Mains were attended by men from all walks of life.

I don't condone cock-fighting (or wars) but I do keep a few old-fashioned game fowl, purely because they have become so rare since the law was passed to ban their fighting. The are, however, not so rare as brave, principled, hard-working men these days.
		
Click to expand...

Cockfighting is still going on in many areas.

And thank god they are caught too:
http://www.signal1.co.uk/news/local/winsford-man-convicted/


----------



## FfionWinnie (22 December 2012)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			I am very unsure that this is true. The Hunting Act seems to me to be criminal law. It may have been a private prosecution by the RSPCA but that would not mean that the guilty parties do not have a criminal record. 


Later edit, it does seem that like speeding offences, this offence does not give you a criminal record. It's not very clear, still looking for more info.



Animal cruelty prosecutions aren't, the RSPCA always do them.
		
Click to expand...

Both the RSPCA *and* the CPS, do them.


----------



## Judgemental (22 December 2012)

Pale Rider said:



			Hunting is a real pain and always costing money./QUOTE]

I wonder how many people read that and said, "yes the man has a point" as they rush round to get horses ready and to the meet on time, whilst today, if the weather is anything like that in the West Country being soaked in an hour.

Then to be lectured when they get to the meet that the hounds will be hunting within the law.

One does have to ask, is it all still worth it..........to go for what amounts to a quiet hack round the countryside and pay accordingly.

Only to get home to clean filthy horses, feed them, dry tack and clothes, really what is it all about now?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Alec Swan (22 December 2012)

ChristmasPTrees said:



			Thanks Ester, that does make some sense. I'm at a loss to see how they racked up those costs too!
		
Click to expand...

How?  That's easily answered,  "Vivid imaginations"!  Why?  As part of a fund raising campaign.



ChristmasPTrees said:



			......... the RSPCA do all except the major headline animal cruelty cases in Magistrate's Courts.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting that to the best of my knowledge,  those Farm and Livestock cases which appear before the Courts all seem to be promoted by Trading Standards,  which leads me to ponder over how The LACS and regarding their deer sanctuary (sic) at Baronsdown Wood,  have escaped the prosecuting attentions of Trading Standards,  The rspca and The CPS.

A question for those who support the rspca,  "Have you considered requesting of your charity,  just why they've ignored the appalling conditions under which the deer at Baronsdown suffer"?  If the rspca can give an acceptable explanation as to why they've neglected their duties,  then I may have a little respect for them.  I should point out here,  that shying away from taking on another charity,  wont be an acceptable excuse! 

Alec.


----------



## Countryman (22 December 2012)

Judgemental, there's an awful lot more you can do within the law than just go for a quiet hack around the country...I don't know if you've been hunting since the ban, but if you have I would suggest you try a different pack!


----------



## AengusOg (22 December 2012)

Judgemental said:



			as they rush round to get horses ready and to the meet on time, whilst today, if the weather is anything like that in the West Country being soaked in an hour.

Then to be lectured when they get to the meet that the hounds will be hunting within the law.

One does have to ask, is it all still worth it..........to go for what amounts to a quiet hack round the countryside and pay accordingly.

Only to get home to clean filthy horses, feed them, dry tack and clothes, really what is it all about now?
		
Click to expand...

It's what is was always about...tradition; being socially and collectively involved; enjoying the work of hounds and the skills of those who hunt them; riding over all sorts of terrain and obstacles; exchanging news and views; living, working and playing in the country; wildlife conservation; land management;...oh, and management of the fox population.


----------



## AengusOg (23 December 2012)

http://horsegossip.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=149896


----------



## Alec Swan (24 December 2012)

AengusOg said:



http://horsegossip.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=149896

Click to expand...

That's an excellent opening post,  and thank you for posting it.  One small problem though.  Those who blindly follow the rspca,  and donate vast sums to them,  never read of the realities.  When the rspca goes to its supporters,  and begs them to dig deep,  it's to save the poor little foxes from a death by torture.  The more that the rspca spend,  so the greater their perceived need,  and so the greater their donations.  It's an exercise in making money,  it has nothing to do with animal welfare,  and if it's possible,  even less to do with their stated principles.

There really should be a commission which looks into the "goings-on" of these animal charities,  and whilst they're at it,  they could have a look at the various wildlife trusts,  too.  

Alec.


----------



## Clodagh (26 December 2012)

Just hopping belatedly on this thread. I haven't even read it all but surely there are a few points to consider.
1. Hunting foxes with packs of dogs is basically illgal.
2. If there was only a small amount of illgal goings on does that make any difference.
3. If your car was being watched by CCTV and for 23 hours it was fine but for five minutes it was trashed would that make the CCTV less meaningful?


----------



## Judgemental (26 December 2012)

Clodagh said:



			Just hopping belatedly on this thread. I haven't even read it all but surely there are a few points to consider.
1. Hunting foxes with packs of dogs is basically illgal.
2. If there was only a small amount of illgal goings on does that make any difference.
3. If your car was being watched by CCTV and for 23 hours it was fine but for five minutes it was trashed would that make the CCTV less meaningful?
		
Click to expand...

Spelling is not one of your strong 'points'.

The word is *ILLEGAL*.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (26 December 2012)

AengusOg said:



			That will be the driving force behind their taking such cases on with such fervour. They have to get their donations from somewhere, and where better than from the ill-informed masses who hysterically reach for their purses at the slightest whiff of 'Lord Snooty' and his awful dogs chasing cuddly foxes.



That's a bit ill-informed as well. If you knew anything about cock-fighting, you'd know that the 'working class men' were most often employed as handlers/feeders (cockers) to the aristocrats who bred and owned hundreds of cocks. Lord Derby had a particular strain of light reds which were famour for their tenacity and stamina.

Actually, the tenacity and determination of many of the working class men who fought in the wars prior to the demise of cock-fighting was widely attributed to the affinity they had with the fighting cocks of the day. Men who would look the enemy in the eye and fight to the last, were the same men who stood around the pits and wagered their money on fighting cocks. Mains were attended by men from all walks of life.

I don't condone cock-fighting (or wars) but I do keep a few old-fashioned game fowl, purely because they have become so rare since the law was passed to ban their fighting. The are, however, not so rare as brave, principled, hard-working men these days.
		
Click to expand...

I think it is you, who is ill informed. Cock fighting is alive and well in the UK today, supported by people who believe spilling an animals blood for their pleasure is perfectly acceptable. Much like fox hunting, only cock fighting in the UK and around the world doesn't involve the cost of maintaining a horse on full livery while its townie owner lives in the city.
 Aristocrats have long had an affinity with killing animals for sport, of which breeding cocks is just a part, however, lesser mortals (unless for example, there are thousands of aristocratic families in the Phillipines ?) share the same lack of compassion, the world over. 

So, on the day on which, yet again, 76% of voters are against fox hunting and 81% against stag hunting, which is it ?- is it the riding and social aspects that entice you to hunt 8 yrs after the ban was introduced, or do you persist, spending time and expense each year only waiting for the day when foxes can be legally killed for your pleasure ?
 If its the former, then carry on with your trails and stop wingeing about changing a law only the blinkered few have a problem with.


----------



## Luci07 (26 December 2012)

horserider said:



			I think it is you, who is ill informed. Cock fighting is alive and well in the UK today, supported by people who believe spilling an animals blood for their pleasure is perfectly acceptable. Much like fox hunting, only cock fighting in the UK and around the world doesn't involve the cost of maintaining a horse on full livery while its townie owner lives in the city.
 Aristocrats have long had an affinity with killing animals for sport, of which breeding cocks is just a part, however, lesser mortals (unless for example, there are thousands of aristocratic families in the Phillipines ?) share the same lack of compassion, the world over. 

So, on the day on which, yet again, 76% of voters are against fox hunting and 81% against stag hunting, which is it ?- is it the riding and social aspects that entice you to hunt 8 yrs after the ban was introduced, or do you persist, spending time and expense each year only waiting for the day when foxes can be legally killed for your pleasure ?
 If its the former, then carry on with your trails and stop wingeing about changing a law only the blinkered few have a problem with.
		
Click to expand...

Not interested in the cock fighting discussion but would like to know where you got your figures from? I, for one wasn't asked?!!!


----------



## MerrySherryRider (26 December 2012)

Luci07 said:



			Not interested in the cock fighting discussion but would like to know where you got your figures from? I, for one wasn't asked?!!!
		
Click to expand...

Try the 10 o'clock news. No it wasn't only council estate town dwellers who were asked, the poll used the same criteria that all major polls use in our democratic society.
I think some London-living hunting folk had as much chance being asked for their opinion as born and bred country dwellers like me.


----------



## AengusOg (26 December 2012)

horserider said:



			which is it ?- is it the riding and social aspects that entice you to hunt 8 yrs after the ban was introduced, or do you persist, spending time and expense each year only waiting for the day when foxes can be legally killed for your pleasure ?
 If its the former, then carry on with your trails and stop wingeing about changing a law only the blinkered few have a problem with.
		
Click to expand...

I don't hunt. Never have. Probably never will.


----------



## Nancykitt (28 December 2012)

Moomince Pie said:



			The RSPCA are solely funded by donations. If a taxpayer wants to donate their money to support the RSPCA then that's up to them.  I assume donators are clued up as to what the RSPCA do, and agree with it.
		
Click to expand...

To go right back to page 1 here - it is foolish to 'assume that donators are clued up.' I speak from experience as I myself donated to the RSPCA for some years, based on their campaigns about tackling puppy farming, abuse of domestic animals, poor animal welfare practice in factory farming situations, etc. When I received a newsletter some time ago claiming that, thanks to the RSPCA, 'our beautiful wild foxes will be able to live in freedom without the threat of being hunted', I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. This sort of deliberate misleading of the public, in itself, should be illegal.

Most people I speak to are simply not aware that killing foxes is perfectly legal. I have been present when foxes in our area have been shot as they have launched an attack on livestock. This is perfectly legal, even if the fox isn't killed outright and spends days going through a slow painful death (luckily, on this occasion, the death was quick).
Other methods of killing foxes are perfectly legal too. The spotlight here is on hunting with hounds and it's all about politics and class issues. The RSPCA and several other 'anti' organisations are very good at giving the impression that foxes are now protected from being killed because of this law. Foxes are not protected from being killed - for good reason. 

Three months ago I came across an emaciated and very sick dog, wandering near to my house. I took it to the local vet and had it treated for an infection, but the vet said that the dog was a 'welfare case' and I should contact the RSPCA. When I phoned I was made to feel like a criminal - 'You took someone else's dog? You should be aware that this is not something we condone and the police may be paying you a visit.' The dog was returned to the 'owner' by the dog warden and the RSPCA took no further action, even after receiving the vet's report, because 'funds are limited.' Several of my friends, who had been regularly donating, have now stopped. They had absolutely no idea about how the RSPCA spends its money. The propaganda is extremely misleading. 

This is a vile organisation that uses emotive campaigning to mislead so that they can extract funds from people to spend on fighting political battles.


----------



## Luci07 (28 December 2012)

horserider said:



			Try the 10 o'clock news. No it wasn't only council estate town dwellers who were asked, the poll used the same criteria that all major polls use in our democratic society.
I think some London-living hunting folk had as much chance being asked for their opinion as born and bred country dwellers like me.
		
Click to expand...

Well I, too am a born and bred country person. And I DO support hunting. Having a farmer as an uncle, having had chickens as a child, having had the misfortune to run into a bunch of incredibly aggressive sabs years ago when I was only hacking..all made me support hunting. In fact I was (way before the hunting act) very much on the fence. The sabs made me rethink, look for myself and make my decision. In favour of hunting.


----------



## Nancykitt (28 December 2012)

And just to add that I was a council estate town dweller - infact I was born in a council house on the outskirts of a large city and did not move to a rural area until I was 42. I have made my own mind up based on all the evidence I've gathered. 
But while I was a 'council estate town dweller' I was exposed largely to the 'hunting is vile and cruel and carried out by people with more money than you' line - so in the days of yore, I would probably have voted against hunting. 

If we could be sure that every single person asked had full awareness of the same set of facts I would have more time for these polls.


----------



## Kittykins (28 December 2012)

Keimanp said:



			I think it is acceptable to break the law if provided the person breaking the law is aware of the consequences of their actions and deem it to be reasonable.
		
Click to expand...




horserider said:



			That is when Democracy ends and anarchy slips in the back door.
		
Click to expand...

People not breaking laws that are illiberal is where totalitarianism slips through the back door. There is a difference between laws which prevent, say, stealing, in which there is a victim, and laws which prevent people from doing something that other people happen not to like, which are essentially victimless. Therefore the morality behind breaking them is different.

Speeding is a grey area, as much of the time there is no potential victim (doing 75mph on a clear motorway in good conditions), but occaisionally there is (doing 35 in a built up area with poor visibility and where kids are playing). I'd speed in the first example but not the second, as would most people I'd guess.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 December 2012)

I_shot_Santa said:



			.......

A question for those who support the rspca,  "Have you considered requesting of your charity,  just why they've ignored the appalling conditions under which the deer at Baronsdown suffer"?  If the rspca can give an acceptable explanation as to why they've neglected their duties,  then I may have a little respect for them.  I should point out here,  that shying away from taking on another charity,  wont be an acceptable excuse! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

No answers?  No explanations?  Not a word?  Total silence?  

Thought so.

Alec.


----------

