# Is Otis Ferry fox hunting's worst enemy?



## cptrayes (27 December 2009)

Agghhh, it must make some of you who want the ban repealed boil with anger, never mind the antis. What possible good do the CA and/or Otis Ferry think it will do to have two pages of anti-anti rant published in the Sunday Times, including this gem:

"I'd just like to round them all up and get them in a Clockwork Orange-style cinema and try to clear this mental block they have."

People thought Simon Cowell was a problem, but he's not half as much of a problem as famously named  fox hunters coming out with stuff like that.


----------



## dorani (27 December 2009)

Just the sort of thing I would expect of them...the arrogance has to be seen to be belived! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Simon Cowell 1,CA.. nil. Oh I love it!!!!! :grin: :grin: :grin:


----------



## rosie fronfelen (27 December 2009)

it seems any tiny morsel of a chance to get in a dig at the hunting fraternity is quickly pounced upon- Otis is an overgrown schoolboy who needs to rapidly grow up i do admit, yes, he's doing no favours for the pro hunters but get a life for gods sake, and forget the sniping, just for once!!


----------



## Serenity087 (27 December 2009)

After decades of abuse from the mindless minority, are we not allowed to occasionally call them names?

Otis is the wildcard, but he says what we feel.  He's just another normal huntsman, who happens to have a famous daddy.

He feels the same frustration, anger and sadness that the rest of us do.  He is facing losing his job (although, perhaps not his career!) because of the whims of the class warriors.  

And he is young.  He freely admit he does some hot headed things, but when you've nothing to lose, you don't think these things through.


----------



## millitiger (27 December 2009)

i have to say i don't think he does anything to dispell the 'public schoolboy toff' image that 90% of the public have in mind when they think about the hunting fraternity.

the same way whenever the BBC et all interview a pro-hunting supporter they seem to have a silver spoon so far down their throat you can barely understand them.

perhaps the CA needs to put across a few more 'ordinary' people as the spokesmen for the sport?


----------



## Serenity087 (27 December 2009)

What, like Skiddaw Lad?

Might as well sound the death knell for hunting now!

Unfortunatly country types are notorious for being stereotypical extremes.  I go to uni with a bunch of farmers who either believe if you can drive a tractor over it, you should be seeding it (with or without the CAP reform!) and who have an unhealthy obsession with dairy cows...

Unfortunatly the countryside just doesn't have any representatives you could describe as normal!  Well, normal to the weird and wonderful city types anyway!


----------



## millitiger (27 December 2009)

um, not sure if that is directed at me Harpers Gal but it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me i'm afraid?

i live out in the country and know many people who could put their point across on tv and in newspapers without looking like an arse


----------



## cptrayes (27 December 2009)

But your cause depends on keeping people in the middle like me on your side, Harper-gal,  and having this stuff published is suicidal.  He has everything to lose - he has a repeal to lose and he is going about it just the right way.

The Countryside Alliance puzzle me too. The papers are also full of the argument "more people than ever turned out to watch the Boxing Day meets, therefore the ban should be repealed because it shows Joe Average does not agree with it" How? Surely it shows he DOES agree with the ban, if more of them are prepared to got to the meet??

I'm afraid we have months of this to argue about now, since Labour have chosen to make a Class War point out of it for the election and the Countryside Alliance are jumping on every bit of publicity they can get out of it (and as a marketer it looks to me like they are making a right hash of it on your behalf).

Does anyone know if they had any control/influence over Otis giving that interview to the Sunday Times, because that snippet was just a tiny taster of the whole? The reporter has clearly allowed him all the rope he needed to hang himself and his cause.


----------



## Dogstar (27 December 2009)

I haven't read the article yet but Otis has in the past given some good, intelligent interviews.


----------



## Eagle_day (27 December 2009)

"But your cause depends on keeping people in the middle like me on your side ..."

Oh, I think we'd be wasting our time.  Quite frankly one of our worst enemies is the naive JP, C P Trayes. No opportunity for a cheap dig at hunting proper goes unmissed. Even her own drag pack don't tell her their Boxing Day meet's cancelled.


----------



## kit279 (27 December 2009)

He might be just saying what everyone else is thinking but he's a bit daft to say it to a journo whose eyes are firmly on making snappy quotes that can be used to support the general public's view that hunting is about self righteous posh people who think they have a right to hunt... Not that I agree with that perception but if he thought that he was going to get a balanced and fair article out of that interview, he was extremely naive.

I'm sure cptrayes can defend herself but surely sniping amongst ourselves is rather against the spirit of the hunting fraternity, no??!


----------



## pixyandsweep (27 December 2009)

In his defence he has been through alot regarding anti's etc, so I should imagine by this point the situation is proving rather tiresome! Remarks such as that are probably created by utter frustration, as said, he has produced some very good interviews!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (27 December 2009)

i AM fully aware of how he is, not being naive myself, and i have been young and foolish in my time too!! i agree hes been through alot of unnecessary nonsense, just cos of who he is, but he needs to come down a peg or two as hes not helping  himself, also i dont think falling out amongst ourselves is helping the cause at all, we all have different opinions but lts agree to disagree on some of these points. i do tend to agree with S. lad concerning the CA,  the more info they send me and demands of ever increasing donations i dont feel they are representing the ordinary hunting person at all anymore.


----------



## dorani (27 December 2009)

I haven't read the article yet but Otis has in the past given some good, intelligent interviews.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah? I must have missed those!


----------



## dorani (27 December 2009)

it seems any tiny morsel of a chance to get in a dig at the hunting fraternity is quickly pounced upon- Otis is an overgrown schoolboy who needs to rapidly grow up i do admit, yes, he's doing no favours for the pro hunters but get a life for gods sake, and forget the sniping, just for once!!
		
Click to expand...

Oh per ..lease! hardly a tiny morsel!!!!


----------



## becks88 (28 December 2009)

anti-hunting people are saying the exact same thing though..but they don't come out publicly and say it.

They can't understand how the pro hunting groups don't see anything wrong with what they are doing.

Both groups are banging their heads against different sides of the same fence trying to get the other side to see their side.

but by the looks of things otis needs to hold his tounge,he's not doing the pro hunt group any favors,hes just giving more ammo to the antis.


----------



## cptrayes (28 December 2009)

anti-hunting people are saying the exact same thing though..but they don't come out publicly and say it.

They can't understand how the pro hunting groups don't see anything wrong with what they are doing.

Both groups are banging their heads against different sides of the same fence trying to get the other side to see their side.

but by the looks of things otis needs to hold his tounge,he's not doing the pro hunt group any favors,hes just giving more ammo to the antis.
		
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right about both points. I've read the article four times now because I can't believe he was stupid enough to say what he is quoted (and no doubt recorded) as saying. He is 27 not a child. 

"When I ask how far he would go [to support hunting] he says: 'blow myself up on a bus?'"   

Of course it was said with irony, but how crass can you get?


----------



## dorani (28 December 2009)

Stupidity comes in many forms.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (28 December 2009)

ok, you've made your point now just give it a rest.


----------



## turkana (29 December 2009)

I don't know Otis Ferry but he comes across as  everything the antis say all hunters are; privileged upbringing, self righteous,  thinks the laws of the land don't apply to him &amp; a is a bit of an idiot.
He's also too old to say he's young &amp; foolish, he's in his late twenties &amp; should know better.
The Countryside Alliance should try to keep him out of the press as much as possible as he isn't doing their cause any good at all.
As for the bus comment, he must be very, very stupid to say that.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (29 December 2009)

a very true and honest post, couldn't agree more!


----------



## MrWoof (29 December 2009)

..... all hunters are privileged upbringing, self righteous .....  

Hold Hard please.
I was under the impression that all we "hunters" were supposed to be singing from the same song-sheet?
Yes, OF may well be as quoted above but so are many other hunting people - and it is not actually a sin to have had a privileged upbringing. 
However, I would say that they are now far outnumbered by us "ordinary folk" (for want of a better phrase), who have to cut financial corners in other areas of our lives in order to keep the whole hunting show on the road. 
This sniping is exactly what the antis love to see - and they do exploit it to the best of their ability. 
I can only assume from their comments that "fuffy" is one of them - who have no experience whatsoever of trying to earn a living in the countryside.
Where IS Willy Poole when we need him?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (29 December 2009)

hi Mr Woof, i think turkana was quoting antis twaddle, not her/his own feelings here-(bloody hope so)else i would have replied differently. OF is in the "firing line" cos of who he is, and his silly antics haven't helped the cause at all- who knows on herewho might have a "priviledged" upbringing anyway!! could be you, me or the man on the moon- makes no odds. did you have a good christmas?


----------



## Fantastic_Mr_Fox (29 December 2009)

From an anti point of view I think Otis has constantly given hunting a bad name.  He is constantly in trouble for harrasing MP's, assualt (which includes women), drink driving, robbery and obviously for his part of storming the commons.  I seem to remember him on question time a few years ago where he made himself look a right plonker!

He is like a slightly posher version of Pete Docherty!!


----------



## Starbucks (29 December 2009)

Totally off topic but I read Fantastic Mr Fox last night - cool book!


----------



## MrWoof (29 December 2009)

I also constantly harrass my MP. 
Unfortunately for him, he only lives about 5 miles from me.
He now runs in Orange colours but when at University, was a card-carrying member of The CP.
I did, actually, send him a note and a pair of tweezers to extract the many splinters in his bum from sitting on the fence re: this particular issue. 
He tells people what they wish to hear - on many other subjects apart from this one. Some of which are very important to this constituency's rural communities.
As for OF storming The House of Commons. 
Very well done him - and the rest of the boys. 
As for your PD comment - it would be absolutely impossible to hunt a pack of hounds after consuming illegal substances. 
A Huntsman needs all his senses in full working order. 
An apology to OF is required on that particular point please.


----------



## Fantastic_Mr_Fox (29 December 2009)

It amazes me how you can stick up for him really, but then its each to their own I suppose!

I certainly wont be apologising Im afraid! I see him as a vile person (hunter or not). I just wonder if you would be so supportive if it had been any other support group who had stormed parliament that day? I dont think they would have got away so leniently either!!

Anyhow, I think Otis's antics will catch up with him one day............


----------



## Walrus (29 December 2009)

I've just had a read of the article and I have to say he comes across in that as a bit of a plank. Yes I understand he's frustrated and of course there is always the chance that he has been mis-interpreted / skewed by the press / interviewer depending on their agenda. But assuming that interview was fairly well impartial to allow Otis to say his piece they didn't need to help him make an idiot of himself - talk about handing him the rope to allow him to hang himself!

he may well be frustrated by the current situation as are many of us but IMO in that interview he came across as portraying many of the stereotypes assocaited with hunting - the insular, holier-than-thou, public school toff. That is not an image that needs to be fed to the press and neither is it an image that needs to. I've only started hunting this season (and on foot at that) but the majority of people I have seen would portray a better image than Otic - sensible, hard-working, fun, eloquent and informed. Of course people camapigning about a cause are going to get passionate and het up when talking about it, that's only natural but at the same time there is a difference between spouting what only amounts to drivel that will make you and your cause look ridicuous and then there is presenting an informed argument that even when it is said with passion still makes sense!


----------



## MrWoof (29 December 2009)

I am not "sticking up" for anyone. 
It is just my opinion that we hunters (this very obviously does not include you), should all be singing from the same song-sheet. 
You see OF as "a vile person" - but do you know him personally? 
NO. You do not, so are in no position whatsoever to comment.
Suggest a zip is now in order please as OF does love his hounds and his hunting - and his heart is, very obviously, in the right place.
Rather too verbose he may well but "vile" - no way.


----------



## Fantastic_Mr_Fox (29 December 2009)

I honestly dont think you necessarily have to know someone personally to be able to form an opinion of them! Do you know Otis personally?


----------



## MrWoof (29 December 2009)

Hear, hear Salimali.
I gave up upon hearing what the (then) CA's CEO was raking in per annum - which really was a totally obscene salary pro rata.
Also, one particular (now ex) CA Official was spending far, far more time making a quid or two whilst dealing in Ireland, than on any CA work. 
The current incumbent does not appear to be any more honourable - but just loves wearing "the CA Hat" to show off.
The CA should not be a gravy train for salaried employees. However, the "volunteers" I know cannot be faulted in any shape or form.


----------



## turkana (29 December 2009)

Salimali
You're right, I know that's not the case but Otis Ferry does more for the antis cause than the HSA &amp; their ilk could ever do, they must love him!
If he wants to help he needs to wind his neck in.


----------



## MrWoof (29 December 2009)

YES - one does have to know someone personally to form an honest opinion of their character. 
Hearsay - most of the time, is mendacious.
What some people post on here does not necessarily portray how they treat their family, friends, animals, charities, waifs and strays, et al.


----------



## cptrayes (29 December 2009)

How would fox hunting people feel about splitting off from the CA? Might you have a better chance of repeal of the ban on hunting with hounds if it was not linked with hare coursing and shooting game birds?  I would have thought so, myself.  I know that the idea was strength in numbers and to present a united voice for "The Countryside", but I don't think it's working well for fox hunters, whose sport does have a serious purpose at heart.


----------



## turkana (29 December 2009)

I think calling him vile is a bit strong, he might be a perfectly nice person but he comes across in the press as a bit of a cartoon like character.
I'm not sure where the Pete Doherty comparison came from, as far as I know he's not a junkie is he?


----------



## MrWoof (29 December 2009)

The "vile person" comment and the comparison to PD came from Fantastic Mr Fox - NOT myself.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (29 December 2009)

as i've said before,the CAdoesn't represent the ordinary man of the country anymore, its gone very glossy, costs a fortune to be a participant, and seems to support the shooters and fishing folk more than the hunters- i've thought this since the ban came in, if they carry on as such i will be pulling out. we as  family belong to theunion of country sport workers who have a cracking little magazine out every so often- well worth it!!


----------



## countrygirl45 (29 December 2009)

Afraid CA has gone the way of the CLA and the NFU. They only look after the big names and those with plenty of dosh. When you want simple advice they are as much use as a fart in a bottle!! and very expensive to boot!


----------



## marmalade76 (30 December 2009)

the problem with the likes of harper-gal (who go to an expensive agricultural college to learn  how to screw the farmers in both ways
		
Click to expand...

PMSL!!


----------



## camilla4 (30 December 2009)

I think calling him vile is a bit strong, he might be a perfectly nice person but he comes across in the press as a bit of a cartoon like character.
I'm not sure where the Pete Doherty comparison came from, as far as I know he's not a junkie is he?
		
Click to expand...

I'd agree with most of that.  I like Otis, or what I know of him, and I believe he is genuinely passionate about his cause.  Whilst he doesn't always put his point of view across in the most constructive manner (!), I certainly think that calling him vile is a little strong - I may disagree with someone's views, but that doesn't mean I have any issue with them as a person.


----------



## cptrayes (30 December 2009)

It might depend on Turkana's ethnicity and whether or not she actually read the article whether she is entitled to call Otis Ferry "vile" or not. He also referred to not wanting "Mrs Punjab" to have the right to come and live in Britain, strongly inferring that Asian people living here are at least partly responsible for spoiling the way of life in this country.  Someone needs to shut him up if you want to hunt fox legally again!


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (30 December 2009)

Well, he's undoubtedly a prat. Invading the House of Commons could easily have shown the way for less silly but much more dangerous individuals. We may dislike many Members of that House but, thank God, we British have more peaceful means of protest and a democratic system that will soon put them to the test. Many country votes will go to those whom Mr Ferry opposes and, in South East Cambridgeshire, they may go to the undersigned who will be on an independent and anti-hunting and anti-hare coursing ticket.

http://woollard4southeastcambs.blogspot.com/

Geoffrey Woollard


----------



## MrWoof (30 December 2009)

I really do not think that this is the place to be "campaigning" Mr Woollard. 
I also suspect that HHO will not be too impressed either.
You very obviously are NOT a gentleman.


----------



## cptrayes (30 December 2009)

Mr Woof! You don't comment on someone who leave a post with every revolting swearword under the sun in it, and then call a man who leaves a civilised posting with nothing remotely provocative in it "not a gentleman".  Come on now, that's hardly fair is it?


edit: I see the post to which I am referring has been removed, and if you did not see it then  I withdraw that part of my comment.


----------



## MrWoof (30 December 2009)

..... nothing remotely provocative ..... 

You read this post the same as I did.
Exactly whose corner are you fighting here? 
I know you are a member of the "lurex brigade" but I have now, sadly, come to the conclusion that you really are an anti.
What I was objecting to was the fact that this prospective MP, who appears to be anti everything countryside-ish,  actually had the bloody cheek to "campaign" on the HHO website.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (30 December 2009)

why is this directed at me? and who are you!!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (30 December 2009)

i'm confused! what post is all this referring to????


----------



## cptrayes (30 December 2009)

Report  him if you think he' s used the board wrongly, but he wasn't impolite.  He's campaigning as an anti - that's a fact, and his right, but his post is not provocative. He didn't even use it as a chance to justify his views. He states that he is anti hare coursing and fox hunting. You extrapolate that to "everything countryside-ish", an interpretation which is unreasonable unless you know more about  Mr Woollard than he writes. HHO and H&amp;H have many users who will agree with his point of view.  I would myself be unhappy about a resumption of hare coursing. 

I'm not fighting anyone's corner. I'm on the side of a free and open discussion without unnecessary rudeness.  I've had great fun while snowed in during this awful weather by joining in discussions on HHO.  I have learned stuff that has made me understand where fox hunters are coming from even if I still wouldn't want to join them.

I'm trying now to work out what happens next. One of two things:

1) The law is not repealed. 

In this case, I predict that the LACS or the RSPCA will take over prosecutions under the hunting act. I'm not sure whether people are aware that animal cruelty is not prosecuted by the state in this country, but by the RSPCA as a private prosecution. There is nothing to stop them prosecuting hunters, with the help of the LACS and increasingly sophisticated camera and recording equipment. Police time will not be taken up, but the Act will be upheld, the antis are simply not going to let the act wither and die now they have it in place.


2) The law is repealed.

In this case, I predict that we go back to the mayhem that we had previously, only worse. The Antis will go to war against fox hunters. Only with better and better technology they will have an  easier time of causing disruption and upset (for example, all they now need to do to get hundreds of cars to impede your meet is to bulk text them a postcode to use with their Satnav app. on their Blackberry.)

I just can't see an end to your fight, no matter what happens to the law. It's not a comfortable vision of the future - has anyone got a better one?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (30 December 2009)

being bit of a simpleton i cant make my mind up about him, he's obviously anti hare coursing but hunting- not sure!! i do agree that he shouldn't be campaigning on here- just my view!!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (30 December 2009)

ah ha!! having just read his blog Mr. Geoffrey Woollard is most definitely an anti- he is entitled to his views but am not sure this is the place!! i'd like to know why his post was aimed at me- perhaps he would like to enlighten me-


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (30 December 2009)

Yes, Mr Woollard is anti alright. Having seen fox hunting and hare coursing banned, he's anti them being 'un-banned' because he believes in progress. The Hunting Act 2004 must not be repealed or otherwise undone. If anything, it needs strengthening so that we can be sure that chasing and killing wild animals for fun is clearly and for ever unlawful and regarded by all with well-deserved revulsion. If Cameron, Hague, Herbert, etc., think that repeal of the Act would be a vote winner in rural areas, they are very much mistaken. They should, at the very least, let sleeping dogs lie. 

And, as for this being 'the place,' he is grateful to Horse and Hound for it still allowing free speech. G.W.


----------



## irish_only (30 December 2009)

Oh dear, still so many misconceptions about the hunting fraternity, and on this forum of all places. 
For me, one of the biggest problems has always been that the hunting bill was seen as about the foxhunting fraternity. What the politicians who did not take part in the debates but still voted  for the ban, did not understand was the VAST number of lurcher and terrier owners. Ordinary folk, living ordinary lives, in ordinary houses and taking their dogs out to do what dogs do naturally. I know this because my OH spoke to the MP for Chesterfield who sat on the hunting committee (previously they worked together) and when said MP was asked about how they would stop the lurcher or terrier man hunting post ban, the MP asked what a lurcher was. THIS is the kind of bigotry that was being faced and still is. 
I started hunting when I was approx 20 and had argued the morality of it with myself (I am a softy at heart), I'm not born with a silver spoon in mouth, dad was a lorry driver and I begged and borrowed rides for years until I could afford to buy my own neddy. I LOVE to see dogs doing what they are supposed to do, whether it be a hound, lurcher, terrier or a Lab retreiving. The CA is right, the majority don't give a fig about hunting, and playing this repeal game is going to be a tightrope walk, not making too much of it but pushing it through quietly but firmly. Let's all do what we can?
(Sorry, finished waffling now)


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (30 December 2009)

"You very obviously are NOT a gentleman."

I just love this one. It reminds me of when I attended a pro-hunting, etc., 'fringe' meeting at a Conservative Party Conference several years back (before I left 'the nasty party' and started describing myself as independent). The meeting was chaired by the late Bill Deedes and others on the panel were Robin Page, whom I have known and liked for many years, and Henry Bellingham, M.P. I heckled one of them - it may have been Bellingham himself - and he remarked that I was 'not sound.' I have dined out on that one for years. 

The thing is, is Henry Bellingham 'sound'? Answers on the back of a postage stamp, please.


----------



## humph (30 December 2009)

What an interesting post.

I agree that OF probably does more harm than good, but I fear that that is the case of many pro hunters, many of whom I've felt upset by in this forum because they reinforce the belief that the hunting fraternity comprises pompous and aloof fools.  On that note, I agree with Skiddaw Lad and the like who wish to see more normal country folk interviewed with regards to hunting, those with whom the masses of the voting public can relate to, and can dispel the myth that hunting is a pursuit for the toffs alone.

Having said that, I also get very upset when the "upper classes" get cursed for their involvement.  Many of them do speak well (by which I mean fluently and sensitively rather than with silver spoon in their mouths) which makes for a better interview from the interviewers point of view.  I sadly agree that the general public doesn't warm to the "toffs" and this public perception deeply saddens me as it is an extreme form of  discrimination that would not be tolerated by any other minority group and would be deemed by the government as politically incorrect if it were any other minority that was treated as such.

With regards the Cambridge candidate (forgive me if you are already an MP, I can't refer back to it from this page), I agree that he has every right to his views but I also suspect that his campaigning would be deemed as a form of advertising and that, surely, is not acceptable on this public forum?

With regards CPTrayes (at least I think it was her/his?) post, what happens next? who knows?  If the act isn't repealled, I don't believe that the RSPCA being prosecutors would make any difference as the law itself is flawed.  So many cases have been raised and come to nothing because the government rushed it through (albeit wasting far too much parliamentary time in the process) in their dictatorial manner and, as a result, created a flawed and unworkable law.  If the law is repealled, I agree that it could increase the level of friction only because the boot will be on the other foot, with the more law abiding fraternity now having the backing of the law.  Having said that, even if the saboteurs do create havoc with a rentamob, what could they do without breaking any laws themselves?

Sorry, have got a bit carried away with this..... congrats if you've managed to read this much without falling asleep!


----------



## humph (30 December 2009)

Since I posted last "saynotoharecoursing" has also replied and I have one question I'm interested to hear your reply to.  You describe fox hunting as chasing and killing wild animals for fun yet seemingly ignore the importance of fox hunting for the benefit of the fox population as a whole.  I am the biggest softee when it comes to animal welfare but I therefore believe in researching the facts in the greatest minutae.  

The fox has no superior predator because the human population has wiped them out.  As a result, if they aren't culled by humans their population will increase infinitely and their demise will thus be by disease offering them a nasty slow death without any respite from it by predation of the most natural kind, survival of the fittest.  

So, to counteract this, there is no doubt that humans need to undertake some form of culling of the fox population.  I would be delighted if someone could offer an alternative to hunting that provided the same swift and natural death, offered the natural opportunity for survival of the fittest and didn't risk any nasty slow and prolonged deaths from gangreen and the like which would result from methods such as shooting foxes.


----------



## JanetGeorge (30 December 2009)

A couple of points - it's a bu**er not being able to use quotes properly in this forum:

I think most people involved in hunting know where I stand on the subject - I hunted for years, I spent 6 years working for the BFSS/now CA as a Press Spokesman defending all well-run field sports - and my husband is an MFH (and he's not a toff!!)

Otis:  He's passionate about his hunting, his horses and his hounds.  He can't help having a pop star daddy and a priveleged upbringing, and he probably can't help the fact that his passion often over-rules his brain, letting his mouth go into over-drive!  If he'd been an MFH at the time I was with the CA, he would have been GAGGED!  Or at least required to undergo Media training!

For the benefit of those who don't know, particularly our newcomer - the anti-hunt Independent Candidate - the 'invasion' of the House of Commons was NOT planned.  The intention was to find an empty office and stage a sit-in!  Security at the House of Commons is SO cr*p that Otis and his colleagues stumbled unwittingly onto the floor of the House!  Frankly, they did MPs a favour, because if a bunch of bumbling country lads could manage it by accident, I'm damn sure any bunch of terrorists who wanted to wipe out the PM could also have managed it!!  As a result of the 'incident' security at the House has been tightened right up and MPs are far safer!

Ref the CA:  a former short-lived CE of the CA sacked me (with the backing of the Board) so I have no particularly good reason to stand up for it.  However, I WILL stand up for the current CE who worked his way up through the ranks (he started with the CA as an Area Press Officer) and is totally committed to hunting!!

Of course the CA has support from a lot of upper-crust toffs (who put a LOT of money into the cause.)  But EVERY member of the CA can get the same excellent advice and help from the Legal Helpline or the various departments of the CA.  The BFSS was always criticised for being TOO active on hunting - and not active enough where the other field sports were concerned.  That was partly because hunting was the sport under attack - shooting and fishing were 'safe' as long as hunting continued.  But shooting and fishing have the same enemies!

And as for taking hunting 'independent' of the other field sports, frankly, that's a crazy idea!  It's been tried in the past (who remembers the National Hunting Club!)  Hunting NEEDS the CA - and its excellent political office - JUST as much as the CA needs hunting!

And for Mr. Anti-hunt Independent Candidate - do you REALLY think you can win a seat on the anti-hunt platform??  The vast majority of voters may disapprove of hunting, but the vast majority wouldn't cross the road to sign an anti-hunt petition, let alone select a candidate on the issue!

Independent MPs are like hen's teeth.  Yes, Richard Taylor got in on the 'Save Kidderminster Hospital' ticket - but EVERY voter in the Wyre Forest was behind him on that issue AND felt strongly about it!  And he stayed in 2nd time around because he's a fantastic local MP.  But a 'failed' (sorry, disillusioned!) Tory standing against a popular sitting Tory MP on very little more than the anti-hunt issue has NO show!  But good luck to you - hope you don't lose your deposit!


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (30 December 2009)

"So, to counteract this, there is no doubt that humans need to undertake some form of culling of the fox population."

This is where we part company, I'm sorry to say. 

I farmed until the mid-1990s some 900 acres and never found a need to do anything about foxes. I kept a flock of sheep and never, so far as I am aware, had lambs taken by foxes. Neither my other livestock nor my household pets were harmed or taken by foxes. There are foxes in the first-class farming area where I live now and nobody, so far as I am aware, takes any action against them.


----------



## cptrayes (30 December 2009)

Humph the death is not swift, there is frequently a prolonged chase before the kill. Not to mention putting terriers in to get a fox that has gone to ground. Hardly a swift end. And the natural opportunity for survival of the fittest is also an "opportunity" to have to run for your life time and time again until the day that you are too slow to win. It's not balanced to compare being cleanly shot with a one-off experience of being hunted. The fox that lives will be hunted again. 

Good shooting and lamping is quick and clean, as experienced gunmen (one previously a fox hunter) on here have confirmed. Hunting will not stop bad shooting. As shooters have pointed out, most foxes were shot even when hunting was legal. If hunting would stop bad shots with inadequate guns half killing foxes, then you would have a very sound humanitarian argument, but that will still happen as it did before. 

I haven't heard anyone yet argue against culling fox as vermin, but I haven't heard an argument that convinces me that it can be done better by using hounds than by a decent lamper. If anyone could provide one I would support the repeal wholeheartedly.

Salimali I do agree with you that Mr Woollard should not use this forum for campaigning for election, but I do hope that your statement "he is entitled to his views but am not sure this is the place" does not apply to his anti views? Plenty of H&amp;H readers will be antis who have every right to hear them.


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (30 December 2009)

"But a 'failed' (sorry, disillusioned!) Tory standing against a popular sitting Tory MP on very little more than the anti-hunt issue has NO show! But good luck to you - hope you don't lose your deposit!"

Ouch!

There is also the little matter of Afghanistan (I support 'our boys' but I oppose them being there) and a number of local issues that are likely to make the election in South East Cambridgeshire (not Cambridge itself, please note) - how shall we say it? Ah, 'interesting'!


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (30 December 2009)

P.S. We're getting way away from Otis Ferry. How about I volunteer to be fox hunting's worst enemy?


----------



## SueEllen (30 December 2009)

Irish_only, Humph and Janet George I agree, you've put it better than I could. 
Cptrayers I do see your point about thinking more than one step ahead (which I think is what your getting at).


----------



## JanetGeorge (30 December 2009)

There are foxes in the first-class farming area where I live now and nobody, so far as I am aware, takes any action against them.
		
Click to expand...

Wellif there are NO shoots in your area, that MIGHT be true!  (Although from conversations with some Cambridgeshire hunting folk, I understand that Cambridgeshire is not overly endowed with foxes!)  However, EVERY game shoot in the country takes regular and efficient action against foxes - usually by stealth and at night - with snares and rifles.  In fact I remember a very active LACS member from that area who left LACS when he came to the conclusion (from working in forestry) that there was FAR more snaring on properties that didn't have hunting, than on farms/estates that welcomed the hunt.  As he felt snaring was FAR worse than hunting, he left LACS to join Jim Barrington's Wildlife Network.

As you are such a good friend of Robin Page, you will know that Robin supports foxhunting - to the degree where he has appeared in public debates supporting hunting.  Robin is a devoted conservationist and KNOWS predator control is essential to conservation, and believes foxhunting is the most humane and environmentally friendly method of fox population management!


----------



## humph (30 December 2009)

That's most likely because the farms in Cambridgeshire (forgive me for assuming that's where you farmed) are so enormous that they have stripped out all hedgerows so as to enable their oversized farm machinery space to manoeuvre that they have no wildlife whatsoever as their environment has been decimated.

If that's the hygienic and lifeless countryside that you seek to create throughout this green and pleasant land (albeit with an ill, mangey and ailing fox population), then that boosts my reasoning for being avidly pro hunting.

Janet, thank you for posting that.  That's fascinating - I never knew that the storming of the house of commons was unplanned as such. Your post was not only interesting but enlightening.


----------



## cptrayes (30 December 2009)

Irish_only, Humph and Janet George I agree, you've put it better than I could. 
Cptrayers I do see your point about thinking more than one step ahead (which I think is what your getting at).
		
Click to expand...

I just can't see an end to it SueEllen, and it's not a nice picture either way. There just doesn't seem to be any middle ground for anyone to meet on. It really does seem to come down in the end to "we believe it's right" and "we believe it's wrong". In an argument like that it would be normal to leave the status quo, but unfortunately for hunters with hounds Labour wanted some votes and it was popular with Labour voters. It's a right can of worms now, and no mistake!


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (30 December 2009)

"As you are such a good friend of Robin Page, you will know that Robin supports foxhunting"

I said that I know and like Robin, but he and I don't agree with regard to fox hunting.


----------



## humph (30 December 2009)

oh come on how can you say death isnt swift with hounds ? , we come up to this again and again , have you ever seen a fox killed close up i.e within 3ft of you at ground level ? is it not very quick ? [/quote]

Thank you Skiddaw Lad, you've said exactly what I would have said!  Equally, shooting foxes doesn't differentiate between the healthy fox and the ill fox, therefore not offering the natural selection that hunting does and it relies heavily on having a good shot.  

With hunting with dogs, the fox either escapes unharmed or it dies, a quick and complete death.  If shot at, the fox either survives, the shot having missed, it survives wounded, probably to die a slow and painful death, or, if it was lucky to have been reached by a good shot, it has instant death.  Fox hunting eliminates that miserable middle option.

The prolonged chase that you talk about is not necessarily stressful, I've seen masses of video footage of foxes being hunted where they stop to calmly look around, assess the situation and react accordingly - that's hardly the panicked image that you portray of a hunted fox.  As I said before, the fit and healthy foxes will get away.

Although I abhor the lack of natural selection that it affords, I agree that GOOD shooting and lamping probably results in a swift death but I fear the increase in shooting foxes that a continuation of the ban will attract as this will undoubtedly result in a reduction of the quality of the shot and thus an increase in the injured foxes suffering mindlessly in agony for days until the gangreen takes over.  Sadly there is no guarantee that foxes will always be shot at by good shots.

Bad hounds hunting a fox will mean the odds of survival of that fox are greater, whilst a bad shot aiming at the fox will most probably result in an injured fox.  You said it yourself, that "good shooting" and a "decent lamper" and sadly that's the stipulation which cannot be guaranteed.


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (30 December 2009)

"That's most likely because the farms in Cambridgeshire (forgive me for assuming that's where you farmed) are so enormous that they have stripped out all hedgerows so as to enable their oversized farm machinery space to manoeuvre that they have no wildlife whatsoever as their environment has been decimated.

If that's the hygienic and lifeless countryside that you seek to create throughout this green and pleasant land (albeit with an ill, mangey and ailing fox population), then that boosts my reasoning for being avidly pro hunting."

Yes, I farmed in Cambridgeshire (and still do on a very modest scale) and all three of my farms have the exact layout (with hedges, etc.) now as they had at the time of the respective Inclosure Acts.

And I can assure you that, where I live now (in the Fens close by the River Cam) is as rich in wildlife as anyone would wish.


----------



## JanetGeorge (30 December 2009)

"P.S. We're getting way away from Otis Ferry. How about I volunteer to be fox hunting's worst enemy? "

Too late - sadly there are at LEAST 10 MFH's already doing the job far better than you could!

"unfortunately for hunters with hounds Labour wanted some votes and it was popular with Labour voters. It's a right can of worms now, and no mistake! "

Actually, that's not quite true.  Blair and his 'inner circle'were ready to let the bill, as amended by the Lords, go through,  but they were facing a rebellion from their back-benchers on an important issue, so allowed the Parliament Act to be used (quite incorrectly!) to push the original bill through - to BUY back-bench support!  (Which is why we ended up with such a useless bit of legislation!)


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (30 December 2009)

"vote AWB"

I had to google that. Do you mean 'Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging'? 

If so, I have always felt sorry for the Boers: we treated them badly.

(This is even further from Otis Ferry!).


----------



## cptrayes (30 December 2009)

Does anyone have any stats for what proportion of  fox deaths used to be from hunting with hounds, snaring and shooting?  Likewise, some stats on numbers of foxes which die later from gunshot wounds are crucial to this discussion. I have ridden in the countryside for over 30 years and lived in an area with very active lamping for 19 and I have never seen a fox injured by gunshot, just plenty of healthy ones and some road kill.

I always understood, perhaps wrongly, that one of the main arguments put forward for continuing hunting with hounds was that so few foxes are actually caught?  It that was true, then it would not support the argument for resuming hunting with hounds on humanitarian grounds, but is it true?

Humph I include the chase in the definition of the kill to judge whether it is swift, purely on the basis of the foxes that I have personally seen running when I have hunted. They looked to me as if they were running for their lives and on that basis I decided that fox hunting was not for me. I notice also that you do not comment on digging out and putting terriers in. And we haven't discussed cubbing, where the cubs are trapped inside a copse by a ring of riders and the hounds are put into the copse to kill as many as they can. None of those can be described as a quick death, surely?

I get the point on natural selection, but I see it balanced by The Gunman's point that he is shooting the actual fox causing the farmer's problem. I get the point about death from after-effects of shooting but see it balanced by repeated chases throughout the lifetime of a fox and the possibility of being dug out with spades or dragged out by terriers to be shot or thrown to the hounds. 

I see the chasm between antis and pros but I see no way to close it


----------



## cptrayes (30 December 2009)

Skiddaw Lad, The Gunman described how he lays in wait at the place the fox attacks. That's how he knows it's the right one.

Cubbing? Well people have been saying how the fox has a 70% chance of escape, but no-one has mentioned cubbing, where riders surround a copse and make lots of noise to drive cubs back into a copse when they are trying to escape the hounds that have been put in to kill them. It's not balanced to mention 70% escape of adult foxes without mentioning cubbing.

I take your point that foxes have gone somewhere to hide and die, but I am confused about why you are seeing them under hedges  and my  friends and  I are not, (if they are there) when we ride all over the hills.

"Cruel" is not a word I have ever used in this discussion, so please don't quote me as having done so.


----------



## humph (31 December 2009)

Skiddaw Lad, I nominate you as Otis Ferry's replacement.  From what I gather, you are a normal countryman, with whom I would imagine people can relate, obviously well educated in the ways of the countryside and bursting with knowledge and able to put your point across fluently and without antagonism.  Janet, how can we get this man in the public eye?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (31 December 2009)

MR. WOOLLARD, try answering my questions for a start, if you wish to become an MP then you will need this ability! also, try coming to the hilly regions of Wales where sheep farming is sacrosanct, find out the opinions on the ban etc. you might have a more informed view on sheep farming.


----------



## cptrayes (31 December 2009)

Skiddawlad you don't ride, and therefore you may not know that because we are on horseback wild animals do not fear us and we see many kestrels, buzzards, one kite, barn owls, little owls, foxes, badgers (including red ones), stoats, mink (unfortunately), deer (wonderfully) and hare (magically) at close range. If I can spot a 4 inch long leveret nest in long grass, then it is a mystery to me, if there are foxes lying around dying of gunshot wounds, why in 19 years I have never seen one.

What I do as an unpaid voluntary job to help my community has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. JPs are ALL ordinary people, bricklayers, nurses, teachers - try it - you might find it enjoyable to give something back to your community.


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (31 December 2009)

I thought that I had answered you, salimali. I readily admit that my sheep farming experience is only in the 'hilly' regions of Cambridgeshire (with pedigree Suffolks and Hampshire Downs). But there were (and are) foxes around and we had no trouble from them.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (31 December 2009)

no, you hadn't answered my question at all as well you know, 
(dare i say it, a typical politician-)you are lucky that you never had fox problems but then we are talking of a totally different way of life and terrain. the breed of sheep is immaterial- i accept the fact that you are anti hunting of course but it makes not the slightest bit of difference to our way of life and the fox population(which is a bit too healthy around here!)will be kept under control in the way it has been for generations before us.


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (31 December 2009)

I see now. I actually answered you in the third person - see #5175933 on page 3 of this discussion.

Oh, and have a good New Year!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (31 December 2009)

do not patronise me!i know full well what you wrote on page 3, it was no answer to my questions and i couldnt care less what goes on in the House,its nothing different from how it was in the early 1900s when my great grandfather was there, ( i'm not just an ignorant welsh hill farmer you see!)i wish you a happy new year and hopefully there wont be over much campaigning on these forums.


----------



## cptrayes (31 December 2009)

probably because you dont want to , try living in south cheshire then you will find them . 
you being a jp has everything to do with this , you are supposd to be an impartil judge of things but you only believe what you want and not any evidence from other people
		
Click to expand...

I do live in South Cheshire, in an area where there is a lot of lamping, a daytime shooting club, and every farmer has a shotgun and there is no fox hunting with hounds. I would notice a red creature lying half dead somewhere because my own cat is red and fox size and I would be concerned that it was him.


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (31 December 2009)

I'm not patronising you, honest!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (31 December 2009)

thank you for that at least,you must be an exception to the rule being an "honest" wannabe MP!!


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (31 December 2009)

You've made my day - no, my year. Thanks, salimali!


----------



## cptrayes (1 January 2010)

I'm so sorry Skiddaw Lad, I mistook living on the southern border of Cheshire not four miles from the Staffordshire boundary to the south of me as being in south. I am of course East Cheshire. But why there should be fewer shot fox corpses around here, where shooting is absolutely rife, than in South Cheshire, is rather beyond me I'm afraid.

It's  a shame it's too frozen to hunt today or I would have better things to do with my time than sit here splitting hairs with you.


----------



## dorani (1 January 2010)

This is so the right place for a discussion such as this.Hunting wild animals with dogs is both archaic and barbaric and should be left in the past with other pastimes such as sending little boys up chimneys and dunking "witches"

There is no way I would vote Labour in the next election because of their appalling record but neither would I vote Tory if they intend to placate a few by repealing the hunting act. I want a party who will put a proper ban in place, a party that can think for itself.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (1 January 2010)

better follow Mr.Woollard then!!i cant see why you bother objecting sooo highly on what is a hunting forum- you aren't "discussing"at all, you are insulting and immature in your reasoning. what i would call a wind up merchant!


----------



## dorani (2 January 2010)

You are showing your youth and immaturity salimali! I see no insults???? and where better a place than a hunting forum to find aggressive pro's who can only resort to name calling in place of proper recourse.
Rather like Otis Ferry , is it not!!? "Just ride roughshod over them all...soon change there minds."

I follow whom I choose. Free thinking individuals who have USED their imagination not just spoonfed tripe from birth and never had an independant thought  only to follow, bleating, where others go ahead.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (2 January 2010)

considering my age i think not,you insult hounds for a start by caling them dogs, also to say hunting is archaic and barbaric i showing your ignorance too, and you other little comments. i neither know nor care what equestrian sports you take part in and/or support but i wouldn't make rediculous comments on it as i probably wouldn't have that particular knowledge.DO NOTinsult mein saying i have been spoonfed tripe from birth and have led a very independent life thank you very much! you know nothing whatsoever about me so give it a rest.by the way, what is this name calling you accuse me of, if it was the fact you are a wind up merchant, well, thats just what you are!!


----------



## combat_claire (2 January 2010)

And from someone who lives in the neighbouring constituency to the one you intend to fight, do you really think that hunting features in the top ten priorities that the average voter has in mind. We are facing a decade of cuts and higher taxes that is pretty much unprecedented, members of the Royal Anglian regiment our local infantry regiment are being killed fighting a messy war in Afghanistan, we have MPs who can't even be trusted to do their expense forms correctly, hospital trusts reliant on donations and the main plank of your manifesto appears to rest on attacking hunting. 

I'll be honest with you, I am unashamedly pro-hunting, I want to see the ban repealed. However when it comes down to it there are far more important issues in my life when it comes to casting my vote. If you don't get in touch with the realities faced by the people you claim to want to represent then I can't see you getting your deposit back.


----------



## dorani (2 January 2010)

considering my age i think not,you insult hounds for a start by caling them dogs, also to say hunting is archaic and barbaric i showing your ignorance too, and you other little comments. i neither know nor care what equestrian sports you take part in and/or support but i wouldn't make rediculous comments on it as i probably wouldn't have that particular knowledge.DO NOTinsult mein saying i have been spoonfed tripe from birth and have led a very independent life thank you very much! you know nothing whatsoever about me so give it a rest.by the way, what is this name calling you accuse me of, if it was the fact you are a wind up merchant, well, thats just what you are!!
		
Click to expand...


Hmmmm? it seems we may be talking mental age here, forgive my genuine mistake. And maybe a borderline aggression problem?? Memory problems? It seems the list may be endless. I think possibly caused by an overdose of living in soap land??


----------



## rosie fronfelen (3 January 2010)

do not concern yourself anymore- i've had enough of your disgusting insults which i assume you type with a grin on your face, i am not lowering myself to your level of trivia so i am putting you on the ignore button. you i think have a personality problem with a huge gorilla on your back- anyhow, adios- find another mug to impose your vile, childlike abuse on.


----------



## dorani (3 January 2010)

do not concern yourself anymore- i've had enough of your disgusting insults which i assume you type with a grin on your face, i am not lowering myself to your level of trivia so i am putting you on the ignore button. you i think have a personality problem with a huge gorilla on your back- anyhow, adios- find another mug to impose your vile, childlike abuse on.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear you feel so strongly but  yet to find "disgusting insults" in my posts??? Just more of your symtoms of ...well you don't need me to tell you. Anyway, I have grown bored of you now... little challenge to me. BTW... welsh hills sounds a very good place for you to be,LOL!


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (3 January 2010)

"And from someone who lives in the neighbouring constituency to the one you intend to fight, do you really think that hunting features in the top ten priorities that the average voter has in mind."

You are quite right, combat_claire, but the likely consequence of a Conservative victory - for whatever reason - is a return of fox hunting and/or hare coursing. That is one of the Conservatives' top priorities and the Countryside Alliance practically runs the Conservative Party these days. Is that what the average voter wants? I think not.

BTW, I have other priorities, too, one of them being to get our boys out of Afghanistan. I wonder what Otis Ferry's thoughts are on that one.


----------



## JanetGeorge (3 January 2010)

"You are quite right, combat_claire, but the likely consequence of a Conservative victory - for whatever reason - is a return of fox hunting and/or hare coursing. That is one of the Conservatives' top priorities and the Countryside Alliance practically runs the Conservative Party these days. Is that what the average voter wants? I think not.

BTW, I have other priorities, too, one of them being to get our boys out of Afghanistan. I wonder what Otis Ferry's thoughts are on that one."

You're a bit out of date re the Countryside Alliance! :grin:  Yes, the British Field Sports Society was VERY 'Tory' (it always had a sitting Tory MP as Chairman, for example.)  The CA's President is a Labour Peer, its Chair is a Labour MP - and the board is a political mix.

Obviously it has closer 'links' with the Conservatives because the Conservatives have always supported field sports - but it has MUCH broader support now because of its wider rural agenda.

The CA doesn't run the Conservative Party any more than the Conservative Party runs the CA!  And hunting is FAR from being one of the Conservative Party's highest priorities - even I would not vote for them if it was!!  There are FAR more important issues!

And - for what it's worth - I'd like to see our boys (and girls) out of Afghanistan as soon as possible!  But NOT as a political gesture - and NOT without finishing the job they are there to do.  Leaving the country in a mess - such as happened with the withdrawal of American and Australian troops from Vietnam, for example, would mean all our brave soldiers sacrificed their lives for NOTHING!


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (3 January 2010)

"And - for what it's worth - I'd like to see our boys (and girls) out of Afghanistan as soon as possible! But NOT as a political gesture - and NOT without finishing the job they are there to do. Leaving the country in a mess - such as happened with the withdrawal of American and Australian troops from Vietnam, for example, would mean all our brave soldiers sacrificed their lives for NOTHING!"

This is a very long way off Otis Ferry, Janet, but I have to tell you that Afghanistan is another Vietnam and 245 of our brave boys' lives have been sacrificed for nothing. Wasn't the idea to 'smoke out' Osama bin Laden? If so, where is the b****r now? I reckon that we have much bigger worries on our own doorsteps, particularly if we're anywhere near such as Leeds, Leicester, Luton and London. I daren't say more, even on Horse &amp; Hound, for fear of being too non-P.C.


----------



## JanetGeorge (3 January 2010)

I reckon that we have much bigger worries on our own doorsteps, particularly if we're anywhere near such as Leeds, Leicester, Luton and London. I daren't say more, even on Horse &amp; Hound, for fear of being too non-P.C.
		
Click to expand...

Or racist??  Maybe the BNP could use your talents!


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (4 January 2010)

"Or racist?? Maybe the BNP could use your talents!"

Send me your address, Ms. George, and I'll sue you for that.


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (4 January 2010)

"and nuke the place"

And Ms. George accuses me of being racist!


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 January 2010)

"and nuke the place"

And Ms. George accuses me of being racist!
		
Click to expand...

I actually didn't - I queried the reason for an covertly racist remark by asking you if you WERE a racist.

Now SL I wouldn't bother asking as he's somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun AND a motor mouth, which he engages without putting his brain into gear.

(And that's not libellous either!  :grin:  He proves it almost every time he posts!)


----------



## Xlthlx (4 January 2010)

"Or racist?? Maybe the BNP could use your talents!"

Send me your address, Ms. George, and I'll sue you for that.
		
Click to expand...

haha if I had a pound for every time a jumped up little twerp said they would sue someone on a forum


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (4 January 2010)

"I actually didn't - I queried the reason for an covertly racist remark by asking you if you WERE a racist."

You'd fare well in the High Court, Ms. George. But watch it!


----------



## Xlthlx (4 January 2010)

"I actually didn't - I queried the reason for an covertly racist remark by asking you if you WERE a racist."

You'd fare well in the High Court, Ms. George. But watch it!
		
Click to expand...

you're making a fool out of yourself, you do realise that?  Somehow I think you have zero chance of ever being an MP


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (4 January 2010)

"Somehow I think you have zero chance of ever being an MP "

Mr Asquith said (so I'm told): 'Wait and see.'


----------



## combat_claire (4 January 2010)

While the Conservative party have stated that '2010 Conservative manifesto will contain a commitment to "give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a Government bill in Government time" ' - Hunting is barely mentioned on the Conservative website, other than an opinion piece by Nick Herbert. So I'm not certain that this could be considered a top priority for a potential Conservative government, for example yesterday in what is widely viewed as a start to the election campaign Cameron was setting out his priorities for the NHS. 

On the flip side despite only having had 12 years in power Ed Balls has today decided that the last three months of the Labour regime is the time to start tackling child literacy. Guess they were just too busy working on their 'Back The Ban' website - a major section of the Official Labour website to tackle some real issues. 

Talking of which, your own Typepad entries seem to be obsessed with hunting - 19.5% of the entries are related to hunting or coursing - a view not shared by 97% of the population who quite frankly state it won't affect their voting intention. It would be nice to hear some of your other views rather than rants about  how you wouldn't be able to employ a family member. All I have learnt about you is that you oppose the action in Afghanistan and support the sale of the county farms estate (which has been vital in allowing new entrants to farming to get a foot on the ladder). Hardly anything that makes you stand out as a fresh candidate, a manifesto should really contain more than three ideas.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (4 January 2010)

i think Mr. G.Woollard has bitten off more than he can chew on this forum. was he expecting only hunting folk with little idea of anything else i wonder- i think possibly his plans here have gone a bit pear shaped!!


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (4 January 2010)

"i think Mr. G.Woollard has bitten off more than he can chew on this forum. was he expecting only hunting folk with little idea of anything else i wonder- i think possibly his plans here have gone a bit pear shaped!!"

To put it all in proportion, salimali, I have today received a message from someone whom I know very well: 

"Just had some very sad news. My friend who I went to school with and played rugby with died today/yesterday in Afghanistan. Really hammers it home. I'm gutted and would like to offer again my help in any campaigning you're doing to bring them home. I've got two other friends out there and don't want to lose another."


----------



## combat_claire (4 January 2010)

Very sorry to hear that. I have to admit that when they announce the name of the latest casualty to be killed in Afghanistan I breathe a sigh of relief when it isn't one of my mates. Having served in the OTC I have many friends who serve with various corps and regiments. 

I really wish newscasters would stop saying these people have died in Afghanistan, there is a huge difference between dying and being killed. The Royal Engineer that lost his life over Christmas was just 23, 4 years younger than me. 

However that doesn't alter the fact that a planned withdrawal when the time is right has got to be the way forward rather than just giving up, otherwise these heroes will have made their sacrifice in vain.

On a slight tangent, it is appalling that funding for extra facilities at specialist treatment centres like Headley Court needs to come from charitable funding. This is something that should have been worked into the MOD budget for the war.


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (4 January 2010)

"Very sorry to hear that."

Thank you, combat_claire.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (4 January 2010)

same here, who ever we are, who ever we support noone wants to lose someone that is close,so you have my sympathy.


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 January 2010)

"Just had some very sad news. My friend who I went to school with and played rugby with died today/yesterday in Afghanistan. Really hammers it home. I'm gutted and would like to offer again my help in any campaigning you're doing to bring them home. I've got two other friends out there and don't want to lose another."
		
Click to expand...

It's sad news indeed - every time a young soldier dies.  However, it sadly ISN'T a good reason to campaign against our involvement!

If we'd run for cover with the first deaths of WW2, we'd all be speaking German now.  And probably being governed as a 'territory' of the 5th, 6th or 7th Reich!  Or maybe we'd have spent the last 60 years trying to break down our own walls!

More recently, but still more than 40 years ago, I lost friends in the Vietnam War.  Most were conscripts who were picked by being born on a particular date - not regular soldiers!  Many of those who came back alive suffered enormously in the aftermath - normal PTS syndrome, exacerbated by the fact that they were sold out by their political masters and came home 'losers' in an unpopular war!  They gave up their lives for a cause which suddenly became worthless due to politicians not wanting to continue to lose votes for what WAS a just cause but had become too hot to handle!

Involvement in any military action has to be decided on a wide range of political/humanitarian/defence issues. Our soldiers join the Services knowing they may be sent into a war zone and that they might die there.  They would obviously trust that their political 'masters' ONLY send them in a good cause - and perhaps just as importantly - send them well equipped and well trained to do the job.

It must be VERY depressing for those out there to hear people suggesting they are NOT there for a useful purpose - that their lives are being squandered to no useful purpose!!


----------



## dorani (4 January 2010)

Methinks Mr Woolard is getting a taste of the pro hunting style of attack.... in a pack of course. Only way they know how to operate. Brave in numbers...cowards alone.


----------



## dorani (4 January 2010)

"Just had some very sad news. My friend who I went to school with and played rugby with died today/yesterday in Afghanistan. Really hammers it home. I'm gutted and would like to offer again my help in any campaigning you're doing to bring them home. I've got two other friends out there and don't want to lose another."
		
Click to expand...





It's sad news indeed - every time a young soldier dies.  However, it sadly ISN'T a good reason to campaign against our involvement!

If we'd run for cover with the first deaths of WW2, we'd all be speaking German now.  And probably being governed as a 'territory' of the 5th, 6th or 7th Reich!  Or maybe we'd have spent the last 60 years trying to break down our own walls!

More recently, but still more than 40 years ago, I lost friends in the Vietnam War.  Most were conscripts who were picked by being born on a particular date - not regular soldiers!  Many of those who came back alive suffered enormously in the aftermath - normal PTS syndrome, exacerbated by the fact that they were sold out by their political masters and came home 'losers' in an unpopular war!  They gave up their lives for a cause which suddenly became worthless due to politicians not wanting to continue to lose votes for what WAS a just cause but had become too hot to handle!

Involvement in any military action has to be decided on a wide range of political/humanitarian/defence issues. Our soldiers join the Services knowing they may be sent into a war zone and that they might die there.  They would obviously trust that their political 'masters' ONLY send them in a good cause - and perhaps just as importantly - send them well equipped and well trained to do the job.

It must be VERY depressing for those out there to hear people suggesting they are NOT there for a useful purpose - that their lives are being squandered to no useful purpose!!
		
Click to expand...



One can always choose to be a conscientious objector. War is a very dirty thing.


----------



## cptrayes (4 January 2010)

Quote
It must be VERY depressing for those out there to hear people suggesting they are NOT there for a useful purpose - that their lives are being squandered to no useful purpose!! 
Unquote.

Yes it must. But is that a good reason to allow even more young people to be killed, so that the friends and relatives of those who have already died will not have to face the fact that they died in vain in unwinnable and possibly illegal wars? It has to stop somewhere.


----------



## Xlthlx (4 January 2010)

Methinks Mr Woolard is getting a taste of the pro hunting style of attack.... in a pack of course. Only way they know how to operate. Brave in numbers...cowards alone.
		
Click to expand...

What sort of a useless argument is this?


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 January 2010)

One can always choose to be a conscientious objector. War is a very dirty thing.
		
Click to expand...

One can - and in Australia in the '60s and '70s, some did.  They were jailed, branded cowards, draft dodgers and Vietcong supporters.  Hell, women who campaigned peacefully against the draft were jailed for handing out leaflets.

Yes, war IS dirty - and the Vietnam War was one of the dirtiest!  But it's not always avoidable!!


----------



## NoToHareCoursing (5 January 2010)

"But it's [war] is not always avoidable!!"

Yes, Janet, of course you are right, but I can think of a few that might have been avoided. The South African ('Boer') Wars, perhaps?

Anyway, I'm going to leave you good people to argue over Otis Ferry (who he?) at your leisure (which I haven't got at present).

Cheers!


----------



## combat_claire (5 January 2010)

At least we were making positive and individual contributions to the debate, which is more than can be said for your inane postings.


----------



## Xlthlx (5 January 2010)

Have a look at this CC.  "here's the evidence" - how is it evidence?  I am waiting for them to tell me.  Maybe it was killed by a pack of hounds but I somehow suspect not.

http://cruelsports.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/image-of-the-day-53/


----------



## JanetGeorge (5 January 2010)

Anyway, I'm going to leave you good people to argue over Otis Ferry (who he?) at your leisure (which I haven't got at present).
		
Click to expand...

Ah - another 'here today, gone tomorrow' politician! :grin:


----------



## rosie fronfelen (5 January 2010)

i have a feeling we may have heard the last of Mr.Geoffrey Woollard,i think he was out of his depth on here!!


----------



## MrWoof (5 January 2010)

..... One can always choose to be a conscientious objector. War is a very dirty thing .....

Yes, war is dirty but sadly it is a fact of life that wars happen.
In my opinion COs are gutless cowards who leave the defence of their country to those brave enough to do so, yet still reap the same benefits afterwards.
As JG says, we could well be speaking Kraut, etc, etc if it were not for those who were willing to put their lives on the line in WWI and WWII.
Three of my mother's brothers were killed in WWII.
I totally support our Forces in Afghanistan but they should never have been sent out there in the first place considering the attitude of The MOD and the lack of equipment.
One lives in hope that some day, someone will have the balls to try Tony Blair for "war crimes" - all the evidence is there.


----------



## dorani (5 January 2010)

Methinks Mr Woolard is getting a taste of the pro hunting style of attack.... in a pack of course. Only way they know how to operate. Brave in numbers...cowards alone.
		
Click to expand...

sorry its the other way around sabs/antis allways are in numbers to attack hunt supporters
		
Click to expand...

My heart bleeds for them,poor hunters, on horseback being attacked by sabs. I'm sure they are scared to death :grin: Would give them a chance to have a taste of there own medicine  which they are quite happy to dole out. Hunters are by nature aggressive.


----------



## dorani (5 January 2010)

i have a feeling we may have heard the last of Mr.Geoffrey Woollard,i think he was out of his depth on here!!
		
Click to expand...

Think thats one more notch on your gun :shocked:


----------



## dorani (5 January 2010)

..... One can always choose to be a conscientious objector. War is a very dirty thing .....

Yes, war is dirty but sadly it is a fact of life that wars happen.
In my opinion COs are gutless cowards who leave the defence of their country to those brave enough to do so, yet still reap the same benefits afterwards.
As JG says, we could well be speaking Kraut, etc, etc if it were not for those who were willing to put their lives on the line in WWI and WWII.
Three of my mother's brothers were killed in WWII.
I totally support our Forces in Afghanistan but they should never have been sent out there in the first place considering the attitude of The MOD and the lack of equipment.
One lives in hope that some day, someone will have the balls to try Tony Blair for "war crimes" - all the evidence is there.
		
Click to expand...

Funnily enough Mr Woof, not everyone feels the need to kill, maim or injure others, soldiers are just gun fodder for the polititians who make the wars. Individuals have a choice not to have a knee jerk reaction and act in packs. And we all know what great danger we are in ....sorry, that was according to T. Blair.
This topic seems to have been hijacked  from pro hunting to pro war, a lot of aggression out there!


----------



## MrWoof (5 January 2010)

Could you not, please, just have some respect for those of our country-men/women who have lost their lives whilst fighting in wars on behalf of all us here in GB? 
YOU are one of those who still reap the benefits in the aftermath - and very obviously, do not appreciate their sacrifice one iota.
There are families, widows and young children who have been left absolutely bereft from the loss of a very brave person, fighting on our and YOUR behalf.
You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for the comments you have made.


----------



## SueEllen (5 January 2010)

Quote " Hunters are by nature aggressive."
Quote " Another notch on your gun"

What on earth are you on .


----------



## combat_claire (5 January 2010)

There is a difference between pro-armed forces and pro-war. I am proud to have many friends serving in various Corps and Regiments of the British Army, they go out there to do the job that they are employed to do and do it to the best of their ability. It is not their place to question the morals of such action other than within the Geneva Convention. 

There is a hell of a lot of hearts and minds work going on providing infrastructure, medical care, veterinary advice and farming knowledge so I find your comments about maiming and injuring others offensive in the extreme.


----------



## combat_claire (5 January 2010)

Does your IT teacher realise you are posting on forums and not doing your assignments!? Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute to this debate forum or are you going to continue to bore us with pointless and unfounded statements??


----------



## dorani (5 January 2010)

Could you not, please, just have some respect for those of our country-men/women who have lost their lives whilst fighting in wars on behalf of all us here in GB? 
YOU are one of those who still reap the benefits in the aftermath - and very obviously, do not appreciate their sacrifice one iota.
There are families, widows and young children who have been left absolutely bereft from the loss of a very brave person, fighting on our and YOUR behalf.
You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for the comments you have made.
		
Click to expand...

Firstly I have the courage of my convictions and feel no need whatsoever to be ashamed of any comments I make. I have not been derogatory in anyway, just stating my opinion as you have yours.
I am sorry Mr Woof,I appreciate your feelings and I feel great sorrow for those who have lost loved ones...likewise I have great sorrow for the innocent women and children who are killed and injured in their own homeland and have to suffer the fighting each and every day. Are they any less human? do they suffer and bleed less? That is precisely why I am very anti war.
I didn't intend to get involved in this topic and have said enough now. The topic was Otis Ferry's crass stupidity.


----------



## dorani (5 January 2010)

There is a difference between pro-armed forces and pro-war. I am proud to have many friends serving in various Corps and Regiments of the British Army, they go out there to do the job that they are employed to do and do it to the best of their ability. It is not their place to question the morals of such action other than within the Geneva Convention. 

There is a hell of a lot of hearts and minds work going on providing infrastructure, medical care, veterinary advice and farming knowledge so I find your comments about maiming and injuring others offensive in the extreme.
		
Click to expand...

Why on earth should my comments about maiming others be offensive... is that not the purpose of a soldier ,....to kill and maim.Is that not what they are taught...warfare? that they should die practicing those skills is what. war. is .about.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (6 January 2010)

regarding Fuffy, i find it rather odd that it says that it worked for the MFH of the Heythrop many years ago,( maybe in Ronnie Wallaces time) but now is so anti!! things dont stack up somehow- if this is so, we could be friends instead of proverbial enemies as i worked myself looking after Heythrop hunters back in the 70s. pity the way things turn out-


----------



## dorani (6 January 2010)

Lt Col Chamberlayne in the '60,s. was anti then too.Didn't stop me working with horses.
 I am no one's enemy! That is such a warlike claim!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (6 January 2010)

i knew Col Chamberayne and his son,how could you work with hunters and be anti? i'm holding out an olive branch here if only you would accept it- surely you rode out second horse for the Colonel? Fuffy, i am only human the same as everyone else, just with different opinions, i'll accept it if you dont wish to accept my white flag as there will be nothing more i can do,but surely its better to agree to disagree?


----------



## dorani (7 January 2010)

I never wished to hunt and made that clear,I just worked as a groom and exercised etc. The horses don't choose to hunt,they are prey animals how can I resent them? It was a good job, good food! and I learned a lot. He ran his yard beautifully. I was offered but never rode to hounds.
I am glad that you have become more peaceable, one has no need to fight or be aggressive due to differing points of veiw.
I am a pacifist but will stand my ground if attacked!!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (7 January 2010)

ok, your post is acceptable- why the need for the last comment? i will also stand my ground if attacked and you did call me some derogatory things, so it wasn't all one sided! by the way, Col Chamberlayne wasn't an MFH in the 60s- they were Lord Dulverton, followed by Mr.Marsh( lovely chap) and thenRonnie Wallace. so it appears that my truce is not to be reciprocated, fair enough, i cant say i didn't try.( the welsh hills are a wonderful place to live by the way.)


----------



## Xlthlx (7 January 2010)

Interesting article here re Mr Ferry http://www.themastersvoice.co.uk/2009-december/opinion.php


----------



## dorani (7 January 2010)

ok, your post is acceptable- why the need for the last comment? i will also stand my ground if attacked and you did call me some derogatory things, so it wasn't all one sided! by the way, Col Chamberlayne wasn't an MFH in the 60s- they were Lord Dulverton, followed by Mr.Marsh( lovely chap) and thenRonnie Wallace. so it appears that my truce is not to be reciprocated, fair enough, i cant say i didn't try.( the welsh hills are a wonderful place to live by the way.)
		
Click to expand...

I did think your post a little suspect..but gave you the benefit of the doubt... what a waste of time you are. YAWN.........


----------



## rosie fronfelen (7 January 2010)

thank you!! what a vindictive 61 year old you are!you gave me no benefit of any doubt- your words are cruel to say the least. as i said ive tried to make peace with you but no, you are right and i am wrong, everytime. makes me feel so good that someone in their later years cannot mellow, i am already suffering from depression being now stuck in a wheelchair with a progressive disease that cannot be diagnosed, and all i get is a vengeful woman who cannot bear to bury the hatchet. i'm not lookingfor sympathy, in case i get accused of that too, but i see no reason on carrying on tit for tat nonsense, so just dont bother answering me again, being as i am so boring anyway!!


----------



## dorani (8 January 2010)

No body as aggressive as you is suffering from depression nor has the slightest idea of what true depression is. You should think yourself lucky you are not. Sure you are depressed, a different thing altogether,we all have our crosses to bear and I am truly sorry to hear of your predicament..........if it is true.  Just try to be peaceable ....do! You are your own worst enemy.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (9 January 2010)

i am amazed at your vindictiveness, i am not one for making up stories, have been a perfectly healthy woman until 2006, i have now lost use of my right leg and the progression is affecting my right arm. i feel insulted that you yhink i am making this up, i have driven my wonderful mad by my constant crying at absolutely nothing so i am on anti depressants which help. i appreciate the fact your partner is far from well,but we all have our different problems- i am told this could be cortico basal degeneration which eventually will be fatal-as i have always been a free, independant spirit i find this so hard. i now have the horses i always wanted, but can only see them from the window, never mind groom and ride them. i did ask you not to write to me again but you have to turn the screw just a bit tighter dont you!! so, PLEASE just leave me alone now cos you obviously can't stand me so why bother-


----------



## MrWoof (9 January 2010)

Fuffy - just back off Salimali please.
Surely you can do something else with your free time rather than batter someone who has, actually, been battered more than enough - both in real life and on here.
STOP IT NOW - PLEASE.


----------



## dorani (9 January 2010)

Mr Woof please!!!who rattled your cage?? there is no need for ANYONE  to take the slightest notice of anyones post and THEN  complain! No ones arm has been twisted has it?? it does take two and has ben an amusing diversion. Salimali will be SO bored now! If any battering has gone on I think you will find the aggression and abuse has come from her......not me! We are all entitled to our own opinion without the pack mentality clicking in ...
 surely... free speech as long as its yours I guess eh Mr Woof?LOL!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (9 January 2010)

good luck MrWoof!! read through our posts and see what you think and who has had the battering.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (9 January 2010)

i'm glad i've provided you with an amusing diversion- how mentally sick can anyone be!!


----------



## dorani (10 January 2010)

Some folk are just so easy ..they wind themselves up. don't see the sense in it myself...like beating your head against a brick wall.
 Chill,love and peace!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (10 January 2010)

an ex hippy freak, by the sounds of- no more time for pleasantries!


----------



## soggy (13 January 2010)

don't see the sense in it myself...like beating your head against a brick wall.
		
Click to expand...

Don't knock it until you've tried it, and I suggest you try it very soon.

Besides for someone as terminally moronic and as unpleasant as yourself it should prove to be a worthwhile way of using up your time. With the added bonus that it might knock some sense into you.

A winning combination if there ever was one.


----------



## EAST KENT (24 June 2010)

Sorry to butt in ,amidst all the mud slinging...I think Otis is just very passionate about hunting his hounds ,a lot of huntsman are ,and if he comes over daft to some..then you don`t understand the devotion a pack of hounds engenders , and words can run away talking about a passion. As for CP..not found wounded foxes?? Where have YOU  been? The first one I found was a four month cub,still up and moving,but being eaten alive by maggots in a bullet wound near his anus,he had to be PTS by the vet who was the then Hon Sec of the Surrey Union. I was told that it would have taken that cub another ten days at least to die. The next one was a vixen,apparently sunning herself on our field bank,but her reactions were not as sharp as they should have been, I was able to catch her (VERY ABNORMAL) and put her in an old henhouse overnight.By next morning she had died,a PM showed nothing in her stomach and two smashed front middle digits from probably a gin. The last one was still alive with a snare wire tight `round it`s middle..hounds put that one out of his misery. Sing from the same sheet please..and roll on the repeal.


----------



## tyson (25 June 2010)

I think that everyone needs to give the guy a break. Professional huntsman or not is irrelevant, he's as passionate about hunting as we all are. His posh accent, smart school and priveleged lifestyle are perhaps something he curses as much as we do, lets face it,  his upbringing is out of his control and it would be unfair to suggest he is damaging hunting further. He is a perfect person to get hunting proper into the media and if half the hunting supporters in the country had the antis harassing them as much as some hunt staff have they might be forgiven for blowing their top every now and again.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (25 June 2010)

i think its best to wait til next season and see what happens-i agree with what is written here but it is still early!!


----------



## Battyoldbint (25 June 2010)

Im sorry but Ottis Ferry makes my teeth itch


----------



## Alec Swan (27 June 2010)

Might I suggest that embarrassing though Ferry may be to some of you,  reasoned logic will be of even less use.  What on God's earth is the point of fighting biased and ignorant drivel with reason and logic?

If Ferry's of the wall,  is that really such a bad thing?

Alec.


----------



## Xlthlx (28 June 2010)

a1b2c3 said:



			.  What on God's earth is the point of fighting biased and ignorant drivel with reason and logic?
		
Click to expand...

I don;t agree with that.  I think repeating logical arguments is essential


----------



## Judgemental (11 July 2010)

Absolutely not, I have never met Otis but his attitude and conduct is akin to those who fought in WWII. He stood up to the socialist scum that enacted the Hunting Act 2004.

I believe he, Otis may have picked up a criminal record in the process - I assume that it may now be annulled.

As I have said elsewhere, those who banned hunting in 2004 were no better than Hitler's scum that banned hunting in Nazi Germany in July 1934. 

The Gestapo (they were not called Gestapo then) Hitler's Bavarian Henchmen, went to every pack of hounds - into the kennels and ordered the hunt staff to shoot all the hounds.

Any of the staff who refused where threatened with a similar fate, those who still refused were shot by the Hitler's thugs.

If anybody reads the Hunting Act 2004 and the powers given to Police Officers, powers that do not exist in any other statute, will find they are no better than Hitler's ban.

Therefore, all you lilly livered types who think Otis Ferry's stand is bad for hunting, think about all those hounds and hunt staff that were shot in 1934 by the same people who gassed millions of jews, gypsies, and the disabled!


----------



## Judgemental (11 July 2010)

Judgemental said:



			Absolutely not, I have never met Otis but his attitude and conduct is akin to those who fought in WWII. He stood up to the socialist scum that enacted the Hunting Act 2004.

I believe he, Otis may have picked up a criminal record in the process - I assume that it may now be annulled.

As I have said elsewhere, those who banned hunting in 2004 were no better than Hitler's scum that banned hunting in Nazi Germany in July 1934. 

The Gestapo (they were not called Gestapo then) Hitler's Bavarian Henchmen, went to every pack of hounds - into the kennels and ordered the hunt staff to shoot all the hounds.

Any of the staff who refused where threatened with a similar fate, those who still refused were shot by the Hitler's thugs.

If anybody reads the Hunting Act 2004 and the powers given to Police Officers, powers that do not exist in any other statute, will find they are no better than Hitler's ban.

Therefore, all you lilly livered types who think Otis Ferry's stand is bad for hunting, think about all those hounds and hunt staff that were shot in 1934 by the same people who gassed millions of jews, gypsies, and the disabled!
		
Click to expand...

May I remind all and sundry of the wording of Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004 subsection 6 " The exercise of a power under this section does not require a warrant".

That is the only legislation, save for the Terrorism Act that does not require a constable to have a warrant in his possession when searching land or premises! 


8 Search and seizure .(1) 
This section applies where a constable reasonably suspects that a person (&#8220;the suspect&#8221 is committing or has committed an offence under Part 1 of this Act. .
(2) 
If the constable reasonably believes that evidence of the offence is likely to be found on the suspect, the constable may stop the suspect and search him. .
(3) 
If the constable reasonably believes that evidence of the offence is likely to be found on or in a vehicle, animal or other thing of which the suspect appears to be in possession or control, the constable may stop and search the vehicle, animal or other thing. .
(4) 
A constable may seize and detain a vehicle, animal or other thing if he reasonably believes that&#8212; .
(a) 
it may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings for an offence under Part 1 of this Act, or .
(b) 
it may be made the subject of an order under section 9. .
(5) 
For the purposes of exercising a power under this section a constable may enter&#8212; .
(a) 
land; .
(b) 
premises other than a dwelling; .
(c) 
a vehicle. .
(6) 
The exercise of a power under this section does not require a warrant.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (11 July 2010)

god, another bloody history lesson on the war, i thought i'd heard enough from my mother and grandfather.


----------



## Judgemental (11 July 2010)

rosiefronfelen said:



			god, another bloody history lesson on the war, i thought i'd heard enough from my mother and grandfather.
		
Click to expand...

Clearly the listening devices were myopic at the time, along with the statutes of the Hunting Act 2004, otherwise I am sure you would have posted these facts long ago, bearing in mind you are listed as a 'Veteran'.

Me thinks you are fundamentally 'riding over hounds', best you go to the back of the field!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (11 July 2010)

Judgemental said:



			Clearly the listening devices were myopic at the time, along with the statutes of the Hunting Act 2004, otherwise I am sure you would have posted these facts long ago, bearing in mind you are listed as a 'Veteran'.

Me thinks you are fundamentally 'riding over hounds', best you go to the back of the field!
		
Click to expand...

oh i am ancient-go away.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 July 2010)

For heavens sake girls,  calm down.  This is,  or should be a debate,  and one in which we "consider" the views of others!

I will concede though,  JM,  that the apparent lack of need for a warrant is strange.

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (11 July 2010)

a1b2c3 said:



			For heavens sake girls,  calm down.  This is,  or should be a debate,  and one in which we "consider" the views of others!

I will concede though,  JM,  that the apparent lack of need for a warrant is strange.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec you are so right, there are one or two too who are, to be kind, are clearly in need of some relaxation.

That said, the lack of a warrant is a most serious matter and could be remedied via Statutory Instrument, although the latter was incorporated by the previous administration in order to have a tool with which to tighten the act. 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040037_en_1

It's all worth a read and I think a large number of hunting folk would benefit from reading the act and understanding it in detail, in the coming weeks and months - nay I don't think so, I know they will.

It's just a question of how to get some folk to relax.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (12 July 2010)

judge- will you give me a massage then to help me relax?


----------

