# THE REUNION  BBC Radio 4, Sunday 4th September at 11.15am



## Ravenwood (1 September 2011)

THE REUNION  BBC Radio 4, Sunday 4th September at 11.15am (repeated on Friday 9th September at 9am)



Lindsay Hill, UCSW Committee member, will be taking part in the Radio 4 programme called The Reunion where 5 contributors will be talking about their memories of hunting at the end of the 1990s and the events that took place at that time.  Also taking part will be Robin Hanbury-Tenison who was Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance at that time, Darren Hughes a hunting campaign stalwart, John Rolls of the RSPCA and John Cooper from LACS.  The programme will be presented by Sue MacGregor.  It will also be available online through the BBC's Listen Again service for a week after transmission.



Do listen if you can!



UCSW

PO Box 129, Banbury, Oxon, OX17 2HX

Tel/Fax: 01295 712719

www.ucsw.org

Just thought you might all be interested - I was emailed this so thought I would share


----------



## EAST KENT (3 September 2011)

With the RSPCA and LACS involved it will get a big miss from me thanks. Why spend a Sunday morning getting all riled up?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (3 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			With the RSPCA and LACS involved it will get a big miss from me thanks. Why spend a Sunday morning getting all riled up?
		
Click to expand...

Should be interesting i reckon.


----------



## Echo Bravo (3 September 2011)

Look I listen to the Archers, and I always listen to the program after, because you always hear about someone elses view and I must admit I'm disappointed so far.


----------



## EAST KENT (4 September 2011)

Well..actually..I did end up listening to it..in the bath ,radio on and there we were!
    The ONLY things that riled me were ,of course, calling hounds "dogs" ..that always makes my teeth itch..AND that Hanbury chap trying to throw a red herring. The Countryside marches about bloody Post Offices and bus services??? God how pathetic,makes us all look like rustic idiots.
  I thought we were all more grown up than to try that old chestnut!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (4 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Well..actually..I did end up listening to it..in the bath ,radio on and there we were!
    The ONLY things that riled me were ,of course, calling hounds "dogs" ..that always makes my teeth itch..AND that Hanbury chap trying to throw a red herring. The Countryside marches about bloody Post Offices and bus services??? God how pathetic,makes us all look like rustic idiots.
  I thought we were all more grown up than to try that old chestnut!
		
Click to expand...

It was disappointing actually, i fell asleep half way through,thatsays how good it was and i agree with you EK.


----------



## Ravenwood (4 September 2011)

I missed it!   We had unexpected and very lovely sunshine this morning!  Too good not to get out and make the most of it, so I was busy with horses and dogs   And good job I did because I've been asked to hunt a neighbour's new horse 

But judging from the replies above - not sure I'll bother to listen now!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (4 September 2011)

Ravenwood said:



			I missed it!   We had unexpected and very lovely sunshine this morning!  Too good not to get out and make the most of it, so I was busy with horses and dogs   And good job I did because I've been asked to hunt a neighbour's new horse 

But judging from the replies above - not sure I'll bother to listen now!
		
Click to expand...

its on again on thursday at 9 am,see what you think,it'll be raining by then,guaranteed, sorry i meant friday----


----------



## EAST KENT (5 September 2011)

Post Offices indeed..still fuming


----------



## Echo Bravo (5 September 2011)

Lets face it they lost the battle, and to drag up the old stuff showed you that and lets face it the hounds are still here, just have to have a lot of patience and show most people that it's not the Toffs that hunt but ordinary people like you and me.


----------



## JanetGeorge (5 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			.AND that Hanbury chap trying to throw a red herring. The Countryside marches about bloody Post Offices and bus services??? God how pathetic,makes us all look like rustic idiots.

Click to expand...

I'm VERY surprised that Robin said that - will have to get round to listening to it!  The rubbish about post offices and bus services was an INVENTION for the first Countryside Rally (Hyde Park - 1997) because at the time we started organising it, we didn't know for sure that there would BE an anti-hunting bill in the first round of PMBs!  Of course there was - but if Mike Foster wasn't brain dead, there might NOT have been (which would have made us look silly! )

My response - whenever anyone said anything about it being about rural post offices was along the lines of:  'those of us who live in the countryside have already adapted to the loss of village post offices - we're sure not going to trek to London and jump up and down about them!'  (And I got *******ed every time I said it!)


----------



## polopony (5 September 2011)

For anyone who missed it it's on http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007x9vc


----------



## EAST KENT (5 September 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			I'm VERY surprised that Robin said that - will have to get round to listening to it!  The rubbish about post offices and bus services was an INVENTION for the first Countryside Rally (Hyde Park - 1997) because at the time we started organising it, we didn't know for sure that there would BE an anti-hunting bill in the first round of PMBs!  Of course there was - but if Mike Foster wasn't brain dead, there might NOT have been (which would have made us look silly! )

My response - whenever anyone said anything about it being about rural post offices was along the lines of:  'those of us who live in the countryside have already adapted to the loss of village post offices - we're sure not going to trek to London and jump up and down about them!'  (And I got *******ed every time I said it!)
		
Click to expand...

Well he did..and made the whole lot of us look complete idiots. When did the  rename to the CA  happen?? In my opinion that is when it all went pear-shaped,again that Hanbury man said the name "gave a wrong image",and I think it was somewhere there he brought up the stupid Post Office rubbish.Personaly I want the old badge back thanks..you can stuff your poached egg on spinach,in fact I may well cancel my CA sub..they did`nt achieve a result did they?
   You need to listen Janet ,maybe you can then confirm (or deny) if my facts are correct.Ye Gods,what a huge faux pas losing you was for them!


----------



## JanetGeorge (6 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Well he did..and made the whole lot of us look complete idiots. When did the  rename to the CA  happen?? In my opinion that is when it all went pear-shaped,again that Hanbury man said the name "gave a wrong image",and I think it was somewhere there he brought up the stupid Post Office rubbish.Personaly I want the old badge back thanks..you can stuff your poached egg on spinach,in fact I may well cancel my CA sub..they did`nt achieve a result did they?
   You need to listen Janet ,maybe you can then confirm (or deny) if my facts are correct.Ye Gods,what a huge faux pas losing you was for them!
		
Click to expand...

I tried to listen and couldn't make it work!

The Countryside Alliance formally came into existence after the first big Countryside March (March 2008) - the first Countryside Rally and 1st Countryside March were organised by the BFSS (under Robin's leadership.)  It happened partly because of the success of the C'side Rally and the C'side March, partly because some people high up in the BFSS and associated groups thought it was a good idea, and partly because the Countryside Movement (remember it - under the leadership of Sir David Steele) was a fairly big flop and a polite, face-saving way of closing it down was needed.  So BFSS was merged with the Countryside Movement and the Countryside Business Group.  Robin left at that point (not because of the merger - he had always only been committed to the job for 3 years) and the ghastly Edward Duke was appointed as Chief Exec. to replace him. (He didn't last long once he'd sacked me!)

The Board then took FOREVER to replace Duke - and ended up with wet-as-wet Richard Burge, who had environmental credentials - but NO campaigning skills!  They really thought they could cuddle up to Labour on the back of general countryside issues - when what was really needed was to keep Labour SCARED (which it was after the Countryside Rally - and the first March!)  But once the CA went 'fluffy', the Labour leadership - and senior Labour MPs - really believed that they could ban hunting without too much grief as long as they did a bit more for rural transport and rural post offices!!


----------



## EAST KENT (7 September 2011)

Fluffy is a good description..way too fluffy for me I`m afraid!


----------



## lar (7 September 2011)

I don't think Robin HT did say that though did he?  I was only half listening to it in the car but I thought it was one of the anti hunt people who said that - I assume trying to show that half the people on the march/rally weren't there about hunting.

It's disappointing to hear that the anti hunt people are still just SO entrenched in their views - one of them quoted as saying "I don't accept the fox is a pest"  There really is no reasoning with that is there?


----------



## combat_claire (7 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			in fact I may well cancel my CA sub..they did`nt achieve a result did they?
		
Click to expand...

What is very easy to forget is that the battle to ban hunting with hounds started back in the Edwardian era, without the BFSS/Countryside Alliance lobbying the chances are that hunting would have been banned long before 2004 and without the exemptions that have made it possible to carry on in some format. 

I admit I am an unashamed apologist for the CA, I serve on a County Committee and it is my view that it is very easy to stand on the sidelines and criticise what is done without having any realistic alternative strategies. 

If you do cancel your subscription then please make sure you arrange suitable insurance for field sports activities that you partake in.


----------



## EAST KENT (8 September 2011)

No worries, I am well aware of the history of banning hunting,and what the BFSS did in the past is commendable.BUT tha CA cannot live on old glories,to be honest that dopes remark about it all being more about post offices and rural transport..sure he said something stupid like 75% of us marchers were protesting about that (!!!!) Well,THAT was the final nail in it`s coffin for me.
   Been around for far too long for fluffy rubbish like that.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (8 September 2011)

its on again onfriday at 9am,BBC4.


----------



## combat_claire (8 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			No worries, I am well aware of the history of banning hunting,and what the BFSS did in the past is commendable.BUT tha CA cannot live on old glories,to be honest that dopes remark about it all being more about post offices and rural transport..sure he said something stupid like 75% of us marchers were protesting about that (!!!!) Well,THAT was the final nail in it`s coffin for me.
   Been around for far too long for fluffy rubbish like that.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a bad thing for the Countryside Alliance to diversify its interests. The ban on hunting was the thin end of the wedge as far as rural communities were concerned and a strong body that is as willing to defend country sports as it is to promote farming and countryside education is what rural England needs. You may brand this as fluffy, but for me it is as important as the campaigns for country sports.  

As with every lobbying organisation it is bums on seats that counts. The National Trust, RSPB et al are so powerful because they have the numbers. If you cancel your CA subscription in a fit of pique over one man's interpretation of what happened in 2002 then they are weaker by one member. It's your call. 

As an aside; I didn't even hunt when I joined you lot on the Liberty & Livelihood March - I lived in a city and had little involvement with rural activities or the countryside; my Father has no involvement with country sports either then or now but he came too to march for the individual right to liberty.


----------



## EAST KENT (8 September 2011)

My argument does`nt concern why you went on marches,it does concern me that that Hanbury chap threw such a gross red herring,yes it is fluffy nonsense,and in my opinion and probably the 250,000 odd  others who gave up their days  would agree.As far as I could see we were all out and out hunting people who were out of their prefered environment  that day to speak out for rural sports.I can hardly see why there was a "mexican wave" of glorious "holloas" if it was about post offices and bus services,they were great days in the company of like minded HUNTING folk.
  IF the CA ever developes testicles ,as in Janet`s time,then possibly I may rejoin..but at the moment it is a big NO.


----------



## EAST KENT (10 September 2011)

Well..did any of you catch the prog this time? My OH did ..and confirmed the fact about the post offices......mind you ,how relable HE is I do question,as this pearl came out    
"Did you know the LACS changed itself into the Countryside Alliance??"


----------



## Judgemental (10 September 2011)

polopony said:



			For anyone who missed it it's on http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007x9vc

Click to expand...

Well done Polopony, had you not posted the link I would have missed the programme.

So what's changed, we now have the Internet to communicate and this Forum in particular, where we can all exchange views and if necessary, organise another march.

Foster - he seems to have vanished. His bill was more vain glorious than expressing any concern for animal welfare.

Elliot Morley the prime mover behind the 2004 Act, is now in goal for fraud, doing the pigs at Ford Open Prison in Sussex.

Blair say he now regrets the act simply because he wants a title - that aint going to happen!

What a shower.

I have said it before and I say it again, get rid of Section 8 of the Act and that will go some way to dismantling the legislation. It is not feasible to repeal in one operation.

Of course I had forgotten the Parliament Act had had to be used to pass the legislation because the House of Lords quite rightly would not pass the then pernicious government's legislation.


----------



## lar (10 September 2011)

East Kent - I've just listened to the relevant part again.  Sorry your OH DID mishear - it was very much an anti who threw in the line about most of the rally attendees being there for other issues not Robin double barrelled.  So I DO hope that is not your reason for leaving the CA!!


----------



## Judgemental (11 September 2011)

lar said:



			East Kent - I've just listened to the relevant part again.  Sorry your OH DID mishear - it was very much an anti who threw in the line about most of the rally attendees being there for other issues not Robin double barrelled.  So I DO hope that is not your reason for leaving the CA!!
		
Click to expand...

East Kent the link so you can listen again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007x9vc 

That's the change the Internet provides, we can acesss information very quickly.

Of course as I said Blair won't get a title. Why, because he used the Parliament Act to railroad the legislation through the House of Lords.

That procedure has only been used on seven occasions since 1911.

Hence their Lordships are not going to welcome somebody who used the Act against their wishes.


----------



## EAST KENT (14 September 2011)

Did indeed JM ..thankyou. Quite wrong of course..I blame the soap in my ears ..as was in the bath first time of listening.However I do still feel disinclined to fork out another £60.00 to the CA ,far too fluffy for me nowadays I fear.


----------



## Judgemental (15 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Did indeed JM ..thankyou. Quite wrong of course..I blame the soap in my ears ..as was in the bath first time of listening.However I do still feel disinclined to fork out another £60.00 to the CA ,far too fluffy for me nowadays I fear.

Click to expand...

East Kent, I feel you have hit the nail firmly on the head as to the current malaise so far as promoting our interests are concerned.

I have lost track of who is actually running the CA,  have not head anything for ages, not a squeak!

It seems the players on this forum make a far greater and more voluble and valuable contribution and help to keep the cause alive?


----------



## EAST KENT (15 September 2011)

As one of my friends agrees,we just get the glossy mag with promotions in it that us "normal people"..grass roots hunting folk/pony club etc cannot even begin to afford. All on a different planet to the one most people are on.
 I ,too, have no idea who does what nowadays and no longer care ..Oh! For the good old BFSS days.


----------



## Judgemental (15 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			As one of my friends agrees,we just get the glossy mag with promotions in it that us "normal people"..grass roots hunting folk/pony club etc cannot even begin to afford. All on a different planet to the one most people are on.
 I ,too, have no idea who does what nowadays and no longer care ..Oh! For the good old BFSS days.
		
Click to expand...

Quite, when a member of this forum ran the show - Janet George and what a good show it was too. One knew exactly what the BFSS stood for and they were heard by the rank and file. Or as you refer East Kent "normal people".


----------



## combat_claire (16 September 2011)

Out of interest have either of you taken the effort to serve on a County Committee and have your voice heard? Have you offered the benefit of your experience to the Alliance? Do you bother to attend the AGM, stand for election to the national committee or even fill in your voting papers?

It is so easy to sit back and criticise the work of an organisation be that a Hunt Supporters' committee, the mastership or a lobbying group but a hell of a lot harder to get up off your backside and actually attempt to change something. 

The battlefield has changed since the days of the BFSS and the Countryside Alliance has adapted to meet those changes. You might think that post offices, rural planning or village broadband are not as important as hunting and field sports but the CA also has to be an all round rural organisation representing the concerns of the wider rural community as well as those who hunt, shoot and fish if it is to survive. 

You may feel that the work of the Countryside Alliance Foundation is 'fluffy' but if we do not address the outdoor education of youngsters today then where will be the field sports participants of the future? 

You may feel the 'game to eat' promotion is 'fluffy' but by taking game chefs and introducing those who do not shoot to the delicious and easy recipes that you can cook with game opens up a whole new world to those who have never experienced rural life. 

You may also brand the 'Rural Retailer' awards as 'fluffy' but who else is going to promote and shout about the excellent businesses that can be found in the thriving modern rural economy. 

If you are dead set on leaving the CA then nothing I will say will ever change your mind, but remember that every person who abandons the organisation leaves it weaker by one voice. As the RSPB & National Trust have already discovered it is numbers of members that give power when lobbying in high places.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (16 September 2011)

I have to agree with you Claire,i considered packing up the CA cos of the expense but being a huntmans wife,albeit knackered, i felt it not the right thing to do,, also theRSPB do very well out of me virtually every 3weeks.


----------



## gonebananas (16 September 2011)

combat_claire said:



			Out of interest have either of you taken the effort to serve on a County Committee and have your voice heard? Have you offered the benefit of your experience to the Alliance? Do you bother to attend the AGM, stand for election to the national committee or even fill in your voting papers?

It is so easy to sit back and criticise the work of an organisation be that a Hunt Supporters' committee, the mastership or a lobbying group but a hell of a lot harder to get up off your backside and actually attempt to change something. 

The battlefield has changed since the days of the BFSS and the Countryside Alliance has adapted to meet those changes. You might think that post offices, rural planning or village broadband are not as important as hunting and field sports but the CA also has to be an all round rural organisation representing the concerns of the wider rural community as well as those who hunt, shoot and fish if it is to survive. 

You may feel that the work of the Countryside Alliance Foundation is 'fluffy' but if we do not address the outdoor education of youngsters today then where will be the field sports participants of the future? 

You may feel the 'game to eat' promotion is 'fluffy' but by taking game chefs and introducing those who do not shoot to the delicious and easy recipes that you can cook with game opens up a whole new world to those who have never experienced rural life. 

You may also brand the 'Rural Retailer' awards as 'fluffy' but who else is going to promote and shout about the excellent businesses that can be found in the thriving modern rural economy. 

If you are dead set on leaving the CA then nothing I will say will ever change your mind, but remember that every person who abandons the organisation leaves it weaker by one voice. As the RSPB & National Trust have already discovered it is numbers of members that give power when lobbying in high places.
		
Click to expand...

LIKE!


----------



## JanetGeorge (16 September 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Quite, when a member of this forum ran the show - Janet George and what a good show it was too. One knew exactly what the BFSS stood for and they were heard by the rank and file. Or as you refer East Kent "normal people".
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear - I didn't RUN the show - I just talked a lot!  I WAS an Area PRO for the BFSS before Robin Hanbury-Tennison, but it was Robin who brought me to London to head the PR team!  Robin was the BEST thing that ever happened to the BFSS - for 3 years it was an EFFECTIVE campaigning organisation!

I agree that the change to the Countryside Alliance was - in many ways - NOT a good move.  The 'new' organisation (which I dubbed 'the BFSS with wings') caused confusion as to its PRIMARY focus, and diverted resources away from the main aim - to protect all legitimate field sports!!  It was a good idea in theory - but at LEAST 20 years to late to adopt that particular tactic IMHO!

But of course the biggest mistake was in the leadership!  Edward Duke was a short-lived disaster, Richard Burge - well, I leave it to you!   The idea of cuddling up to the Labour Government was always a bad one!  I have yet to see any real action from the new incumbent!

But we HAVE to support the CA - it's all we've got - and there are still some VERY good people there.  Not much can happen for now on the repeal front - the Conservatives would do it like a shot - but they don't have the numbers and they have MUCH higher priorities right now with the economy (if it gets any worse, who will be able to afford to hunt!!)


----------



## EAST KENT (17 September 2011)

Oh honestly..recipes indeed.No they will not get £60.00 off me this year;as for the government,their manifesto suggested that a repeal was a major consideration.Which is why some of us who usually don`t bother turned out to vote.I actually think they got us out to vote under false pretences,and all this prevarification is rubbish, and then of course us oh so decent hunting folk roll over and say "oh we do understand we are the least important thing to worry about" and  just hope ,sometime ,they`ll honour their promise.I would`nt go evens on that one folks!
  Cannot stand fluffy sidestepping from anyone,and that is what it is.How about roaring out "will you honour your manifesto or not"?Stop being so meek and trusting..are only two of us on here angry enough to bawl out the  liers for the truth? Fluffy? The CA is almost as fluffy as a persian cat.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (17 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Oh honestly..recipes indeed.No they will not get £60.00 off me this year;as for the government,their manifesto suggested that a repeal was a major consideration.Which is why some of us who usually don`t bother turned out to vote.I actually think they got us out to vote under false pretences,and all this prevarification is rubbish, and then of course us oh so decent hunting folk roll over and say "oh we do understand we are the least important thing to worry about" and  just hope ,sometime ,they`ll honour their promise.I would`nt go evens on that one folks!
  Cannot stand fluffy sidestepping from anyone,and that is what it is.How about roaring out "will you honour your manifesto or not"?Stop being so meek and trusting..are only two of us on here angry enough to bawl out the  liers for the truth? Fluffy? The CA is almost as fluffy as a persian cat.
		
Click to expand...

EK,you sound very angry these days in some of your posts, any reason?hope its not personal-


----------



## JanetGeorge (17 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			as for the government,their manifesto suggested that a repeal was a major consideration.Which is why some of us who usually don`t bother turned out to vote.I actually think they got us out to vote under false pretences
		
Click to expand...

You're forgetting: it was the Conservatives who pledged to repeal the ban - NOT 'the Government'!!  The Government is a coalition with the LibDems who did NOT pledge to repeal - in fact only a few would vote in favour of repeal!

IF the Conservatives had won a decent majority, we would almost certainly have had repeal by now - or at least in the next 12 months.  As it is, the numbers do NOT add up!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (18 September 2011)

Doesn't the countryside Alliance not cover everything country, not just hunting?


----------



## EAST KENT (18 September 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			EK,you sound very angry these days in some of your posts, any reason?hope its not personal-
		
Click to expand...

   It does make me angry that with  this lot (and I accept the ghastly Libdems are a problem) that we saw real hope that something I have held dear from five years old has apparently evaporated.The world has gone mad,no dog allowed to hunt,it is ridiculous.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (18 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			It does make me angry that with  this lot (and I accept the ghastly Libdems are a problem) that we saw real hope that something I have held dear from five years old has apparently evaporated.The world has gone mad,no dog allowed to hunt,it is ridiculous.
		
Click to expand...

I do agree but what can one do?


----------



## EAST KENT (18 September 2011)

Move to Eire or the US !


----------



## Judgemental (18 September 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			I do agree but what can one do?
		
Click to expand...

Rosie, as I have said before, but none of the good and great will go and seriously bend the ear of the various politicians and especially the Home Secretary to the following effect:

Simply this, remove Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004, using the Statutory Instrument.

It is within the gift and power of the minister. It does not need a set piece debate in either the House of Commons or Lords. Indeed it is necessary to remove Section 8, because things have changed and the police do not have the time and resources to 'monitor' hunts.

The Act says that the Minister may use the Statutory Instrument if events and matters change, clearly the finances of the country dictate that if Parliament has more important things to do, than repeal the act completely, then it follows police forces do not have the time to police hunts.   

It's a matter of a stroke of a pen. 

Fundamenatally it would emasculate the act and make it wholly impotent.

I have found that the majority of MPs have never read the act and certainly do not understand the implications on the gound, in the highways, byways, fields and hunt kennels throughout this nation.


----------



## EAST KENT (19 September 2011)

Could you post the relevent Section 8 on here JM (probably for the umpteenth time)


----------



## Judgemental (19 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Could you post the relevent Section 8 on here JM (probably for the umpteenth time)

Click to expand...

East Kent, always delighted to oblige. The actual link is: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/contents

However the two important sections are 8 and 14. 8) Search and Seizure, 14) the use of the Statutory Instrument. Item d) is particularly relevant so far as The Statutory Instrument is concerned, now that the police and law enforcement agencies are strapped for cash.

The problem we have, is that those who represent the cause, are not in my opinon too bright, (I could be quite colourful) when it comes to using the content of the act to effect it&#8217;s dismantling. They only seem to understand the word *repeal* &#8211; _*dismantling *_is too hard to comprehend!     

*Section 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.


*Section 14*

*Subordinate legislation*

An order of the Secretary of State under this Act&#8212;

(a)shall be made by statutory instrument,
(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament,
(c)may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes,
(d)may make different provision for different circumstances or purposes, and
(e)may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision.

Many people do not understand what a Statutory Instrument is, I have therefore copied below a synopsis and a link to the House of Commons.

*Statutory Instruments*
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/l07.pdf 

Statutory Instruments (SIs) are a form of
legislation which allow the provisions of an
Act of Parliament to be subsequently
brought into force or altered without
Parliament having to pass a new Act. They
are also referred to as secondary, delegated
or subordinate legislation. This Factsheet
discusses the background to SIs, the
procedural rules they must follow, and their
parliamentary scrutiny. It also looks at the
other types of delegated legislation.
This factsheet is available on the internet at:
http://www.parliament.uk/factsheets
May 2008
FS No.L7 Ed 3.9
ISSN 0144-4689
© Parliamentary Copyright
(House of Commons) 2008
May be reproduced for purposes
of private study or research
without permission.


----------



## combat_claire (19 September 2011)

The trouble is that if the matter is addressed through an SI immediately it will enable the Conservative party to put 'tick done' by the matter of the Hunting Act without actually achieving belt and braces repeal. As has been said by better informed political minds on this forum -  An SI can be just as easily undone by the next administration with the stroke of a political pen. 

As an amateur member of hunt staff I would rather see the job done properly; even if this means waiting a few more years for the West Lothian question to be resolved and a proper repeal with an Act that also entrenches hunting as a wildlife management tool for the future. 

To summarise I would rather wait and see the gallows demolished in entirety rather than be hanged with a slightly looser noose.


----------



## combat_claire (19 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			No they will not get £60.00 off me this year;
		
Click to expand...

If you can't bring yourself to join the CA; then will you consider the Union of Countrysports Workers if you are not already a member. Their sub is £15/20 per annum depending on level opted for.


----------



## Judgemental (19 September 2011)

combat_claire said:



			The trouble is that if the matter is addressed through an SI immediately it will enable the Conservative party to put 'tick done' by the matter of the Hunting Act without actually achieving belt and braces repeal. *That will probably be the only option and we will be told we are lucky to get anything! *As an amateur member of hunt staff I would rather see the job done properly; even if this means waiting a few more years *how many?* for the West Lothian question to be resolved and a proper repeal with an Act that also entrenches hunting as a wildlife management tool for the future. 

To summarise I would rather wait and see the gallows demolished in entirety rather than be hanged with a slightly looser noose. *When? *

Click to expand...

...


----------



## combat_claire (19 September 2011)

Judgemental said:



			...
		
Click to expand...

I'm afraid my crystal ball got dropped over the weekend! 

If a job is worth doing; then it is worth doing properly when the time is right.


----------



## Judgemental (19 September 2011)

combat_claire said:



			I'm afraid my crystal ball got dropped over the weekend! 

If a job is worth doing; then it is worth doing properly when the time is right.
		
Click to expand...

Claire, what you are forgetting as has been most effectively put by Janet George, the current government is a COALITION.

Mr Clegg could jump ship at any time and cause a General Election and Labour could be back in power or indeed a Lib/Lab pact.

The issue of the Hunting Act 2004 is rather like that most excellent game show, Deal or No Deal hosted by Noel Edmunds - a former President of the British Horse Society.

One goes into the show with nothing and it you are not greedy you are likely to come away with something, maybe not the £250K but something is better than nothing?

Sometimes those that go the whole way come away with a substantial sum, but on avaerage those that do go the whole way come away with only a few pennies!  


Better to get something out of or removed from the Hunting Act 2004 than nothing at all!


----------



## Herne (19 September 2011)

Judgemental said:



			The problem we have, is that those who represent the cause, are not in my opinon too bright, (I could be quite colourful) when it comes to using the content of the act to effect its dismantling. They only seem to understand the word *repeal*  _*dismantling *_is too hard to comprehend!
		
Click to expand...

I rather fear that it is you who are barking up the wrong tree.

The provisions of Section 14 do not give the Secretary of State powers to vary the whole Act at will. The provisions of Section 14 specify how an Order of the Secretary of State shall be made, where it has been enabled elsewhere in the Act.

An order of the Secretary of State is only empowered by the Act in Section 2, Subsection 2, where it enables the SoS to amend or vary a class of Exempt Hunting.

Therefore the SoS could *not*, as you suggest use an SI to simply repeal Section 8. That would require an amendment of the Act, which would be every bit as difficult as full repeal, if not more so.

The SoS, could, of course, in theory amend, by SI, the Exempt Hunting Clauses to allow any and every sort of Hunting to be Exempt.

However, Section 14, Subsection b, requires a draft of the SI to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and again this would be equally as difficult to get passed as a one-line repeal Bill.

Your easy fix would not work.


----------



## Judgemental (19 September 2011)

Herne said:



			I rather fear that it is you who are barking up the wrong tree.

The provisions of Section 14 do not give the Secretary of State powers to vary the whole Act at will. The provisions of Section 14 specify how an Order of the Secretary of State shall be made, where it has been enabled elsewhere in the Act.

An order of the Secretary of State is only empowered by the Act in Section 2, Subsection 2, where it enables the SoS to amend or vary a class of Exempt Hunting.

Therefore the SoS could *not*, as you suggest use an SI to simply repeal Section 8. That would require an amendment of the Act, which would be every bit as difficult as full repeal, if not more so.

The SoS, could, of course, in theory amend, by SI, the Exempt Hunting Clauses to allow any and every sort of Hunting to be Exempt.

However, Section 14, Subsection b, requires a draft of the SI to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and again this would be equally as difficult to get passed as a one-line repeal Bill.

Your easy fix would not work.
		
Click to expand...


Herne, there are several points to be made in response.

1. If the use of the SI is not ventured nobody will ever know, you are taking a defeatist attitude.

2. By using the SI route, you are at least bringing the issue back onto the floor of the House of Commons and giving the rank and file of hunting some hope that something is being done.

3. At the end of the day removal of Section 8 only removes the requirement of a police officer NOT to have a warrant to enter Hunt Kennels for example. All police officers should have a warrant to enter any premises.

4. There are a large number of Conservative MP's who owe their present seats to the fact hunts up and down the country constantly canvassed their supporters to vote for MPs who supported hunting.

I commend East Kent's comments earlier in this thread when she said.

_"Oh honestly..recipes indeed. No they will not get £60.00 off me this year; as for the government,their manifesto suggested that a repeal was a major consideration. Which is why some of us who usually don`t bother turned out to vote. I actually think they got us out to vote under false pretences,and all this prevarification is rubbish, and then of course us oh so decent hunting folk roll over and say "oh we do understand we are the least important thing to worry about" and just hope ,sometime ,they`ll honour their promise.I would`nt go evens on that one folks!"_ 

We are all being taken for a ride!

I confidently predict that unless the 'Government' actions the issue, many voters will simply walk away and also away from the CA.


----------



## Herne (19 September 2011)

Judgemental, 

Point 1, you misunderstood the Law with regard to Statutory Instruments. No matter how wrong section 8 may be, it cannot be repealed by SI. What you suggest cannot be done because the Act does not empower it. That is not defeatism, it just is.

Point 2, regardless of how much work we all put in, we did not get a sufficient pro-hunting majority within the House of Commons to force legislation through. This applies to whether we are trying to force through a one-line Repeal Bill or a Statutory Instrument widening the definition of exempt hunting within the existing Act. Which part of that do you not understand? 


And yes, you are right, people will walk away from the necessary continued struggle to achieve repeal if people like you mislead them by spreading unfounded scare stories.


----------



## Judgemental (19 September 2011)

Herne said:



			Judgemental, 

Point 1, you misunderstood the Law with regard to Statutory Instruments. No matter how wrong section 8 may be, it cannot be repealed by SI. What you suggest cannot be done because the Act does not empower it. That is not defeatism, it just is.

Point 2, regardless of how much work we all put in, we did not get a sufficient pro-hunting majority within the House of Commons to force legislation through. This applies to whether we are trying to force through a one-line Repeal Bill or a Statutory Instrument widening the definition of exempt hunting within the existing Act. Which part of that do you not understand? 


And yes, you are right, people will walk away from the necessary continued struggle to achieve repeal if people like you mislead them by spreading unfounded scare stories.
		
Click to expand...

Classic, absolutely classic, I have heard it all my life, don't worry we know what we are doing and you must toe the party line!

Where are we, with a full-blown ban, no prospect of repeal and not even a nugget of hope that could be kicked about on the floor of the House of Commons?

Section 8 if given the light of day on the floor of the House of Commons, would at the very least demonstrate the injustices within the Act and us mere foot soldiers, the rank file, those that turn out and vote as we are told to vote, would at least have the satisfaction that somebody in the H of C who got themselves elected on the 'hunting ticket' actually CARED.

Even those opposed to hunting can see that Section 8 and the non-requirement for a police officer to have a warrant is wrong. Entering hunt kennels is hardly a matter of national security, the only other time a police officer does not have to have magistrates warrant in his possession to enter premises.


----------



## Herne (19 September 2011)

Gordon Bennett, this is like beating one's head against a brick wall.

Listen. What I am telling you is: *You have got it wrong. It can not be done like that.*

They are all one syllable words. I am not sure how I can make it any plainer.

Sorry to slaughter your sacred cow and all, but Section 8 *CANNOT* be repealed by Statutory Instrument. 

Not "_Oh, we don't think it's a very good idea_" or "_There is not the political will to do so at this time_" or "_We have a better idea..._"

There is no method in Law to do so. It is not legally possible. Even if every MP in the house was in favour of it. It can not be done. It is impossible.

Geddit yet?

The powers given to Ministers to carry out by SI are defined by the &#8220;Parent&#8221; or &#8220;Enabling&#8221; Act. In the case of the Hunting Act 2004, it only empowers the SoS to amend Schedule 1 and Schedule 1 alone. It does not empower the Minister to repeal any, or part of any, clauses, and therefore no Minister would, or even could, waste parliamentary time by trying to do so. 

Yes, we all think Section 8 is a travesty, but the only way to address Section 8 would be to amend the Whole Act, which would require even more Parliamentary time than a one -line repeal bill


----------



## JanetGeorge (19 September 2011)

Herne said:



			Listen. What I am telling you is: *You have got it wrong. It can not be done like that.*

They are all one syllable words. I am not sure how I can make it any plainer.

Sorry to slaughter your sacred cow and all, but Section 8 *CANNOT* be repealed by Statutory Instrument.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Judgemental - but Herne is 100% RIGHT!  The CA has some very good lawyers and barristers at its call (all good hunting types!) and if there was an easy way of sorting the Hunting Act it would have been done by now!

Fact of Life 1:  the Conservatives do NOT have the numbers for repeal of the Hunting Act right now!  Attempting to repeal - and failing - would be FAR worse (in both political AND PR terms) than putting repeal on the back burner for now!  Jumping up and down and making a scene will NOT help!

Fact of Life 2: the CA isn't perfect!  But it is the ONLY organisation committed to repeal of the Hunting Act that stands a cat in hell's chance of making it happen - when the time is right!  I have more (personal) reasons than most to slap down the CA!  BUT I am a member - and fully support the view that if you are not, then you shouldn't be hunting!

IF hunting supporters 'walk away' - from the Conservatives - and from the CA - that would guarantee NO chance of repeal, and in fact guarantee that within a few years, the Hunting Act would be tightened up SO much that hunts could not continue to operate at all!  (And probably guarantee that we'd all be so broke we couldn't AFFORD to hunt anyway!)


----------



## EAST KENT (19 September 2011)

combat_claire said:



			If you can't bring yourself to join the CA; then will you consider the Union of Countrysports Workers if you are not already a member. Their sub is £15/20 per annum depending on level opted for.
		
Click to expand...

  `Scuse me,but I shall point out here that I have been a member for a very long time,long before the CA and it`s new fluffyness ever appeared.It is not a matter of "joining" more a matter of saving myself 60.00 on futile expense.


----------



## Herne (20 September 2011)

Oh, that is such a load of drivel.

Save the excuses, I have heard them all, and Janet has probably heard even more than me.

When it comes down to it, they all amount to a sad attempt to find someone to "blame" for the fact that everything is not as you wish it to be and to try to justify to yourself the inexcuseable saving a few quid into the bargain. It's all a bit childish, really.

"Hmm," say the MPs, "more than 400,000 people went on the Hunting March, but less than 100,000 of them are members of the CA. Well, if more than 75% of hunting supporters don't even care enough about hunting to join your organisation, why the heck should we waste our time on it."

That is the real and measurable effect of decisions like yours.

As Janet says, if you don't support the CA, you don't deserve to go hunting, so please don't waste your time, or ours, in the utterly futile attempt to try to make out that your apathy and defeatism has any form of justification. It doesn't.


----------



## EAST KENT (20 September 2011)

Hope you are`nt part of customer relations !  I have`nt bothered to "hunt" since the ban ,it is pointless,  as for "deserving" to hunt,I think you are a tad barking.If ever there was any dithering, you`ve stopped that nicely,well done!


----------



## Judgemental (20 September 2011)

When the Hunting Act 2004 was enacted, the Internet was in it's infancy and Forums such as this did not exist.

It is clear we are now putting the wind up these movers, shakers and dare I say MPs.

If the House of Commons rule books in the form of Erskin May and in the latter, Barlas are consulted, it is perfectly possible for 'anomalies' to be corrected, especially that which is contained in Section 8

Oh I understand the fear, that if Section 8 is corrected and frankly I don't see why it should not be corrected, even if it takes Parliamentary time, then the notion of a wholesale repeal is dead in the water.

The opportunity as I see to ever achieve a repeal is now non-existent.

With the way things are economically and that dire situation, if the LIb/Dems jumped ship and caused a General Election the Conservatives would be wiped from the face of the political scene.

Largely because all those who voted Libdem are thoroughly ticked off that they are now in bed with the Conservatives. Thus they will likely vote Labour who will be returned to Parliament with a massive majority.

Notwithstanding all those who voted for MP's (Conservatives) whose CV's indicated they would support a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004.  

So the Conservatives had better go and see Mr Clegg and Mr Cable (Along with Lord Paddy Ashdown) and ask them what price to stay in power - which Libdem sacred cow would they really like to put through Parliament. 

The deal being if you the LibDems support 'us' the Conservatives on Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004, we (the Conservatives) will give you anything you want on your (the LibDem) wish list.

That at least will keep the hunting rank and file, foot soldiers of the Conservative party sweet - for the time being! (who are now well informed as to their rights and remedies via forums such as this). 

In my Judgement, I think the LibDems would do a deal on Section 8, if they were to achieve a serious manifesto pledge to their core vote. After all the small matter of  whether or not a police officer has to have a warrant under the Hunting Act 2004, is a very small price to pay politically, for all the cherished ambitions of the LibDems.


----------



## Herne (20 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Hope you are`nt part of customer relations !  I have`nt bothered to "hunt" since the ban ,it is pointless,  as for "deserving" to hunt,I think you are a tad barking.If ever there was any dithering, you`ve stopped that nicely,well done!

Click to expand...


Oh, so now it's my fault...

See, just as I said, you'll look for any excuse to try to hide from your own apathy and defeatism. Feeble. Utterly feeble.


And by the way, I do not and have never worked for the Countryside Alliance - although I do do my voluntary bit on the County Committee.


----------



## Herne (20 September 2011)

Judgemental said:



			When the Hunting Act 2004 was enacted, the Internet was in it's infancy and Forums such as this did not exist.
		
Click to expand...

Forums such as this, which was started in 2001, did not exist in 2004? Okayyyyyyyy.....

Where have you been? I was arguing the hunting debate on Compuserve back in the early nineties...





			It is clear we are now putting the wind up these movers, shakers and dare I say MPs .... the hunting rank and file ... (who are now well informed as to their rights and remedies via forums such as this) ...
		
Click to expand...

Dare I say that you are slightly overestimating the importance and/or influence of forums such as this, and possibly even the value of your own contributions to them?



Judgemental said:



			So what's changed, we now have the Internet to communicate and this Forum in particular, where we can all exchange views and if necessary, organise another march.
		
Click to expand...




Judgemental said:



			It seems the players on this forum make a far greater and more voluble and valuable contribution and help to keep the cause alive?
		
Click to expand...

Ok, yes, I dare say it. Time for a reality check, JM. The readership of these forums is pretty small&#8230;.


As for well-informed, well, have you not just given them completely erroneous information about amending the Hunting Act by Statutory Instrument. Would it not be a good idea to correct that, if you want people to be "well-informed"? Or would admitting that you were actually wrong be a step too far...?





			So the Conservatives had better go and see Mr Clegg and Mr Cable (Along with Lord Paddy Ashdown) and ask them what price to stay in power - which Libdem sacred cow would they really like to put through Parliament. 

The deal being if you the LibDems support 'us' the Conservatives on Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004, we (the Conservatives) will give you anything you want on your (the LibDem) wish list.

That at least will keep the hunting rank and file, foot soldiers of the Conservative party sweet - for the time being! (who are now well informed as to their rights and remedies via forums such as this)
		
Click to expand...

Oh, right, so these conservative MPs, who are already aware that 75% of hunting people can&#8217;t even be bothered to join the Countryside Alliance and are now &#8220;*well-informed*&#8221; by people like you and East Kent that hunting people are apparently going to be deserting in droves are still going to choose Section 8 of the Hunting Act as the reason to give the Lib-Dems whatever they want are they?

Do you even think about this stuff before you write it down?

Thank heavens your estimation of the importance of this forum is vastly over-estimated&#8230;.


----------



## EAST KENT (20 September 2011)

Herne said:



			Oh, so now it's my fau


And by the way, I do not and have never worked for the Countryside Alliance - although I do do my voluntary bit on the County Committee.
		
Click to expand...

   Well thank God for that.


----------



## Judgemental (21 September 2011)

Judgemental said:



			East Kent, always delighted to oblige. The actual link is: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/contents

However the two important sections are 8 and 14. 8) Search and Seizure, 14) the use of the Statutory Instrument. Item d) is particularly relevant so far as The Statutory Instrument is concerned, now that the police and law enforcement agencies are strapped for cash.

The problem we have, is that those who represent the cause, are not in my opinon too bright, (I could be quite colourful) when it comes to using the content of the act to effect its dismantling. They only seem to understand the word *repeal*  _*dismantling *_is too hard to comprehend!     

*Section 8*

*Search and seizure*

(1)This section applies where a constable reasonably suspects that a person (the suspect) 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
(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
(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.


*Section 14*

*Subordinate legislation*

An order of the Secretary of State under this Act

(a)shall be made by statutory instrument,
(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament,
(c)may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes,
(d)may make different provision for different circumstances or purposes, and
(e)may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision.

Many people do not understand what a Statutory Instrument is, I have therefore copied below a synopsis and a link to the House of Commons.

*Statutory Instruments*
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/l07.pdf 

Statutory Instruments (SIs) are a form of
legislation which allow the provisions of an
Act of Parliament to be subsequently
brought into force or altered without
Parliament having to pass a new Act. They
are also referred to as secondary, delegated
or subordinate legislation. This Factsheet
discusses the background to SIs, the
procedural rules they must follow, and their
parliamentary scrutiny. It also looks at the
other types of delegated legislation.
This factsheet is available on the internet at:
http://www.parliament.uk/factsheets
May 2008
FS No.L7 Ed 3.9
ISSN 0144-4689
© Parliamentary Copyright
(House of Commons) 2008
May be reproduced for purposes
of private study or research
without permission.
		
Click to expand...

As far as I can see what you are saying Herne is a smokescreen.

Anybody who hunts and has an interest in hunting, should avoid all these people who say, "you can't do this and you can't do that in the House of Commons".

Everybody should get out in their hunts and start bending the ears of Chariman, Masters, Secretaries and any other person who has any influence.

They must make all these MPs who were elected to Parliament on the Hunting Ticket, get on with dismantling the Hunting Act 2004.

They were all elected to the above effect and not one MP has done anything to facilitate even the remotest whiff of the Hunting Act 2004, in the House of Commons.

As East Kent, said we were all caused to vote accordingly under false pretences.

I don't care what the arithmatic of the House of Commons adds up to in terms of a majority or lack of it, it is still possible to get some amendments passed.

As I say Section 8 or at least part of it, would easily pass through both Houses of Parliament if properly conducted and with effort. 

That's what really irritates, is the fact none of these MP's are putting the slightest effort into any sort of dismantling or repeal.


----------



## JanetGeorge (21 September 2011)

Judgemental said:



			They must make all these MPs who were elected to Parliament on the Hunting Ticket, get on with dismantling the Hunting Act 2004.

They were all elected to the above effect and not one MP has done anything to facilitate even the remotest whiff of the Hunting Act 2004, in the House of Commons.

As East Kent, said we were all caused to vote accordingly under false pretences.
		
Click to expand...

Oh join the real world JM!  VERY few Conservative MPs WERE elected 'on the hunting ticket' - although hunting support certainly helped with majorities in quite a few constituencies!  The vast majority were elected on the 'get bloody Labour out ticket'!  Hunting was ON the Conservative manifesto - but sorting out the country is a rather higher priority - even for most hunting people!!

Trying to do ANYTHING with the Hunting Act at this stage would be the worst case of "fiddling while Rome burns" in the last 100 years!  It would also be immensely dangerous!  ANY attempt to amend the Hunting Act would open up the floodgates to anti MPs to also put forward amendments strengthening the Act!! And with the numbers as they are, that's what would happen!


----------



## Alec Swan (21 September 2011)

Does it seem strange,  to anyone else,  that the use of the words "Whips" from the viewpoint of the parliamentarians (thank God for spell check!),  is a hunting term? 

I agree with you,  Mrs. George,  if the issue went to a free vote,  then without question,  hunting would struggle under even more draconian and pointless conditions.  

J_M,  I could never be described as a defeatist,  but I see no point in starting a fight,  which cannot be won.  The future?  Who knows?  For now,  there are far more pressing issues for government to deal with,  though whether they will actually be able to influence change,  is another matter! 

We are all aware of our recent history,  and Blair's unbelievable admissions,  but most,  I suspect work on the basis,  that half a loaf,  is better than none at all;  irksome though that may be.

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (21 September 2011)

Section 8 Subsection 6 Under Search and Seizure of the Hunting Act 2004 states:

*(6)The exercise of a power (by a Police Officer) under this section does not require a warrant .*

For the moment and benefit of this discussion, let us forget we are talking about the Hunting Act 2004; let us say we are talking about a potential/alleged offence &#8211; any non-serious offence.

Unless it is a matter of National Security or a serious crime such a murder etc, a Police Office requires a warrant to search premises.

Somebody do please tell me when that is not the case?

Thus the hunting community are being discriminated against.

There is nothing, Mrs George, Alec, and Herne to stop a Police Officer drawing up behind you as you arrive back in your yard and parking in your yard or indeed to be waiting for you, after hunting and saying that he proposes to search your premises without a warrant because he, the constable reasonably suspects you have committed an offence under the Hunting Act 2004. Simply because you were following hounds and indeed on your feet. Anybody known to the police as a supporter of hunting can have their premises (save for a dwelling) searched at any time of day or night by a Police Officer without a warrant.

My contention is solely the issue of not needing a warrant from a Magistrate.   

Somebody has started a thread asking about discrimination - if that aint discrimination I don't know what is?

I guarantee that if one of our supporting MP's bothered to do something about this, the Clerks sitting at the table of the House of Commons would give him or her a listing. OK tabling an Early Day Motion. 

It is simply not justified not to have to have a warrant and anybody MP who is opposed to hunting and said but I am going to oppose the lifting of non-requirement of a police officer to have a warrant, might as well say, "police officers need not have warrants for any searching of any premises for any reason".

I have spoken to numerous people and nobody knew what Section 8 Subsection 6 says. 

I blame the Countryside Alliance and individual hunts for not properly advising and spelling the clause out to their supporters.

There needs to be a wholesale wake-up call on this very specific subject.  

Now Mrs George, Herne and anybody else, tell me why that particular clause could not be amended forthwith?


----------



## JanetGeorge (21 September 2011)

Yawn!  You're actually wrong JM.  The police can enter and search any premises on grounds of 'probable cause'.  Probable cause means that a reasonable person would believe that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed, or was going to be committed.

So all police need is a report that hunt X had been seen hunting foxes with hounds and ANY person who had been out with that hunt that day - or who was formally connected to that hunt - could be stopped and searched anyway (if the police could be bothered - and they're generally not!)


----------



## Judgemental (21 September 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			Yawn!  You're actually wrong JM.  The police can enter and search any premises on grounds of 'probable cause'.  Probable cause means that a reasonable person would believe that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed, or was going to be committed.

So all police need is a report that hunt X had been seen hunting foxes with hounds and ANY person who had been out with that hunt that day - or who was formally connected to that hunt - could be stopped and searched anyway (if the police could be bothered - and they're generally not!)
		
Click to expand...

Then on the bais of your argument the very existence of a hunt and it's kennels could be contruded as probable cause.

However you are wrong, a police officer may not enter any premises, save in exceptional circmstances without a warrant to search for evidence, save for those premises connect with hunting.

Whether or not the police are bothered or not, is not the point. The point is that it is on the statute and is discrimanatory and should be removed forthwith.  

Neither the Countryside Alliance or the MFHA are doing anything or enough to have Subsection 6 of Section 8 removed.


----------



## JanetGeorge (21 September 2011)

I don't know whether it's your ability to read that is impaired JM - or if it is your ability to comprehend (and spell!!)  The existence of a hunt - and its kennels - cannot be construed as 'probable cause' because various forms of hunting (drag, trail etc.) are legal, as are gun packs, and packs using a bird of prey!

And I'm NOT wrong about probable cause - there are dozens of incidents every week in every police authority where officers enter and search premises (and people) on 'probable cause'.  Some of them are undoubtedly misuse of probable cause but - unless you are absolutely whiter than white - the chances of proving it (and having any evidence retrieved in the search excluded from evidence) are quite slim.

The reason the Countryside Alliance and the MFHA are doing nothing to have Subsection 6 of Section 8 removed is that they have been advised against it - both on legal grounds - and because of the risk of opening up the Act for further amendment that would be distinctly unhelpful!

You are flogging a dead horse!


----------



## Aesculus (21 September 2011)

Although the situation has been beautifully summarised by Janet and Herne, the facts relating to the powers of a police officer are not exclusive the the Hunting Act. The powers which have existed for for some time (according to my old training manual) are as follows:-

The police are given powers to enter premises without a warrant by many Acts of Parliament. 
For example, under the Gaming Act 1968 they have power to enter licensed premises to carry out inspections. Other powers include searches for drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and for firearms under the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended). 
In addition, they may have the right to enter premises without a warrant to deal with or prevent a breach of the peace. PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) provides them with several other powers:

To execute a warrant of arrest 

To arrest someone for an arrestable offence.

To arrest someone for various offences under the Public Order Acts 1936 and 1986 - such as riot, violent disorder, affray, threatening behaviour and disorderly conduct; the Criminal Law Act 1977 - offences relating to trespass - and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 - failure to comply with an interim possession order.

To recapture a person who has escaped from lawful custody.

To arrest a child or young person who has been remanded or committed to local authority accommodation.

To save life or limb or prevent serious damage to property.

The police officer need not be in uniform unless entering under a power set out in the Public Order Acts or the Criminal Law Act. The police officer may search the premises, but the power of search is only a power to search to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose for which the power of entry is exercised

The police have powers to enter, or to enter and search, your premises for many reasons. Some of these powers are set out in PACE  but the police also have power to enter and search under other statutes, for instance the Theft Act 1968. It should be noted that the police do not always need to have a search warrant, although they must always have a reason for the search.

The PACE Code of Practice, Code B, sets out how the police should conduct searches. 

Powers of entry and search must be fully justified before use and the police should always consider whether their objectives could be met by other less obtrusive means. If the police exceed their powers any evidence obtained as a result may not be admissible as evidence in a trial. 

I do hope this puts an end to any doubt.

Regards

Aesculus


----------



## Herne (24 September 2011)

It's gone very quiet in here...

Nothing more to say, JM?




Alec Swan said:



			Does it seem strange,  to anyone else,  that the use of the words "Whips" from the viewpoint of the parliamentarians (thank God for spell check!),  is a hunting term? 

Click to expand...

As is the term "Riot" - as in when hounds hunt the wrong thing.

It stems from the Old English word for Rabbit, which is why, when hounds hunt rabbits, or other unintended species, the term is "Ware (as in beware) Riot".

This hunting term for groups of hounds misbehaving then passed into the legal sphere for groups of people misbehaving.

So when the Police confront an unruly Mob and "Read the Riot Act", they are actually reading the "Rabbit Act", which always rather amuses me.


----------



## Judgemental (25 September 2011)

Herne said:



			It's gone very quiet in here...

Nothing more to say, JM?
		
Click to expand...

Herne the words of wisdom from Mrs George sum up the whole situation when she said in her last post:

_*" The reason the Countryside Alliance and the MFHA are doing nothing to have Subsection 6 of Section 8 removed is that they have been advised against it". You are flogging a dead horse!" *_

So that's an end of of the whole subject. The Ban will never be repealed, indeed nothing will ever come back onto the floor of the House of Commons.

Presumably such information really reflects the position of the MFHA and the Countryside Alliance, that there is simply no hope.  

My feeling it's all over, hunting is finished, kaput, gone for ever as we knew it, there is nothing more to be said! Probably going to sell the horses. There is no point in paying vast sums of money to have a hack round the countryside. I can do that in any event - for nothing.


----------



## JanetGeorge (25 September 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Herne the words of wisdom from Mrs George sum up the whole situation when she said in her last post:

_*" The reason the Countryside Alliance and the MFHA are doing nothing to have Subsection 6 of Section 8 removed is that they have been advised against it". You are flogging a dead horse!" *_

So that's an end of of the whole subject. The Ban will never be repealed, indeed nothing will ever come back onto the floor of the House of Commons.

Presumably such information really reflects the position of the MFHA and the Countryside Alliance, that there is simply no hope.
		
Click to expand...

That is certainly NOT the position of the CA - nor the MFHA.  There IS hope - and I don't think for a moment that the CA nor the MFHA have abandoned hope.  I certainly haven't!!  Neither has Herne - nor any serious hunting person who has thought the matter through REALISTICALLY!!

However, lots of jumping up and down is not going to work!  Nor is tilting at windmills!  WHEN the political climate is in our favour, then the Hunting Act will be suitably dealt with in its entireity, either by complete repeal - or via useful amendments!


----------



## Judgemental (25 September 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			That is certainly NOT the position of the CA - nor the MFHA.  There IS hope - and I don't think for a moment that the CA nor the MFHA have abandoned hope.  I certainly haven't!!  Neither has Herne - nor any serious hunting person who has thought the matter through REALISTICALLY!!

However, lots of jumping up and down is not going to work!  Nor is tilting at windmills!  WHEN the political climate is in our favour, then the Hunting Act will be suitably dealt with in its entireity, either by complete repeal - or via useful amendments!
		
Click to expand...

Mrs George, I recollect my first encounter or shall we say awareness of your good self was circa 1975/78, give or take I cannot be precise as to the exact year. I was sitting in my London abode watching the television and you flashed up on the screen. Perhaps you were in company with a man called Duke. On the other hand, I might be wrong on that point? 

You both seemed to have some useful horses about and you both had a great deal to say about hunting.

The following day, I happen to have a meeting with the late Bob Dean of Pearl and Dean and his partner the late Raymond Brookes-Ward.

Your television interview was a hot topic of conversation. Not that that was the purpose of the meeting.

I shall always remember Raymond saying, "what they need to do is look at the big picture". 

I suppose in his and Bob Dean's professional capacity there was a certain irony in that comment.

Now, some 35 years on I have the luxury of dialogue with you via this forum and you said above:

"WHEN the political climate is in our favour, then the Hunting Act will be suitably dealt with in its entirety, either by complete repeal - or via useful amendments".

The question, in the context of the big picture is WHEN?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (25 September 2011)

One can hope,theres always hope but i think itwill remain on the back burner,so i'm with your opinions JM......


----------



## Alec Swan (25 September 2011)

J_M,

a good post.

Alec.


----------



## JanetGeorge (25 September 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Mrs George, I recollect my first encounter or shall we say awareness of your good self was circa 1975/78, give or take I cannot be precise as to the exact year. I was sitting in my London abode watching the television and you flashed up on the screen. Perhaps you were in company with a man called Duke. On the other hand, I might be wrong on that point?
		
Click to expand...

Wrong on both points, JM - I wasn't even in the UK in 1975/78!!  And the ONLY time Edward Duke and I shared a tv programme was after he had sacked me - and he had 'resigned' - in a program called 'Blood on the Carpet' which was 1st screened very late in 1998-early 1999.




			Now, some 35 years on I have the luxury of dialogue with you via this forum and you said above:

"WHEN the political climate is in our favour, then the Hunting Act will be suitably dealt with in its entirety, either by complete repeal - or via useful amendments".

The question, in the context of the big picture is WHEN?
		
Click to expand...

One could argue that the formation of the CA was an attempt to look at the big picture - although IMHO - it was too little, too late!  If it had been done in the late '60s/early '70s before the AR movement got such a hold on hearts and minds regarding hunting, we probably wouldn't have a ban today!

No-one could have predicted a Conservative/LibDem Alliance running the country!  Only some of the smarter economists (who no-one was listening to during the Labour administration) would have predicted the massive economic crunch the world (including the UK) has faced over the past few years!

I certainly can't predict when the economy will recover, or whether the Conservatives can get a decent working majority at the next election.  The latter is probably dependent on the former happening at least 12 months BEFORE the next election!


----------



## 1t34 (25 September 2011)

I am a lurker not a poster on this forum. I don't represent any organisation etc. But I have read this thread and a couple of things struck me. The majority of posters are correct in their assumption that at a national level any amendments to this act would fail miserably. Its a fact and there it is, there is not enough support and more fool anyone who thinks an MP will come through on a single issue issue - when there are much more pressing issues which will be pivotal in any future election. Personally I thing the chances of much being achieved at a national level even in the medium term are slim.

However, I had a mad idea, I think the CA should explore some of the new legislation such as the Localism Bill. This offers the opportunity for local communities to set up referendums to look at local issues and is meant to deal with the burden of unnecessary regulation etc. It may seem completely off the wall (and probably is!!) But imagine a strong hunting community seeking to challenge this at a local level, perhaps two or three communities all trying this out. It could be a strong local voice taking action, avoiding the need for a national debate!!

Sorry if this is deeply unhelpful, I've just been mulling it over.


----------



## JanetGeorge (25 September 2011)

1t34 said:



			However, I had a mad idea, I think the CA should explore some of the new legislation such as the Localism Bill. This offers the opportunity for local communities to set up referendums to look at local issues and is meant to deal with the burden of unnecessary regulation etc. It may seem completely off the wall (and probably is!!) But imagine a strong hunting community seeking to challenge this at a local level, perhaps two or three communities all trying this out. It could be a strong local voice taking action, avoiding the need for a national debate!!

Sorry if this is deeply unhelpful, I've just been mulling it over.
		
Click to expand...

Mmm .. I'm not sure that is either mad - or unhelpful!  It would have to be in VERY carefully selected areas, of course: a defeat - even at local level  - would be counter-productive.  I don't know how it would be best organised/managed etc.  But I know someone who WOULD know if it's feasible - I'll drop him a line!


----------



## EAST KENT (26 September 2011)

Total agrreement JM, all this stuff about "the right time"..that is never, is`nt it?  What a stupid world UK has become,recipe provider cancelled.


----------



## Judgemental (26 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Total agrreement JM, all this stuff about "the right time"..that is never, is`nt it?  What a stupid world UK has become,recipe provider cancelled.
		
Click to expand...

This is a most serious situation because there are a large number of supporters living in the belief, that the political repeal process is actually operational.

It is wholly misleading not to state the exact position and the MFHA and Countryside Alliance should be very clear as to EXACTLY WHEN a repeal will be enacted.

They are seeking support for a repeal and more imprtantly, Members of Parliament are getting themsleves elected on a ticket that they support hunting. 

At the end of the day, unless a transparent postion is declared, many hunting supporters will simply vote with their cheque books by leaving them to gather moth and dust!


----------



## Herne (26 September 2011)

You two are being completely illogical about this.

If Labour had won the last election, you would not be sitting there saying "Why haven't the Conservatives delivered on repeal yet?", because the answer would be obvious - they wouldn't have the power yet.

Well this is exactly the same situation. The Conservatives may have got enough seats to lead a coalition, but the "Repeal Party" did not. The "Ban Party" is still in power, so, as in 2005, the "Repeal Party" cannot deliver yet. *YET.*

Thus we need to continue our work to get enough "Repeal Party" MPs into Parliament to form a majority. Then we will get repeal.


What you are doing is akin to saying &#8220;Well, I gave Cancer Research fifty quid last year and the lying so-and-sos haven&#8217;t gone and cured cancer yet. Well, that&#8217;s that. I&#8217;m not giving them any more money and if I get cancer, I&#8217;ll just go and die of it, That&#8217;ll teach &#8216;em!&#8221;


----------



## combat_claire (26 September 2011)

Judgemental said:



			My feeling it's all over, hunting is finished, kaput, gone for ever as we knew it, there is nothing more to be said! Probably going to sell the horses. There is no point in paying vast sums of money to have a hack round the countryside. I can do that in any event - for nothing.
		
Click to expand...

This is scarily reminiscent of that select group of people who with the prospect of the ban being forced through jumped ship to France & Ireland stating that life was over as they know it. Once again this is the time for a bit of patience and support of your local packs while the political and economic situation overcomes the turbulence and not the time for diva style histrionics.


----------



## EAST KENT (26 September 2011)

So,both of us dare to disagree with you? Well that`s tough,it would`nt be France that beckons ,more like Eire. Fortunately that is a short hop over to good friends so an occasional cheapie trip is possible.
   There comes a point where patiance runs thin over long awaited promises in the wind.We know all the reasons and excuses,but JM is quite correct,why pay excorbitant money to hack around the countryside trailling a pack on a pointless exercise?
   The good days are gone,they will not be coming back,get used to it;therefore there is no call for un-necessary outlay on that purveyer of recipes ,raffles for gas guzzling motors that normal folk could never afford to fill anyway.
  Can you point out exactly WHAT success has been achieved by the CA?? I cannot think of anything! Oh,a few good days out at Demos,they were fun,but otherwise????


----------



## Judgemental (26 September 2011)

So Herne, when you say, &#8220;Thus we need to continue our work to get enough "Repeal Party" MPs into Parliament to form a majority. Then we will get repeal&#8221;.

What are you and others doing about all these Blue Foxes, the Conservative Females who keep quiet about their views on hunting until after they are elected, then when elected, declare they are anti-hunting and so we are told are the main obstacle to repeal. They need sorting out by the whips.

Or in the alternative the lovely Mrs Caroline Nokes, MP for Romsey and Waterside who was plainly elected on a hunting ticket, what has she done for the cause? 

What you are saying is, 'you must support and finance all these &#8216;potentials&#8217; and then they don&#8217;t deliver or in the extreme cases go against hunting'. THey all need to be compromised and frankly I don't much care how they are compromised!

I would be happy to see a bit of devious political horse-trading in the House of Commons, even if it failed, simply so we knew somebody was trying to do something? 

I am afraid that if this government does not deliver that&#8217;s it, kaput, finished.

Claire, you said, &#8220;Once again this is the time for a bit of patience and support of your local packs while the political and economic situation overcomes the turbulence and not the time for diva style histrionics&#8221;.

Economic situation! Is it, next you will be telling us it&#8217;s all down to the Rogue Trader at the Union Bank of Switzerland or the Greek default.

It is a question of making and I stress making all these Conservative and LiBDem MPs vote the right way and do as they are told.


----------



## Herne (27 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Can you point out exactly WHAT success has been achieved by the CA?? I cannot think of anything! Oh,a few good days out at Demos,they were fun,but otherwise????

Click to expand...

Yes, we kept hunting unbanned for far longer than any of the political commentators thought was possible when New Labour had its landslide victory in 1997.

We managed to persuade the House of Lords, even though Tony Blair became the Prime Minister to ennoble more of his cronies than any other in history, to fight the ban right out to the bitter end.

We have all but one of the national daily newspapers pretty much on our side.

We had the weak-wristed Prime Minister who allowed the debacle occur in the first place admit that it was not just a mistake, but the thing he regretted most.

We have one of the big two political Parties publicly committed to enabling repeal.

And we had the antis who drafted the ban in a situation where in order to get it though at all, they had to draft such a complicated mish-mash of self-contradictory b-ll-x that (a) hunts are able to make use of loopholes and (b) the Police and CPS hate it and want it repealed.

We are in a situation where Hunts are able to keep going for the moment and where repeal is even on the political agenda.

So, no that might not have been winning the war, but it has put us in a good place to keep fighting.

That is as a result of the Countryside Alliance&#8217;s policies since 1998.


Now, were there other policies that, had they been adopted could have won the war and avoided the Ban altogether? If yes, then maybe the Alliance got it wrong, but personally, I don&#8217;t believe so. (although I know Janet George may not agree with me on this). 

I was involved in talking to MPs and Peers and they universally informed us that the &#8220;Let&#8217;s block the M25, that&#8217;ll frighten them&#8221; sort of tactics would turn more parliamentarians off than put on our side.

I&#8217;ll give you an example. I was main steward for the Countryside Alliance Action Office&#8217;s &#8220;Ring of Light&#8221; Demo in December 2003, which, mainly though the efforts of C.A.N. (Hi, Janet) got hijacked and turned into a mini-riot in Parliament Square. So, that event didn&#8217;t achieve the photo-opportunity that we had planned for it, and it made lots of hunting people *feel better* because they had scuffled with police and at down in the road, but what was its political effect? 

How many anti-hunting MPs said &#8220;Ooo, those hunters are so big and scary &#8211; I won&#8217;t dare vote to ban hunting any more?&#8221; Answer: None. 

But what did happen was that three cross-bench members of the House of Lords said that they would not support people who behaved in such appalling manner and withdrew their assistance in opposing the Ban.

So this Demo, where all the hunting folk went home thinking, &#8220;Wow, this time we really achieved something&#8221; actually quantifiably cost us support rather than gained it.

So, regardless of the fact that we might have lost the battle to prevent the ban from being imposed, you have to ask &#8220;Were there any tactics that would have worked?&#8221; and if not, if the imposition of the Ban was inevitable because of Labour&#8217;s huge majority, you then have to ask, &#8220;which tactics would put us in the best position to start fighting for Repeal&#8221;.

The answer is the tactics that were adopted by the Countryside Alliance.


----------



## Herne (27 September 2011)

Judgemental said:



			It is a question of making and I stress making all these Conservative and LiBDem MPs vote the right way and do as they are told.
		
Click to expand...

Sadly, Judgemental, you have a deluded idea of how politics works.


----------



## EAST KENT (27 September 2011)

Bearing in mind the enormous immigrant population ,almost all of it urban ,do you not think getting a repeal a ridiculous ambition?
  This country is hugely urban now,without a jot of country knowledge to be seen.As it stands right now I find it inconcievable that a vote for repeal would be possible.It is the will of the majority,accept it. Country people for the most part think it is ridiculous,but they are not in the majority.Sadly we are over run by urbanites,and I think it is better not to dwell on false promises and just get on with it as best we are able.


----------



## Herne (27 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Bearing in mind the enormous immigrant population ,almost all of it urban ,do you not think getting a repeal a ridiculous ambition?
		
Click to expand...

Frankly, no.

It is the duty of democracy to prevent minorities from unjust oppression - and that applies to us every bit as much as it does to racism, sexism or agism.

Fortunately for future generations of hunters, defeatism like yours is still in the minority in the Hunting World.


"_Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner._" -- James Bovard

"_A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine._"  -- Thomas Jefferson: 

"_In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place._" -- Mahatma Gandhi

"_The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities._" -- Lord Acton

"_In popular governments [democracies], minorities constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies..._" --- John Adams

"_There is no maxim which is more liable to be misapplied than that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong._"  James Madison (Father of the US Constitution)

"_Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it._"  Maimonides

"_It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny._" -- James Fenimore Cooper


----------



## JanetGeorge (27 September 2011)

Herne said:



			So, no that might not have been winning the war, but it has put us in a good place to keep fighting.

That is as a result of the Countryside Alliances policies since 1998.

Now, were there other policies that, had they been adopted could have won the war and avoided the Ban altogether? If yes, then maybe the Alliance got it wrong, but personally, I dont believe so. (although I know Janet George may not agree with me on this).
		
Click to expand...

No - I don't agree completely!  We could have expected hunting to be banned courtesy of Mike Foster's PMB in 1997 - or with a Government Bill in 1998.  After all, Labour was committed to banning hunting.  The reasons for hunting's survival into the 21st C. were primarily the Countryside Rally (and rural Marches) of 1997 and the Countryside March of 1998 - BOTH organised by the British Field Sports Society (although the CA has conveniently forgotten that! )  They got Blair rather frightened of the consequences of letting hunting be banned!

Then the Alliance came into being - and started a policy of 1) being 'nice' to Labour; and 2) trying to wrap hunting up in the cloak of concern for wider rural issues!  The result of this was that MANY Labour MPs - and Ministers - believed that the CA was no longer as concerned about hunting - and could be 'bought off' with promises of cash for rural transport etc etc etc.  The departure of Duke, the delay in replacing him - and then replacing him with someone who was NOT a campaigner (and hardly EVER opened his mouth about hunting) didn't help - the CA still had very good people, but was effectively rudderless!

That opened the door for smaller groups such as C.A.N. - and Duke's so-called Real CA - virtually ALL of whose members were disenchanted members of the CA!!




			Ill give you an example. I was main steward for the Countryside Alliance Action Offices Ring of Light Demo in December 2003, which, mainly though the efforts of C.A.N. (Hi, Janet) got hijacked and turned into a mini-riot in Parliament Square. So, that event didnt achieve the photo-opportunity that we had planned for it, and it made lots of hunting people *feel better* because they had scuffled with police and at down in the road, but what was its political effect?
		
Click to expand...

A mini Riot was CERTAINLY not part of C.A.N.'s plans - as I said earlier, C.A.N.'s members were also CA members and were perfectly entitled to be there!  I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that it was ONLY C.A.N. members who acted foolishly.  But the MAIN cause of the trouble that day was the behaviour of the police who were VERY heavy-handed  (they had been leant on from on high to ensure no-one stormed Parliament - although there were NO plans to do THAT!  The Police response was totally different from at the earlier C.A.N. demo - when we did peacefully sit down in the street, and agreed a time with senior police officers when we would clear the street! (And did!)

The ONLY reason for 'naughty' demos is to get media attention to the real arguments!  C.A.N. did that pretty effectively with some mini-motorway 'blockades' - which in reality were totally trivial apart from one in Wales which went a bit overboard.   But we got GOOD and primarily positive media coverage - particularly in Birmingham (because we DIDN'T block the M42 North!!)  That was my chief gripe with Duke's group when they dumped carcases at Labour Party conference - and went to ground!  I had all the media coming onto me - and was happy to condemn the action out of hand as 'tasteless', 'misguided', 'environmentally irresponsible' etc. - while stressing the message that hunts WERE responsible for a huge amount of deadstock collection for farmers.

IF the CA had kept up the impetus from 1998, then I think there's a chance that Tony Blair and his Ministers might not have 'rolled over' to their backbenchers; but we'll never know for sure!  Hunting has always been an easy bone to throw at rabid backbenchers when Labour needed their support for something unpopular!  But doubt was definitely created about the CA's resolve to defend hunting to the death!


----------



## Judgemental (27 September 2011)

There is considerable truth in terms of fact being contributed to this debate.

However the fundamental factor that so many overlook is that the issue, becomes the property of urban dwellers once it reaches the House of Commons.

Too much provincial parocialism has governed the whole thrust of the action.

At the end of the day the movers and shakers are based in London and by definition are largely urban.

The enlightened involvement of Kate Hoey was a good move.

Its all a question of the bottom line  those in favour have to deliver  they need to start thinking like such as Sir Alan Sugar.

In other words, stop being polite and tell our leaders exactly where they are failing and if they dont deliver, they are fired!


----------



## EAST KENT (28 September 2011)

Defeatism? No,a reality check. Some of these sheep like "hunters" need to look at the bigger picture,move on and get on with life. They do need to look around and see what it is like outside their cloistered little world.
 Lost causes are a waste of time,as it is quite a few hunts are "as normal",so keep your heads down and carry on,stay un-noticed and maybe the sods will go away!
 Repeal ..it ain`t going to happen,move on.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (28 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Defeatism? No,a reality check. Some of these sheep like "hunters" need to look at the bigger picture,move on and get on with life. They do need to look around and see what it is like outside their cloistered little world.
 Lost causes are a waste of time,as it is quite a few hunts are "as normal",so keep your heads down and carry on,stay un-noticed and maybe the sods will go away!
 Repeal ..it ain`t going to happen,move on.
		
Click to expand...

Wise words East Kent---


----------



## Herne (29 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Defeatism? No...   Repeal ..it ain`t going to happen...
		
Click to expand...

Defeatism, yes.

What puzzles me is why, when you have clearly given up and "moved on" yourself, you seem to be so determined to "move back" and persuade others to give up, too?

Who knows; if, heaven forbid, you turned out to be wrong, you would benefit from their endeavours whilst continuing to do nothing yourself? 

Or is it just that people like company in defeat...?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (29 September 2011)

Herne said:



			Defeatism, yes.

What puzzles me is why, when you have clearly given up and "moved on" yourself, you seem to be so determined to "move back" and persuade others to give up, too?

Who knows; if, heaven forbid, you turned out to be wrong, you would benefit from their endeavours whilst continuing to do nothing yourself? 

Or is it just that people like company in defeat...?
		
Click to expand...

Herne, just stop it for gods sake................................join the REAL world--


----------



## EAST KENT (29 September 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			Herne, just stop it for gods sake................................join the REAL world--
		
Click to expand...

Thankyou Rosie,such an acid drop we have here   In the bigger picture stuff like dear Rosie`s health are far more important are`nt they?


----------



## Alec Swan (29 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Thankyou Rosie,such an acid drop we have here   In the bigger picture stuff like dear Rosie`s health are far more important are`nt they?
		
Click to expand...

Certainly,  and I'll go along with that.  Well said! 

I do so like how Rosie seems so able to pass by the crap,  and gets to the quick!! 

Alec.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (30 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Thankyou Rosie,such an acid drop we have here   In the bigger picture stuff like dear Rosie`s health are far more important are`nt they?
		
Click to expand...

well,i'm still alive and kicking,just, but the tongue still works---- sorry,  cant reach exclamation marks and brackets so its its dot dot and dash dash.


----------



## JanetGeorge (30 September 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Lost causes are a waste of time,as it is quite a few hunts are "as normal",so keep your heads down and carry on,stay un-noticed and maybe the sods will go away!
 Repeal ..it ain`t going to happen,move on.
		
Click to expand...

A lot of hunts are able to continue more or less 'as normal' - but 'forgetting' about repeal would be a total betrayal of our professional huntsmen - who are inevitably those who have to face the consequences of spurious prosecutions brought against them!!

Repeal won't happen in the short-term - that's a fact of political life - but burying heads in sand and saying 'forget it' is as bad as those who said - in the '70s and '80s - "Oh they'll never ban hunting - don't worry about it!"

For now it IS a case of 'keeping heads down and powder dry' - a mantra that was popular in the '70s and '80s and was WRONG then.  But we do need to continue quietly working  - on educating urban politicians, and on keeping as much good 'soft' hunting PR in the media as we can (and avoiding the BAD PR) so that when the time is right, we are ready to move!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (30 September 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			A lot of hunts are able to continue more or less 'as normal' - but 'forgetting' about repeal would be a total betrayal of our professional huntsmen - who are inevitably those who have to face the consequences of spurious prosecutions brought against them!!

Repeal won't happen in the short-term - that's a fact of political life - but burying heads in sand and saying 'forget it' is as bad as those who said - in the '70s and '80s - "Oh they'll never ban hunting - don't worry about it!"

For now it IS a case of 'keeping heads down and powder dry' - a mantra that was popular in the '70s and '80s and was WRONG then.  But we do need to continue quietly working  - on educating urban politicians, and on keeping as much good 'soft' hunting PR in the media as we can (and avoiding the BAD PR) so that when the time is right, we are ready to move!
		
Click to expand...

you cant educate lard Janet----


----------



## combat_claire (30 September 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			Herne, just stop it for gods sake................................join the REAL world--
		
Click to expand...

The ironic thing is that Herne is very much grounded in the real world. It is those who are advocating either rushing into a bodged effort at repeal via statutory instruments or who think that the battle is lost completely and are mired in defeatism that don't seem to have visited planet earth recently. 

From my personal experiences since the ban I can see that in general foxhound packs seem to be coping better than most due to the exemptions open to them. It is very easy to forget about the three stag hound packs struggling with their exemptions of observation/research and hunting with 2 hounds whilst support from visitors haemorrhages because the old guard say it isn't a patch on what it used to be.  

JG has summed up the current situation perfectly; 'nuff said.


----------



## Judgemental (30 September 2011)

No there is not enough said, far from it. Unless people contribute to this forum and express their opinions publicly, the &#8216;powers that be&#8217; will not be brought to realise that they have to redefine their strategy but also take account of the views of those that put them &#8216;in power&#8217;.

There is in my 'umble opinion only one way to deal with the issue.

On the premise that there will never be a wholesale full-blown repeal, the make up now, of politics in this country, is probably evenly split in the House of Commons for the foreseeable future, even after any General Election.

Taking a leaf out of the Dragons Den good business advice - "don't be greedy", you came with nothing and/or the game show, Deal or No Deal, when you are ahead quit.

Now I know it's easy to equate the Hunting Act in such a way, but it is better to get something rather than nothing at all for the foreseeable future.

I was told in a public setting, that at the outset of the Coalition, Jim Paice MP a Minister at DEFRA, made an interesting and workable offer to the MFHA, which was turned down.

In my 'umble opinion that was a mistake. From that offer a compromise, albeit small could have been worked out.

Those in favour of hunting would have achieved something, the antis would recognise something had been given and that they did not stand a chance to have it revoked.

In the final analysis, 'don't be greedy', have nibble at The Act from time to time, slowly eroding it - going for the full frontal, is going to leave one in a similar position to the person who goes away from Deal or No Deal with 1 Penny, or from the Dragons Den with all the dragons saying they are 'out&#8217;.

There has to be small scale compromise.

I have to question why we have not gone down that road. Is it, there are those who are so vainglorious they want to retain control at all 'costs'.

Alternatively are there those who have financial interest to perpetuate matters. Somebody has mentioned all the clever solicitors and barrisers involved, presumably they do not do anything for nothing.

Whilst on the subject of solicitors, which is I agree somewhat irrelevant - on the other hand may be not, there is a very interesting Website called www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk - It's particularly embarrising when one finds somebody one knows listed. Be careful it's not a leg pulling subject, they get very upset when the postings are mentioned, even in jest. Especially where professional fees are concerned.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (30 September 2011)

To the real men on the ground, the sabs are already out with their video cameras, hiding in hedges and police being called etc,isnt this what  its all about-losing our freedom, i fear its going to be a bad year,and what sabs listen to politics??


----------



## Fiagai (30 September 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			To the real men on the ground, the sabs are already out with their video cameras, hiding in hedges and police being called etc,isnt this what  its all about-losing our freedom, i fear its going to be a bad year,and what sabs listen to politics??
		
Click to expand...

Thats the sad thing about all this...to use an analogy or two - that the bullies are now dictating house rules...and they have been given permission to do so by the head master.


----------



## Judgemental (30 September 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			To the real men on the ground, the sabs are already out with their video cameras, hiding in hedges and police being called etc,isnt this what  its all about-losing our freedom, i fear its going to be a bad year,and what sabs listen to politics??
		
Click to expand...

Rosie again you have hit the nail on the head and I would agree with you 100%

That is why I keep banging the drum to have Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004 amended.

Once the position of Police Officers is changed so they are, 'put back in their police stations' and they can only rely on: "evidence brought to them, rather than them going to the evidence", then there will be an easing of the situation.


----------



## Herne (4 October 2011)

Judgemental said:



			That is why I keep banging the drum to have Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004 amended.
		
Click to expand...

For Pete's sake, Judgemental, please stop babbling.

(In hunting parlance, a hound which speaks on the wrong (or no) scent is referred to as "babbling" and you, Sir, are a babbler.)

You were wrong about the use of Statutory Instruments.

You were wrong about the powers given Police to enter premises without a warrant being exceptional.

And you are wrong about this, too.

Please try to comprehend this relatively simple fact: 

It is equally, if not more, difficult to amend an Act of Parliament as it is to repeal one.

If you try to amend a single full-stop, you open yourself to counter amendments and all the problems of arguing out all the rights and wrongs of each word and phrase.

If you go for a one-line repeal Bill, then people will just vote the way they are going to vote and there needs to be, comparatively, very little discussion.

If you don&#8217;t have the votes to force through repeal, then you won&#8217;t have the votes to force through an amendment either &#8211; especially if it is, as you suggest, a wrecking amendment.

But you are wrong about that, too.

The power granted under Section 8 to enter premises is actually of very little relevance. People don&#8217;t actually tend to commit Hunting Act Offences within &#8220;premises&#8221;, so the Police would have very little need to enter premises to collect evidence and therefore removing that ability would be pointless.

So *please* try to understand, it is not possible to &#8220;nibble away&#8221; at the Bill if we don&#8217;t command a majority and, if we do, why bother when we can have full repeal even more easily.

To use your rather bizarre analogies: We aren&#8217;t the people chosen to play their &#8220;Deal or No Deal&#8221; box and we haven&#8217;t been selected by the producers to even go into the Dragon&#8217;s Den yet.




Judgemental said:



			The problem we have, is that those who represent the cause, are not in my opinon too bright, (I could be quite colourful) when it comes to using the content of the act to effect it&#8217;s dismantling.
		
Click to expand...

It really is time you chewed down a large humility pill.

It is *YOU* that has been wrong in all these matters, not the people who represent the cause.

Everyone makes mistakes but the real sin is refusing to learn from them. 

You don&#8217;t even acknowledge yours, you just go babbling off in a slightly different direction.


----------



## Herne (4 October 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			Herne, just stop it for gods sake................................join the REAL world--
		
Click to expand...




rosiefronfelen said:



			To the real men on the ground, the sabs are already out with their video cameras, hiding in hedges and police being called etc,isnt this what  its all about-losing our freedom, i fear its going to be a bad year,and what sabs listen to politics??
		
Click to expand...


Mixed messages, Rosie. 

Seeing as I am one of the "real" people on the ground, it seems pretty likely that I am already in the "real world".

I am one of the people who in return for getting to wear shiny buttons has to try to keep a hunt going in these "bad years".

I'm not one of these "armchair generals" who pontificate about how &#8220;everything is fine as it is&#8221;, safe in the knowledge that it will never be them in the dock. I am one of the people who actually has to wonder, every time they see a police car coming down the road, whether it is on the way to break down my door on some trumped up Hunting Act charge for something that happened over 5 months ago.

I am one of the people who have to try to keep hounds and horses housed and fed and healthy and wages paid in the face of support &#8211; and therefore income &#8211; dwindling because people &#8220;don&#8217;t think its as good as it was&#8221; and succumb to all the sort of defeatist claptrap that is being spouted on this board as an excuse to do nothing because it&#8217;s easier to give in than to make an effort to fight on for what you believe in.

Don&#8217;t kid yourself, it&#8217;s us &#8220;real people on the ground&#8221; who are actually doing the job who know where the &#8220;real world&#8221; is &#8211; not the quitters and apologists.


----------



## Fiagai (4 October 2011)

Jeez Herne - do you always have to be so insulting to people....give it a break fcs


----------



## Herne (4 October 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Jeez Herne - do you always have to be so insulting to people....give it a break fcs
		
Click to expand...

Goodness gracious...

Which word is so insulting? Quitter, apologist or babbler?

If the former two, no names were mentioned. The only people who might be offended would the those who deep down feel that the terms are applicable to themselves.

If the latter, well, it is, to be fair, a pretty "mild" insult and this is, after all, the Nth time of explanation, with nary a hint of recognition.


----------



## EAST KENT (5 October 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Jeez Herne - do you always have to be so insulting to people....give it a break fcs
		
Click to expand...

  Indeed, manners never hurt anyone,it does`nt do the cause any good at all.


----------



## JanetGeorge (5 October 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Indeed, manners never hurt anyone,it does`nt do the cause any good at all.
		
Click to expand...

And Herne certainly doesn't need to take lessons on manners from ANYONE on this forum!  It appears that facts are insults if you disagree with them.  The people who HARM the cause are not people like Herne (who actually works pretty tirelessly for it!) but those whose tirades against the CA, the MFHA, our friendly Conservative MPs AND other hunt supporters show our enemies just how easily we can be divided!!


----------



## combat_claire (5 October 2011)

Herne said:



			Mixed messages, Rosie. 

Seeing as I am one of the "real" people on the ground, it seems pretty likely that I am already in the "real world".

I am one of the people who in return for getting to wear shiny buttons has to try to keep a hunt going in these "bad years".

I'm not one of these "armchair generals" who pontificate about how everything is fine as it is, safe in the knowledge that it will never be them in the dock. I am one of the people who actually has to wonder, every time they see a police car coming down the road, whether it is on the way to break down my door on some trumped up Hunting Act charge for something that happened over 5 months ago.

I am one of the people who have to try to keep hounds and horses housed and fed and healthy and wages paid in the face of support  and therefore income  dwindling because people dont think its as good as it was and succumb to all the sort of defeatist claptrap that is being spouted on this board as an excuse to do nothing because its easier to give in than to make an effort to fight on for what you believe in.

Dont kid yourself, its us real people on the ground who are actually doing the job who know where the real world is  not the quitters and apologists.
		
Click to expand...

Well said Herne.


----------



## combat_claire (5 October 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Indeed, manners never hurt anyone,it does`nt do the cause any good at all.
		
Click to expand...

It would appear that rudeness is permitted when it is your little gang on this forum that are throwing around the insults. When challenged you all whine that it was meant with humorous intent or is justified because the person who disagrees with your viewpoint is a 'troll'. Yet when someone who has been on the sharp end of hunting for well over a decade stands up for himself against unjustified criticism from your posse he is accused of rudeness. 

The double standards of the playground are alive and well....quite frankly it is pathetic.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (5 October 2011)

thankyou Herne my husband IS also a huntsman,keeping things running ona shoestring---


----------



## EAST KENT (5 October 2011)

Well said Rosie,are you totally fed up with this acid drop as well? Being foul to other hunting or ex hunting people really is`nt gaining anything Herne,certainly not goodwill,on which hunting has always depended .Now ,just take a sugar lump or two and by being less aggressive you may find we all are reasonable minded people.Remember ..aggression will always invite aggression in return.
  A DECADE?? Is that ALL


----------



## JanetGeorge (5 October 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Well said Rosie,are you totally fed up with this acid drop as well? Being foul to other hunting or ex hunting people really is`nt gaining anything Herne,certainly not goodwill,on which hunting has always depended .Now ,just take a sugar lump or two and by being less aggressive you may find we all are reasonable minded people.Remember ..aggression will always invite aggression in return.
  A DECADE?? Is that ALL
		
Click to expand...

EAST KENT - don't you see a slight contradiction between your pathetic little lecture aimed at Herne - and your own rudeness and aggression.  I have NO idea who you are - or what you have actually DONE in terms of real support for hunting.  I know who Herne is - and combat_claire too - and if all of you had done a tenth of the excellent PR work those two have done since well before the ban, there might not have been one!

There is nothing 'reasonable minded' about some of your contributions to this forum - and there are a few others who could join you on the 'silly step'!

Any intelligent anti (and thankfully there aren't many) would take great encouragement from some of the stupidity illustrated on this forum!!


----------



## combat_claire (5 October 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			A DECADE?? Is that ALL
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that you wanted his full CV.  As it happens my reference to 'over a decade' referred to his current employment - he has been part of other masterships prior to this and has previously hunted hounds and whipped in for a variety of packs from around the age of 14 not to mention hunting from a very young age. Then there is his voluntary work with Vote Okay and the BFSS/Countryside Alliance.  Not that he has anything to prove to you, Rosiefronfelen, Fiagai and Judgemental but if you still think that shows a derisory lack of commitment then I am unsure as to how much more one individual could be expected to do...

It is very easy to sit behind a keyboard and poke fun at someone who is out there on a daily basis doing the hard work to keep hunting going a lot harder to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people and give them the support they both deserve and need.


----------



## Alec Swan (5 October 2011)

combat_claire said:



			It would appear that rudeness is permitted when it is your little gang on this forum that are throwing around the insults. When challenged you all whine that it was meant with humorous intent or is justified because the person who disagrees with your viewpoint is a 'troll'. Yet when someone who has been on the sharp end of hunting for well over a decade stands up for himself against unjustified criticism from your posse he is accused of rudeness. 

The double standards of the playground are alive and well....quite frankly it is pathetic.
		
Click to expand...

Your rebuke has merit.  

Alec.


----------



## Herne (5 October 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			thankyou Herne my husband IS also a huntsman,keeping things running ona shoestring---
		
Click to expand...

Then if you, of all people, have lost hope, I think that is a great pity.

Personally, I will not give up at least until the Tories lose an election - whilst they are still in power and still committed to repeal, I shall keep fighting for it, because it is worth fighting for.


----------



## Fiagai (5 October 2011)

combat_claire said:



			....your little gang on this forum 
The double standards of the playground are alive and well....quite frankly it is pathetic.
		
Click to expand...

Welll yes quite CC 
Pot, Kettle and Black come to mind on the mention of little gangs




combat_claire said:



			....  Not that he has anything to prove to you, Rosiefronfelen, Fiagai and Judgemental but if you still think that shows a derisory lack of commitment then I am unsure as to how much more one individual could be expected to do...
.
		
Click to expand...

Thankyou for the mention...

Your solicitation is endearing CC.  Whatever paragon of virtue you may believe someone to be or otherwise it is not what was said, it is how it was said....

Putting forward an arguement is to be welcomed, insulting and attacking ops is not...

so I will repeat




...give it a break fcs​

Click to expand...


----------



## JanetGeorge (5 October 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Whatever paragon of virtue you may believe someone to be or otherwise it is not what was said, it is how it was said....

Putting forward an arguement is to be welcomed, insulting and attacking ops is not...

so I will repeat
		
Click to expand...

Having re-read Herne's posts, I can find NO evidence of him 'insulting and attacking' anyone.  I see signs of exasperation - certainly - but who wouldn't be exasperated!!

Herne and I (both of us with considerable first hand knowledge/experience of how the political process works - particularly where Hunting Acts are concerned) have explained - largely in words of one syllable - exactly WHY we can't progress with repeal at this time!  You shout HIM down and insult him (and largely just ignore me! )  Funnily enough, I have probably 'insulted' some of you FAR more than Herne has - because thankfully I don't have to watch my P's and Q's anymore and can say what I damn well think!!

And what I think is that a few of you are a gift to the anti-hunt campaign!   When I was heading the media campaign at the BFSS, I had a list of Masters (and others) I would cheerfully shoot, because everytime they opened their mouths it was an own goal!  Herne was one of a handful of people I trusted to handle an interview or debate without *******ing it up!  Thank goodness that hunting does have people like Herne - when the time comes to push for Repeal, I know he will be there doing the job well!  I just hope that some of you stay out of the way!


----------



## Fiagai (6 October 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			...*And what I think is that a few of you are a gift to the anti-hunt campaign*!   ... I just hope that some of you stay out of the way!
		
Click to expand...


JG I appreciate that you truely believe in the efficiacy of your and others methods however assigning those with counter arguements or ideas to the anti-hunt brigade is effectively dismissing those with whom you do not agree.  The old "you are siding with the enemy if you think otherwise" would appear
to be same tactic that CC accused OPs who use the word "Troll" 

However I have failed to find the word troll used anyhere in this thread to date...however it would appear to have been more than a couple of references of sleeping with the enemy....


----------



## EAST KENT (6 October 2011)

Honestly I do wonder what planet a few of you are on;look around,beyond your own little world,look where the voters of this country live..go there..and then remove those rose coloured spectacles.
   Continue with your form of "hunting",whatever you can get away with, but for once face up to the fact that the voting populace (and yes some of them should`nt be allowed to vote!) It is highly unlikely a conservative way will be voted in with any workable majority.
  It is a great pity,but there it is, if you had`nt noticed the lowest common denominator rules these days.Far  better to enjoy what you can hang on to than be abusive to those of us who have our eyes and ears peeled ;if I want to remove those futile expenses in my life by curtailing a CA subscription,that is my choice. If you want to continue the "fight",that is yours` ,but I never did believe in expending energy and time on lost causes.
 Enjoy your "hunting",but for a lot of us with the main player removed it is pointless.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (6 October 2011)

this arguement is going nowhere so i think its time to put up,or shut up .


----------



## rosie fronfelen (6 October 2011)

I didnt say i'd given up hope,never ever,thats not my way,especially as i'm ona one way road but as i said before, you can't educate lard, and there'sloads of lard out there---


----------



## rosie fronfelen (6 October 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			EAST KENT - don't you see a slight contradiction between your pathetic little lecture aimed at Herne - and your own rudeness and aggression.  I have NO idea who you are - or what you have actually DONE in terms of real support for hunting.  I know who Herne is - and combat_claire too - and if all of you had done a tenth of the excellent PR work those two have done since well before the ban, there might not have been one!

There is nothing 'reasonable minded' about some of your contributions to this forum - and there are a few others who could join you on the 'silly step'!

Any intelligent anti (and thankfully there aren't many) would take great encouragement from some of the stupidity illustrated on this forum!!
		
Click to expand...

there are many more antis out there  thanwhat you think JG and being rude to hunters is not the way to go,everyone has their own opinions remember---


----------



## combat_claire (6 October 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Putting forward an arguement is to be welcomed, insulting and attacking ops is not...
		
Click to expand...

My objection is that in numerous threads across this board you ands your posse have failed to follow this advice.

We have multiple incidents of your gang being insulting and rude to posters who hold opposing views, branding them as trolls and making idiotic comments. I have said time and time again that this is a ridiculous strategy. It is perfectly possible to debate the issues at hand without resorting to such childish behaviour. That i is no way to win hearts and minds in this argument. All it does is succeed in portraying to the casual browser of hunting forums via Google that hunting folk are as rude and as arrogant as the League Against Cruel Sports portray us. 

It would appear that it is allowable for your group to be rude about Herne implying that he is thick and bitter, but the moment he politely defends himself or presents a contrary view you all start whinging that he is being rude to you. 

Tiresome in the extreme. I vote that JG resurrects the Hounds Discussion boards where at least decent quality debate thrived :-D


----------



## combat_claire (6 October 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			there are many more antis out there  thanwhat you think JG and being rude to hunters is not the way to go,everyone has their own opinions remember---
		
Click to expand...

I still cannot see anywhere on this thread or indeed the whole board where Herne has been anything other than resolutely polite sometimes in the case of extreme provocation. He is also willing to help out with other hunting questions posed on the forum. Conversely your little group has posted in no uncertain terms that he is stupid, grumpy and bitter. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

This dispute is tiresome in the extreme and paints an extremely bad picture of hunting folk. Much like some of the snide and rude posts that your little group have made aimed at anti-hunting supporters who dare to hold an opposing view.


----------



## combat_claire (6 October 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			It is highly unlikely a conservative way will be voted in with any workable majority.
		
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. The West Lothian question is already in the process of being looked at by a committee with a view to resolving it once and for all. Preventing the MSPs from voting on matters that only affect English people will be an excellent first step towards achieving a majority for the pro-hunting cause. 

You also forget the valuable work being undertaken by Vote Okay across the UK. In 2005 election the Fitzwilliam and other hunts in the Midlands helped to remove 3 anti-hunting MPs and left the other sitting on such a slim majority that he was given the boot easily in 2010. 29 anti-hunting MPs were removed in 2005. The successes carried on in 2010 with more pro-hunting MPs being installed across the UK. If everyone pulls together and puts in the hours then there is no reason why a Conservative majority shouldn't be possible at the next election. Evening up the electoral boundaries should help too...


----------



## rosie fronfelen (6 October 2011)

combat_claire said:



			I still cannot see anywhere on this thread or indeed the whole board where Herne has been anything other than resolutely polite sometimes in the case of extreme provocation. He is also willing to help out with other hunting questions posed on the forum. Conversely your little group has posted in no uncertain terms that he is stupid, grumpy and bitter. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

This dispute is tiresome in the extreme and paints an extremely bad picture of hunting folk. Much like some of the snide and rude posts that your little group have made aimed at anti-hunting supporters who dare to hold an opposing view.
		
Click to expand...

come on,Claire,you know me betterthan that,we shouldall unite insteadof falling out which in this case,is pathetic.i DO NOT BELONG TO ANY LITTLE GROUP, I AM  MY  OWN  PERSON......so lets get over ourselves and behave like adults?


----------



## combat_claire (6 October 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			come on,Claire,you know me betterthan that,we shouldall unite insteadof falling out which in this case,is pathetic.i DO NOT BELONG TO ANY LITTLE GROUP, I AM  MY  OWN  PERSON......so lets get over ourselves and behave like adults?
		
Click to expand...

I thought I did, despite never having met you but recent postings have made me doubt my initial opinion of you. I am afraid that much like Mr Darcy my good opinion once lost is lost forever. When push comes to shove I will stick by and defend someone who I like and respect from unfair and unjustified online attacks by people who seem to have nothing better to do with their time. 

I have been advocating a united and mature front from the outset. The only pathetic thing about this thread has been the childish attacks on Herne. Clearly certain posters on this forum have no sense of irony and need to man up if they think that anything Herne has written in recent weeks is insulting.


----------



## JanetGeorge (6 October 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Enjoy your "hunting",but for a lot of us with the main player removed it is pointless.
		
Click to expand...

So for you the fox is the main player??  Personally, for me  -  it's hounds, be they foxhounds, or bassets, beagles, minkhounds or bloodhounds!  WONDERFUL canines - all of them - and if hunting has to continue under the ban to keep these lines going, so be it.  We all know what the alternative would have to be!




			there are many more antis out there thanwhat you think JG and being rude to hunters is not the way to go,everyone has their own opinions remember---
		
Click to expand...

There is a clear majority of the population who would say they were anti if asked - but the vast majorityy of them wouldn't cross the road to sign an anti-hunt petition.  To quote a radio presenter who interviewed me once (in a very balanced way!)  "Yes, I think it's cruel - but I really don't care much!"

When I talk about 'antis' I refer to people actively involved in the campaign against hunting - either as members of an organisation - or in a more active sense.  I doubt there are more than 10,000 of those in the country - which is why any anti-hunt demo/march is always a damp squib!

And sorry - if a hunter is a total ****, I reserve the right to say so!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (6 October 2011)

fair enough CC,we beg to differ---


----------



## Fiagai (6 October 2011)

combat_claire said:



			My objection is that in numerous threads across this board you ands your posse have failed to follow this advice.
		
Click to expand...

CC At risk of repeating myself the use of the terms "Posse" "Gangs" etc is counter productive to any discussion.  We are talking about this thread so please do not attempt to divert the issue away from what is being rereffed to here.  It is neither polite or helpful.



combat_claire said:



			We have multiple incidents of your gang being insulting and rude to posters who hold opposing views, branding them as trolls and making idiotic comments. I have said time and time again that this is a ridiculous strategy. It is perfectly possible to debate the issues at hand without resorting to such childish behaviour. That i is no way to win hearts and minds in this argument. All it does is succeed in portraying to the casual browser of hunting forums via Google that hunting folk are as rude and as arrogant as the League Against Cruel Sports portray us.
		
Click to expand...

CC Who is "We" and once again the use of the term "Gang".  This silly accusation could easily thrown back, but I would not bother as this simply a nasty piece of diatribe aimed at ops with other views.  

Believe it or not there have been a number of (for want of a better term) genuine! "Trolls" who came, tried to rubbish hunting and left never to be seen again.  Quite rightly these posters were outed.  In this thread there has been no use of the term troll except by yourself to insult other posters.  

The continued accusation of genuine posters certainly will not endear this forum to anyone but DO NOT asattempt to assign the responsibility to those with different views and align them to the anti hunt brigade as you have already done



combat_claire said:



			It would appear that it is allowable for your group to be rude about Herne implying that he is thick and bitter, but the moment he politely defends himself or presents a contrary view you all start whinging that he is being rude to you.
		
Click to expand...

Ok there you go again - I for one am NOT part of any "Group" "Gang" "Posse" whatever way you wish to put it.  Attacking genuine posters is not the way to discuss any matter.  Reading these posts this is the most obvious method for attempting to attack those who post contary views.  Yes I may not agree with you but I will not start making ridicoulous comparisions or questioning your alliances.



combat_claire said:



			Tiresome in the extreme. I vote that JG resurrects the Hounds Discussion boards where at least decent quality debate thrived :-D
		
Click to expand...

The inclusion of a smily face doesnt make your defence of the indefensible any more acceptable btw....


----------



## Judgemental (6 October 2011)

Herne said:



			I'm not one of these "armchair generals" who pontificate about how everything is fine as it is, safe in the knowledge that it will never be them in the dock. I am one of the people who actually has to wonder, every time they see a police car coming down the road, whether it is on the way to break down my door on some trumped up Hunting Act charge for something that happened over 5 months ago.
		
Click to expand...

Goodness me I have been away in the Great Wen since last Friday and there is no let up in this debate, indeed it has become quite charged, one way and another.

However Herne from your own words above, it is clear Section 8 of the Hunting Act needs to be amended.   

If Section 8 did not exist you would need have no worries.

I see that in my absence you have called me a 'babbler'. I think you need to apologise - nicely please.

For those who are unfamiliar with the expression The Great Wen, it comes from the following, which in the context of this debate is wholly relevant:

'Wen' in old English was considered similar to the word 'boil' - a festering heap of corruption. 

London in the Eighteenth Century Georgian period was expanding rapidly, especially in the new Western neighbourhoods. However, not everyone appreciated this spread of urbanization. The author Daniel Defoe (1661-1731) called London "the monstrous city". Josiah Tucker (1713-1799), an economist and political writer, wrote that London was "no better than a wen". 

Finally, the radical journalist and politician William Cobbett (1763-1835), himself a critic of industrialization, adapted the phrase. In 'Rural Rides' (1830), he wrote: "But, what is to be the fate of the great wen of all? The monster, called, by the silly coxcombs of the press, 'the metropolis of the empire?'"


----------



## Fiagai (6 October 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Goodness me I have been away in the Great Wen since last Friday and there is no let up in this debate, indeed it has become quite charged, one way and another.
"
		
Click to expand...


LOL

Dont think you are getting away that easy JM! look what you have done you trouble causing gang troll anti you!  (to use some common parlance!) and yes I am taking the proverbial....

Love the reference to the Great Wen btw....


----------



## Herne (6 October 2011)

Judgemental said:



			However Herne from your own words above, it is clear Section 8 of the Hunting Act needs to be amended.   

If Section 8 did not exist you would need have no worries.
		
Click to expand...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaghhhhhh!!!!

JM, please, please, please try to learn something from this whole debate. Anything would do at this rate&#8230;

Section 8 is *[size=+1]COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT*[/size] to what I said above. (I am running out of different forms of emphasis, here&#8230

Section 8 clearly excludes dwelling houses, so if they were coming to bash down *my* door as I said, they would not be using Section 8, they would be coming with a warrant &#8211; so amending Section 8 would make no difference.

*Yet again, you are wrong.*

Are you ever going to accept that you are out-of-your-depth in this conversation? Are you ever going to acknowledge the fact that you were wrong about Statutory Instruments &#8211; or indeed about *any* of the other things that you have been wrong about in this thread?





			I see that in my absence you have called me a 'babbler'. I think you need to apologise - nicely please.
		
Click to expand...

Do you know, I really don&#8217;t think that I do _need to_ at all at the moment. If I had said something incorrect or defamatory, then I would &#8211; but, as explained above, you are indeed &#8220;babbling&#8221; in the true hunting sense of the word. You are speaking on a false line.

I am slightly bemused by this thread. What exactly do you expect people to do when you make factually incorrect statements? Ignore them or point them out to you? Or do you deny your own fallibility?





			For those who are unfamiliar with the expression The Great Wen, it comes from the following, which in the context of this debate is wholly relevant:

'Wen' in old English was considered similar to the word 'boil' - a festering heap of corruption. 

London in the Eighteenth Century Georgian period was expanding rapidly, especially in the new Western neighbourhoods. However, not everyone appreciated this spread of urbanization. The author Daniel Defoe (1661-1731) called London "the monstrous city". Josiah Tucker (1713-1799), an economist and political writer, wrote that London was "no better than a wen". 

Finally, the radical journalist and politician William Cobbett (1763-1835), himself a critic of industrialization, adapted the phrase. In 'Rural Rides' (1830), he wrote: "But, what is to be the fate of the great wen of all? The monster, called, by the silly coxcombs of the press, 'the metropolis of the empire?'"
		
Click to expand...

Yes, this display of erudition might, of course, be thought to be slightly more impressive if it had not been quoted verbatim from &#8220;answers.com&#8221;.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_London_called_the_Great_Wen

However, either way, I am curious to know what relevance you think it has to the debate so far..?


----------



## MerrySherryRider (7 October 2011)

Herne said:



			Aaaaaaaaaaaaaghhhhhh!!!!
		
Click to expand...

Aw Jez, Herne. You are a hero. 
 (Didn't want to interrupt the flow of the thread, will toddle off again now.)


----------



## Judgemental (7 October 2011)

Herne said:



			I am curious to know what relevance you think it has to the debate so far..?
		
Click to expand...

A festering boil.

As for what I am saying, I am merely expressing my opinion and you are being extremely impolite to me and hostile because you do not agree with my views.

An apology please


----------



## oakash (7 October 2011)

Clearly it is a case of a dawn duel. May I offer my services as a 'second'? I do trust that the chosen weapons will be epees- its so much more satisfying to look 'em in the eye as you run them through. Don't know exactly how the argument started, but Cobbett's criticism of the Great Wen is as relevant today as it was when written, with the added point that it seems  no longer an English or even British city. He referred to it as being peopled with 'tax eaters', and that still, certainly, applies!


----------



## Herne (7 October 2011)

Judgemental said:



			A festering boil.

As for what I am saying, I am merely expressing my opinion and you are being extremely impolite to me and hostile because you do not agree with my views.

An apology please
		
Click to expand...


Judgemental, pointing out that you are factually incorrect is neither impolite, nor hostile, and merits no apology.

If we were disagreeing in some deep, philosophical, discussion of some hypothetical, esoteric theory that was pure conjecture on both of our parts, then yes, my posts might be out of order.

But we are not. We are talking about verifiable facts, here. And you are wrong. It is as plain and simple as that.

We are not disagreeing about a matter of opinion, where anyones opinion is equally valid, such as whether the background colour of the Countryside Alliance logo would be best red or blue? 

We are discussing points of Law here, where there can be definitive right and wrong answers  and your opinion has been as demonstrably wrong as it would have been if your opinion was that 2 + 2 = 5.

You have misunderstood the wording and the meaning of the Hunting Act 2004, you have misunderstood the function, process and application of Statutory Instruments and you do not understand how parliamentary process works with regard to amending legislation, nor the realities of the current political make-up of the Government.

But the main problem is that when these verifiable matters are pointed out to you (by more people than just me), you simply ignore it and go on making incorrect statements that could mislead people on an important subject.

If that causes frustration, it is hardly suprising.

You do, of course, have every opportunity to defend your case. You could, if it were the case, demonstrate that it was I who had got the Law wrong. In such a case, then it would be my turn to concede that you were not babbling.

That would be the appropriate action on your behalf here. That  or admit that you were wrong and move on.

This complaining that I have been impolite or insulting to you is just silly. Either give it up, or refer to specific instances.


----------



## Herne (7 October 2011)

oakash said:



			Clearly it is a case of a dawn duel. May I offer my services as a 'second'? I do trust that the chosen weapons will be epees- its so much more satisfying to look 'em in the eye as you run them through. Don't know exactly how the argument started, but Cobbett's criticism of the Great Wen is as relevant today as it was when written, with the added point that it seems  no longer an English or even British city. He referred to it as being peopled with 'tax eaters', and that still, certainly, applies!
		
Click to expand...

Personally, I prefer unarmed, hand-to-hand combat, but if it were to be swords, sabre would be my weapon of choice.

Cobbett's criticism of London as a great Wen may still be relevant to London today, but I am still unsure of it's relevance to this debate.

JM appears to be implying that someone or something in this argument is "a festering boil" - but I am not sure what as yet...?

Obviously he can't be referring to me, as he abhors personal insults and would never stoop so low - and of course, East Kent and Fiagai, being the tireless arbiters of fair play that they are, would be down on him like a ton of bricks were he do such a thing.

I await the explanation with bated breath...


----------



## VoR (7 October 2011)

I listened to this twice and thought it was really interesting that both sides had a discussion with both sides able to make their point and without really losing their tempers and ranting!!


----------



## Herne (7 October 2011)

Fiagai said:



			In this thread there has been no use of the term troll except by yourself to insult other posters.
		
Click to expand...

Fiagai. I challenge you to demonstrate, using the excellent quoting facilities offered by this forum, where in this thread Combat_Claire has used the word "troll" to insult another poster?





			but DO NOT asattempt to assign the responsibility to those with different views and align them to the anti hunt brigade as you have already done
		
Click to expand...

Again, I challenge you to demonstrate where in this thread, Combat_Clare, or anyone else, has aligned people to the anti-hunt brigade.

What has been said is that the anti-hunt brigade would be pleased to read some of the opinions posted here by pro-hunting people, but that is not the same as saying that those people are deliberately allied with, siding with or aligned with the Antis.





			there have been a number of (for want of a better term) genuine! "Trolls" who came, tried to rubbish hunting and left never to be seen again. Quite rightly these posters were outed.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry? Who appointed you, or anyone else, to be arbiter of whether someone who does not agree with hunting on here is a genuine anti who is entitled to express their opinion on a Public Forum or a Troll who needs to be outed?


Finally, and this is just a matter of self-education, you refer from time to time to posters as OPs?. I am familiar with the abbreviation meaning *O*riginal *P*oster, as in the poster who started that particular thread, but you seem to be using it in a slightly different context, and I was wondering what it was?


----------



## Judgemental (7 October 2011)

Herne said:



			&#8220;babbling&#8221;.

move on.

This complaining that I have been impolite or insulting to you is just silly. Either give it up, or refer to specific instances.
		
Click to expand...

Now you are intimidating me not to post my opinions.

I feel that I have been attacked in a personal manner.


----------



## VoR (7 October 2011)

Ok, so I've read this all the way through (work is slow today), seems to me that;

A repeal or any other change to the act is improbable/impossible at the moment, the only way it WILL change is a majority Conservative government at the next election, assuming they are still in agreement that a repeal is part of their political agenda. 

Having read the act, any changes would need to be agree by both Houses, if a change basically castrating the act would go through then surely we'd looking at a world where repeal had happened?

Even if a change to the act were possible, it is short-sighted to suggest that this should be a priority, look around you, this country and the world could melt-down financially at any time, surely a bit higher on the priority list at the moment that this be avoided (if possible)?

I do agree that perhaps all pro-hunting groups should be keeping the fight 'in the limelight' more and I do find it very disturbing and saddening that we all want the same thing but are now in-fighting, are we dividing ourselves which will allow the other side to conquer? I hope not.


----------



## EAST KENT (7 October 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			come on,Claire,you know me betterthan that,we shouldall unite insteadof falling out which in this case,is pathetic.i DO NOT BELONG TO ANY LITTLE GROUP, I AM  MY  OWN  PERSON......so lets get over ourselves and behave like adults?
		
Click to expand...

  Absolutely, rose coloured specs off,which apparently is a hanging offence.


----------



## EAST KENT (7 October 2011)

Judgemental said:



			A festering boil.

As for what I am saying, I am merely expressing my opinion and you are being extremely impolite to me and hostile because you do not agree with my views.

An apology please
		
Click to expand...

   Absobloodylutely, disgraceful.


----------



## EAST KENT (7 October 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			So for you the fox is the main player??  Personally, for me  -  it's hounds, be they foxhounds, or bassets, beagles, minkhounds or bloodhounds!  WONDERFUL canines - all of them - and if hunting has to continue under the ban to keep these lines going, so be it.  We all know what the alternative would have to be!


   Of course the fox and it`s wily ways are the main player;By all means keep those precious lines going in the meantime, by whatever means can be got away with;however ,just because I cannot quite get very excited about chasing a duster,I DO NOT deserve abuse for it.
   You have no need to tell me about hounds,I have walked many ,many couples,reared from day old ,you name it.To turn on huntings own just for a less rose coloured viewpoint is childish and ridiculous,you all need to extract yourselves from that sunless viewpoint and stop antagonising the hunting folk around as well as the antis.
   As for Herne,well You could even turn ME into an anti..well ,well done. And be big enough to apologise to JM,he used to irratate the Hell out of me,but now I`m quite fond of the old stick. I sincerely hope I am never so unfortunate as to meet you H.
   I never thought to actually see  hunting people being so rude,part of the joys of it was always the politeness and etiquette,long gone it seems.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## rosie fronfelen (7 October 2011)

I find it very sad that all this in-fighting is causing rifts when everyone is batting for the same side-there are no posses,trolls or whatever schoolyard names have been used and although  ive been accused of being unpleasant on this forum  ive never abused anybody,so thank you everyone who disagrees----------


----------



## EAST KENT (7 October 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			I find it very sad that all this in-fighting is causing rifts when everyone is batting for the same side-there are no posses,trolls or whatever schoolyard names have been used and although  ive been accused of being unpleasant on this forum  ive never abused anybody,so thank you everyone who disagrees----------
		
Click to expand...

Completely  agree Rosie, my interest in any hunting has just died,well done the lot of you.


----------



## Herne (7 October 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Now you are intimidating me not to post my opinions.
		
Click to expand...

Hardly.



Herne said:



			You do, of course, have every opportunity to defend your case. You could  demonstrate that it was I who had got the Law wrongThat would be the appropriate action on your behalf here. refer to specific instances.
		
Click to expand...

All active invitations for you to state your opinions.

As for intimidation, nonsense - unless you are intimidated by the idea that if you post something that is factually incorrect, someone else might point it out.




			I feel that I have been attacked in a personal manner.
		
Click to expand...

And you have been asked  not even impolitely  on more than one occasion to refer to specific instances of these attacks and/or insults.


----------



## Fiagai (7 October 2011)

Re: gangs, trolls, antis and other absurdisms....



Herne said:



			Fiagai. I challenge you to demonstrate, using the excellent quoting facilities offered by this forum, where in this thread Combat_Claire has used the word "troll" to insult another poster?Again, I challenge you to demonstrate where in this thread, Combat_Clare, or anyone else, has aligned people to the anti-hunt brigade.What has been said is that the anti-hunt brigade would be pleased to read some of the opinions posted here by pro-hunting people, but that is not the same as saying that those people are deliberately allied with, siding with or aligned with the Antis.Sorry? Who appointed you, or anyone else, to be arbiter of whether someone who does not agree with hunting on here is a genuine anti who is entitled to express their opinion on a Public Forum or a &#8220;Troll&#8221; who needs to be &#8220;outed&#8221;?Finally, and this is just a matter of self-education, you refer from time to time to posters as OPs?. I am familiar with the abbreviation meaning *O*riginal *P*oster, as in the poster who started that particular thread, but you seem to be using it in a slightly different context, and I was wondering what it was?
		
Click to expand...

Herne in addition to your continued rude and abrasive postings you have now taken to replying to other posters posts as well!  Well done....

If you wish to argue please feel free to do so but I for one have no wish to participate in your rather obvious use of symantics and hyperbole.  

I believe there is a signpost down the road, if you really need to have a rant at if you wish.  So I  repeat I will not partake in any of your vapid and meaningless continued arguing for the sake of arguing.

Please remember your opinions are your own and unless we bring in legal specialists or a relevant legislative authorities to make unilateral interpretations then such arguments remain at the end of the day just that - Your Opinions.  It remains an other posters right to hold their opinions / interpretation without being derided by others

You have insulted another poster and that poster has asked (and rightly so imo) for a apology.  Do the decent thing and do so.


And as I have said at least once before 

 Herne fcs give it a break.....


----------



## Herne (7 October 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			As for Herne,well You could even turn ME into an anti..well ,well done. And be big enough to apologise to JM,he used to irratate the Hell out of me,but now I`m quite fond of the old stick. I sincerely hope I am never so unfortunate as to meet you H.
   I never thought to actually see  hunting people being so rude,part of the joys of it was always the politeness and etiquette,long gone it seems.
		
Click to expand...

Several people, not just me, have already asked for instances of this so-called "rudeness" to be pointed out.

If it is so obvious and so rude and so ... whatever ... then I am at a loss to understand what the difficulty is...

It is not rude to point out to someone that they are factually in error, which is what I have been doing to JM.


----------



## Herne (7 October 2011)

So, you are unable to demonstrate that CC has said either of the things that you accuse her of, then?

Thought not.



Fiagai said:



			Herne in addition to your continued rude and abrasive postings you have now taken to replying to other posters posts as well!  Well done....
		
Click to expand...

Erm, is that not what you are doing, intervening in the discussion between me and JM?

Is that not also the function of a public forum in general? That any poster can comment on any post?




Fiagai said:



			It remains an other posters right to hold their opinions / interpretation without being derided by others?
		
Click to expand...

How on earth do you reconcile that grandiose statement with this:



Fiagai said:



			Believe it or not there have been a number of (for want of a better term) genuine! "Trolls" who came, tried to rubbish hunting and left never to be seen again.  Quite rightly these posters were outed.
		
Click to expand...

Do you even think about this stuff before you type it?




			You have insulted another poster and that poster has asked (and rightly so imo) for a apology.  Do the decent thing and do so.
		
Click to expand...

And I have asked for specific details about what I should apologise for?


You have accused Combat_Claire of saying two things that she did not.

Are you going to do the &#8220;decent thing&#8221; and apologise to her?





			And as I have said at least once before 

 Herne fcs give it a break.....
		
Click to expand...

Well, yes, I was considering complaining about the persistent use of profanity, there, but I decided that it might be a bit petty.


----------



## Herne (7 October 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Completely  agree Rosie, my interest in any hunting has just died,well done the lot of you.
		
Click to expand...




EAST KENT said:



			Hope you are`nt part of customer relations !  I have`nt bothered to "hunt" since the ban ,it is pointless,  as for "deserving" to hunt,I think you are a tad barking.If ever there was any dithering, you`ve stopped that nicely,well done!

Click to expand...

I know people who give up smoking less often than you give up hunting...


----------



## Fiagai (7 October 2011)

Herne said:



			So, you are unable to demonstrate that CC has said either of the things that you accuse her of, then?.....
		
Click to expand...

Still replying to other posters posts then, splicing them and taking bits out of context? 

You are in effect arguing now that I am refusing to argue with you about another argument?  Nice logic btw 

If you insist on trying to start yet another row then as I suggest go and find that signpost I mentioned - I'm sure it is more than willing to stand and listen to you Fortunately for me I am not....

Tara chuck....








*as for profanity - I believe fcs it is a normal expression especially used by clergy....


----------



## JanetGeorge (7 October 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Of course the fox and it`s wily ways are the main player;By all means keep those precious lines going in the meantime, by whatever means can be got away with;however ,just because I cannot quite get very excited about chasing a duster,I DO NOT deserve abuse for it.
		
Click to expand...

And who abused you?  Not me.  The staghunters, beaglers, minkhunters etc might rightly postulate that you are single-minded and perhaps selfish to assume that only the fox matters - the hare, the mink and the stag can all be equally wily quarry!  




			As for Herne,well You could even turn ME into an anti..well ,well done. And be big enough to apologise to JM,he used to irratate the Hell out of me,but now I`m quite fond of the old stick. I sincerely hope I am never so unfortunate as to meet you H.

Click to expand...

Mmm - what happened to your apparent disdain for personal attacks??  And what on earth does Herne have to apologise to JM for - pointing out his errors (in a perfectly polite manner!)??  That's what a discussion forum is about!  If you met Herne - not knowing it WAS Herne - you would find him charming, intelligent, jovial, and totally committed to hunting!    Because that's what he IS!!


----------



## JanetGeorge (7 October 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Now you are intimidating me not to post my opinions.

I feel that I have been attacked in a personal manner.
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear JM - you ARE easily intimidated!  And overly sensitive too!  You have obviously never suffered TRUE intimidation as those of us who were at the forefront of the battle did - names and home addresses published on the internet as part of an ALF 'hit list'; razor blade devices through the post, bomb threats, telephoned death threats, etc etc etc.

Herne - and I - and C_C have pointed out instances where 'your opinions' do NOT stand up to examination by anyone with knowledge of the legislative process.  Now frankly, I don't care much what YOU think the CA should be doing - I am concerned that people reading your posts MIGHT think you were right!  After all, to the uninformed, your arguments could appear convincing!  Very few people have in-depth knowledge of the parliamentary process - and what goes into defeating a Bill.  I could ask you what the relevance of the 'Icecream on Sundays' Bill - or the 'Weights & Measures' Bill were to various attempts to ban hunting - do you know??  I doubt it - very few people do.  But I do - and Herne does - because we were closely involved in a number of attempts to ban hunting and understand how the parliamentary 'game' is played!

The moaning about 'intimidation' and people being rude to you is a game the antis play when they are losing the debate - it's a distraction - and doesn't stand up to examination!  So please try to stop being so childish!


----------



## Herne (7 October 2011)

VoR said:



			Ok, so I've read this all the way through (work is slow today), seems to me that;

A repeal or any other change to the act is improbable/impossible at the moment, the only way it WILL change is a majority Conservative government at the next election, assuming they are still in agreement that a repeal is part of their political agenda. 

Having read the act, any changes would need to be agree by both Houses, if a change basically castrating the act would go through then surely we'd looking at a world where repeal had happened?

Even if a change to the act were possible, it is short-sighted to suggest that this should be a priority, look around you, this country and the world could melt-down financially at any time, surely a bit higher on the priority list at the moment that this be avoided (if possible)?
		
Click to expand...

Sensible comments, VoR.




			I do agree that perhaps all pro-hunting groups should be keeping the fight 'in the limelight' more and I do find it very disturbing and saddening that we all want the same thing but are now in-fighting, are we dividing ourselves which will allow the other side to conquer? I hope not
		
Click to expand...

This is the problem. Love it or hate it, as Janet says the Countryside Alliance is the only organisation that is fighting Hunting's corner. All hunting people need to throw their weight behind it, even if they don't agree with all of its methods, if repeal is to be achieved.

Lots of people did not agree that Eisenhower should be made Commanding Officer for D-Day, nor that Normandy was the best option. However, once he was in that position, and once he had decided on those tactics, everyone who wanted the war to be won had to drop their opposition and muck in as best they could to make them work.

It's the same thing here.


----------



## Fiagai (7 October 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			Herne - and I - and C_C have pointed out instances where 'your opinions' do NOT stand up to examination by anyone with knowledge of the legislative process.  Now frankly, I don't care much what YOU think the CA should be doing - I am concerned that people reading your posts MIGHT think you were right!  After all, to the uninformed, your arguments could appear convincing!  Very few people have in-depth knowledge of the parliamentary process - and what goes into defeating a Bill.  I could ask you what the relevance of the 'Icecream on Sundays' Bill - or the 'Weights & Measures' Bill were to various attempts to ban hunting - do you know??  I doubt it - very few people do.  But I do - and Herne does - because we were closely involved in a number of attempts to ban hunting and understand how the parliamentary 'game' is played!
		
Click to expand...

Please remember again that these opinions are your own and unless we bring in legal specialists or a relevant legislative authorities to make unilateral interpretations then such arguments remain at the end of the day just that - Your Opinions. It remains an other posters right to hold their opinions / interpretation without being derided by others




JanetGeorge said:



			Oh dear JM - you ARE easily intimidated!  And overly sensitive too!  You have obviously never suffered TRUE intimidation as those of us who were at the forefront of the battle did - names and home addresses published on the internet as part of an ALF 'hit list'; razor blade devices through the post, bomb threats, telephoned death threats, etc etc etc....

The moaning about 'intimidation' and people being rude to you is a game the antis play when they are losing the debate - it's a distraction - and doesn't stand up to examination!  So please try to stop being so childish!
		
Click to expand...

....and so it continues. JM has voiced his own opinion and is plainly again being derided.  I expect better of those that hunt....


----------



## Judgemental (7 October 2011)

Herne said:



			It's gone very quiet in here...

Nothing more to say, JM?
		
Click to expand...


Herne on page 7 of this thread - 27/09/11 you said the above.

I had said all that was necessary. Following your question, I simply repeated my views and you called me a 'babbler'.

For that I now demand an apology, especially in this forum.

Indeed, at that point the thread had sunk whilst, other subjects overtook the issue.

However it has subsequently been resurrected largely by your goodself.

I repeat, it is my view that Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004 should be amended and with alacrity.

From what I have been told my views and strategy are beginning to stick in various quarters.

Interestingly when I mentioned the role of Barristers and Solicitors on 30 Sept, things went very quiet for a while.

Which begs the question, all these people who apparently 'make things happen' for us in Parliament what are they paid?

With your infallible knowledge and of course that of Mrs George, perhaps you can both shed some light on this area?  

I will add that I have a suspicion that some who &#8216;move and shake hunting&#8217; in the Great Wen are paid professionals, in whose interests financially it is, to self perpetuate the argument, without getting anything done. Yet still asking folk to continually stump up money and subscriptions to keep them in a job.


----------



## JanetGeorge (7 October 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Please remember again that these opinions are your own and unless we bring in legal specialists or a relevant legislative authorities to make unilateral interpretations then such arguments remain at the end of the day just that - Your Opinions. It remains an other posters right to hold their opinions / interpretation without being derided by others

....and so it continues. JM has voiced his own opinion and is plainly again being derided.  I expect better of those that hunt....
		
Click to expand...

Everyone's opinions ARE their own - and they are entitled to hold them - but when they state them on a public discussion forum then they must expect those who hold contrary opinions to disagree - and explain why we disagree!

I think most hunting people know my background - and recognise that I have a fair bit of experience and first hand involvement in 'hunting politics'.  I was heavily involved in defeating the Foster Bill, regularly involved in discussions with the CA 'Bar Group' - VERY well qualified and experienced Barristers and solicitors who gave their expertise on a completely voluntary basis to help defeat the Bill!!  And that included being dragged out of bed on the Wednesday night before the Bill was debated to draft amendments to a last minute attempt by Foster to save his Bill which could easily have succeeded if we hadn't acted fast - and if our Tory friends hadn't kept the House sitting until 1 am so that our amendments could be delivered to the Speaker in time!!

Now JM may be a specialist in parliamentaery procedure in the real world - but from his posts here that seems highly unlikely!  And I'm not going to 'out' Herne here - but - believe me - his experience is also extensive!

Disagreeing with someone on a discussion forum is NOT 'derision' - it's debate!


----------



## JanetGeorge (7 October 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Interestingly when I mentioned the role of Barristers and Solicitors on 30 Sept, things went very quiet for a while.

Which begs the question, all these people who apparently 'make things happen' for us in Parliament what are they paid?

With your infallible knowledge and of course that of Mrs George, perhaps you can both shed some light on this area?
		
Click to expand...

See my previous post!!  I don't know if the 'Bar Group' is still 'working' (free of charge) for the CA - I DO know we could not have defeated Foster - and won another 5 years - without them!  Nor could we have defeated Foster without the VERY considerable efforts of David Maclean, (now Baron Blencathra) and Edward Garnier, in particular!!  And they were certainly not paid or rewarded in ANY material sense (Hell, they bought the champagne we celebrated with in the Members' Tea Room after the Bill was killed - to the immense annoyance of the Late Tony Banks MP!!)


----------



## Judgemental (7 October 2011)

That's all very well Mrs George.

That was then, this is now.

You are referring to events in what - circa 1998.

I want to know what the current movers, shakers and profressionals are being paid.


----------



## Fiagai (7 October 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			....
Disagreeing with someone on a discussion forum is NOT 'derision' - it's debate!
		
Click to expand...




JanetGeorge said:



			...The moaning about 'intimidation' and people being rude to you is a game the antis play when they are losing the debate - it's a distraction - and doesn't stand up to examination!  So please try to stop being so childish!
		
Click to expand...

So this is an example of debate?  I am learning all the time.....


----------



## JanetGeorge (7 October 2011)

Judgemental said:



			I want to know what the current movers, shakers and profressionals are being paid.
		
Click to expand...

Then look at the Countryside Alliance accounts!  Obviously data protection etc does not permit every salary to be listed alongside the employee's name - but I believe accounts give a total salaries figure, number of staff, and number of staff receiving salaries over £xxxx!  Board members are NOT paid; consultants - when used - will be paid market rate.  A large campaigning organisation can't operate with only part-time volunteers - it needs competent staff (and if you pay peanuts .....)


----------



## EAST KENT (8 October 2011)

Two,maybe three people being abusive and big headed enough to let down everyone who hunts/hunted .Disgraceful, I am out of here..well done ,enjoy the view.


----------



## Herne (8 October 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Herne on page 7 of this thread - 27/09/11 you said the above.

I had said all that was necessary. Following your question, I simply repeated my views and you called me a 'babbler'.

For that I now demand an apology, especially in this forum.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, well thats not really how it happened is it? 

On pages 4. 5 & 6 you were banging on about repealing Section 8 by Statutory Instrument.

It's a matter of a stroke of a pen. you said.

It was explained to you, perfectly politely, that that was not correct.

I am assuming from the fact that that you have stopped banging on about it, that you now accept that you were wrong about that  but an admission would not have been out of order, not least because of the way you were deriding those who represent the cause as being are not in your opinion too bright.

As it turns out, it was you who were wrong about that, not them, so a retraction of that accusation would have been in order.

Or do you still claim that Section 8 can be repealed by Statutory Instrument?


On page 6, you then change tack and start suggesting that the Bill should be amended to get rid of Section 8. It is explained to you that we do not have the clout to do so.

On page 7, you change tack again and started claiming that the power to enter premises conferred by Section 8 was extraordinary  and that suggestion was shown to be incorrect by Janet George and Aesculus.

Everything then went very quiet for a while.

When I asked you whether you had anything more to say, at that stage, I was, perhaps rather naively, expecting that you might perhaps confess that your understanding had been in error and withdraw your criticisms of those who represent the cause.

No such luck.


On Page 9, you then start suggesting that we, the hunting world, should some how start making, and you stressed making, Conservative MPs do things and that we should fire our leaders if they do not deliver.

Again, it was explained by more people than just me why this was not possible.

Then on Page 11, you go back to having Section 8 amended again.

It is at that point that I called you a Babbler - *3 pages and 7 of your postings after* I asked you if you had anything else to say. 

This is a hunting forum, and as I explained at the time, in hunting parlance a babbler is a hound that continually speaks on the wrong line.

If you have been speaking on the wrong line  making factually incorrect statements as it has several times been demonstrated that you have  then the term babbler is not inappropriate, especially on a hunting forum.

I have on several occasions invited you to prove that any of your statements are correct or that any of my refutations of them are incorrect. This you have so far declined to do.

I therefore refute the suggestion that any apology is in order.

You will observe that I did not call you a liar or in anyway imply that you deliberately imparting false information.

I merely pointed out that you were speaking on the wrong line. I could just as easily, and with the same effect, have used another canine simile and said you were barking up the wrong tree  and I would not apologise for that one either.


From you, on the other hand, an apology for and retraction of your accusation that those who represent the cause are not too bright would be entirely in order.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (8 October 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Two,maybe three people being abusive and big headed enough to let down everyone who hunts/hunted .Disgraceful, I am out of here..well done ,enjoy the view.
		
Click to expand...

the boys aren't listening,we dont exist so save your breath,EK..


----------



## Herne (8 October 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Still replying to other posters posts then, splicing them and taking bits out of context?
		
Click to expand...

I think trying to suggest that it is somehow wrong to reply to other posters posts on a public debating forum as a way of avoiding answering a question that you dont want to answer is possibly the lamest attempt at a get-out that I have ever seen   




			You are in effect arguing now that I am refusing to argue with you about another argument?  Nice logic btw 

Click to expand...

Nope. Merely pointing out  again  that you are unable to justify the two accusations you made against C_C. Tut tut!

And lets face it, Fiagai, old chap, I dont think that you are going to be able to persuade anyone following this thread that if you were able to prove me wrong on this you wouldnt LEAP on the chance to rub my nose in it. 




			*as for profanity - I believe fcs it is a normal expression especially used by clergy....
		
Click to expand...

Really? 

These will be the clergy who think that the third of the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord in vain, is optional, will they?


----------



## Herne (8 October 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			the boys aren't listening,we dont exist so save your breath,EK..
		
Click to expand...

I'm listening, Rosie.

I have been asking for examples of the "abusing" and "insulting" and "attacking" that I am supposed to have done

But I am hearing very little.

Apart from JM complaining about "babbler", which is, let's face it, so mild a form of critcism in hunting parlance as to be insignificant (as you, as a huntsman's wife, should know well), the silence is deafening.

This forum has fully-functioning quoting facilities - if I have done these things, exposing them is the matter of a few swishes and clicks of the mouse.

But all we see is more accusations - nary a shred of evidence.


----------



## Fiagai (8 October 2011)

Herne said:



			I think trying to suggest that it is somehow wrong to reply to other poster&#8217;s posts on a public debating forum as a way of avoiding answering a question that you don&#8217;t want to answer is possibly the lamest attempt at a get-out that I have ever seen
		
Click to expand...

*You persist in attempting to start yet another argument....not complying with your little games herne...



Herne said:



			Nope. Merely pointing out &#8211; again &#8211; that you are unable to justify the two accusations you made against C_C. Tut tut!
		
Click to expand...

Judge and Jury on all issues herne? See above*



Herne said:



			And let&#8217;s face it, Fiagai, old chap, I don&#8217;t think that you are going to be able to persuade anyone following this thread that if you were able to prove me wrong on this you wouldn&#8217;t LEAP on the chance to rub my nose in it.
		
Click to expand...

A bit over familiar Herne? Certainly not your "old chap" see above*



Herne said:



			Really? 
These will be the clergy who think that the third of the Ten Commandments, &#8220;Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord in vain&#8221;, is optional, will they&#8230;?
		
Click to expand...

Really? See above*

A modus operandi of insulting and deriding other posters really is pathetic.  As I have said I have no wish to comply with your little games so once again I will repeat...Give It A Break and this time for everyones sake!

Goodnight D)


----------



## rosie fronfelen (8 October 2011)

Herne said:



			I'm listening, Rosie.

I have been asking for examples of the "abusing" and "insulting" and "attacking" that I am supposed to have done

But I am hearing very little.

Apart from JM complaining about "babbler", which is, let's face it, so mild a form of critcism in hunting parlance as to be insignificant (as you, as a huntsman's wife, should know well), the silence is deafening.

This forum has fully-functioning quoting facilities - if I have done these things, exposing them is the matter of a few swishes and clicks of the mouse.

But all we see is more accusations - nary a shred of evidence.
		
Click to expand...

Herne,i have no intention of speaking my mind-Ihave not abusedYOU at all but believe you me,i am taking it all in.


----------



## EAST KENT (8 October 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			Herne,i have no intention of speaking my mind-Ihave not abusedYOU at all but believe you me,i am taking it all in.
		
Click to expand...

 Don`t worry Rosie,sadly this one has done more for own goals than anyone.He epitomises why hunting people are hated.Hope you are OKish, wish ,oh wish,I could help , keep fighting


----------



## Judgemental (8 October 2011)

Herne - bored now - blown home


----------



## JanetGeorge (8 October 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Don`t worry Rosie,sadly this one has done more for own goals than anyone.He epitomises why hunting people are hated.
		
Click to expand...

I thought you were out of here??  But no, you have to keep coming back to be downright offensive about someone who has done more good for hunting - and made more friends for hunting - than the VAST majority of hunting people I know!

IMHO, YOU epitomise why some people may hate hunting people - you can't cope with people who can put forward a coherent argument and who know what they are talking about - so you take refuge in personal attacks!  And yes, I know I am personally attacking you here - but you do thoroughly deserve it!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (9 October 2011)

EK was talking to ME,thanks JG-Who's being abusive now then,i must say,you think very  highly of yourself and your sidekick,Herne..,also EK Is avery caring person,she has a good heart,just cos you dont know all hunting folk,dont give them all the damns----------------


----------



## rosie fronfelen (9 October 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Herne - bored now - blown home
		
Click to expand...

dont blame you Judge, its all very one way now.


----------



## JanetGeorge (9 October 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			EK was talking to ME,thanks JG-Who's being abusive now then,i must say,you think very  highly of yourself and your sidekick,Herne..,also EK Is avery caring person,she has a good heart,just cos you dont know all hunting folk,dont give them all the damns----------------
		
Click to expand...

There is a PM system for PRIVATE conversations rosiefronfelen!  EK was posting on a PUBLIC forum - about a person I have a great deal of respect for because I knopw just how hard he has has worked over many years in the best interests of hunting!!  EK - and most others here - I can only judge on what they post here behind the anonymity of a username!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (9 October 2011)

you've successfully got rid of another poster but thats what you want isnt it JG?So i'll leave you to your heirarchy---


----------



## EAST KENT (9 October 2011)

But ,just before leaving,I have GREAT NEWS.. the powers that be have just confirmed to me ..that all three ..Janet George,the anonymous Herne,and the anonymous Combat Claire  have ALL been awarded a DARWIN. Well,well done!


----------



## millreef (9 October 2011)

I stumbled in here out of curiosity as there were so many posts but I don't understand a SINGLE ONE OF THEM - is anyone else confused??


----------



## rosie fronfelen (9 October 2011)

millreef said:



			I stumbled in here out of curiosity as there were so many posts but I don't understand a SINGLE ONE OF THEM - is anyone else confused??

Click to expand...

i advise youto remain confused,its all a nonsense..,


----------



## Alec Swan (9 October 2011)

millreef said:



			I stumbled in here out of curiosity as there were so many posts but I don't understand a SINGLE ONE OF THEM - is anyone else confused??

Click to expand...

  And I agree with Rosie.  

Regardless of the perceived rights,  or the wrongs of the arguments,  I'm happy to point out that when others hide behind anonymity,  and though not always agreeing,  then Mrs. George and I,  are as one.  

Put your names onto the board.  Then we'll see just how brave you are.

Alec.


----------



## Fiagai (9 October 2011)

There is a BIG differenece on commenting on a post to the contents of a post in an open forum 

and 

Replying directly to someones else's post as if you were the other poster for your own purposes

The PM system is there for private messages - it does not mean that two posters cannot maintain a dialogue without being highjacked on those intent on continously attempting to stir up trouble 

Banging on about a posters persona outside this forum is largely irrelevant....they may be his serene holiness the Dali Lama or even the pope.  That is irrelevant to what is said and how it is been said on this forum.


----------



## combat_claire (10 October 2011)

Fiagai said:



			We are talking about this thread so please do not attempt to divert the issue away from what is being rereffed to here.  It is neither polite or helpful.
		
Click to expand...

Who appointed you arbitrator of this thread. If I wish to refer back to other incidents where you and others of your ilk have been impolite to other users of this forum then I am at complete liberty to do so. 






			genuine! "Trolls" who came, tried to rubbish hunting and left never to be seen again.  Quite rightly these posters were outed.  In this thread there has been no use of the term troll except by yourself to insult other posters. 
 The continued accusation of genuine posters certainly will not endear this forum to anyone but DO NOT asattempt to assign the responsibility to those with different views and align them to the anti hunt brigade as you have already done
		
Click to expand...

Firstly who appointed you Troll Smeller Pursuivant. Secondly it has been stated numerous times before that the polite arguments put forward in favour of hunting will not necessarily convince the poster who posed a question that is branded by you as having troll like tendencies it is the casual browser who sticks a question about hunting into google and is directed to HHO that needs to see that there is nothing that the pro-hunting debate cannot answer. Simply having a section of the forum who yell 'Troll' at the aerliest opportunity is counter-productive. I have never attempted to align you with the anti-hunting brigade. I have merely pointed out that several of the comments made have been totally unhelpful. A completely distinct argument. 





			Ok there you go again - I for one am NOT part of any "Group" "Gang" "Posse" whatever way you wish to put it.  Attacking genuine posters is not the way to discuss any matter.  Reading these posts this is the most obvious method for attempting to attack those who post contary views.  Yes I may not agree with you but I will not start making ridicoulous comparisions or questioning your alliances.
		
Click to expand...

Firstly I have not questioned your alliances, I have simply pointed out that many of the comments made in recent days have not been at all helpful. I note the irony of you bleating on about not attacking posters when you do exactly the same thing to posters who you brand as trolls regardless of whether they could just be asking a somewhat naive question. 






			The inclusion of a smily face doesnt make your defence of the indefensible any more acceptable btw....
		
Click to expand...

The emoticon was attached to the sentence regarding the re-opening of Hounds forum and to that sentence alone.


----------



## combat_claire (10 October 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Now you are intimidating me not to post my opinions.

I feel that I have been attacked in a personal manner.
		
Click to expand...

Hardly, he is challenging you to find specific examples of where he has been rude to you.


----------



## combat_claire (10 October 2011)

Herne in addition to your continued rude and abrasive postings you have now taken to replying to other posters posts as well!  Well done....
		
Click to expand...

This is a public forum and Herne is as entitled as anyone else to reply to any thread on this board. I again challenge you to find any example where Herne has been anything other than polite. 





			You have insulted another poster and that poster has asked (and rightly so imo) for a apology.  .
		
Click to expand...

No he hasn't. He has merely robustly pointed out the flaws in Judgemental's argument. There is no apology required.


----------



## combat_claire (10 October 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			But ,just before leaving,I have GREAT NEWS.. the powers that be have just confirmed to me ..that all three ..Janet George,the anonymous Herne,and the anonymous Combat Claire  have ALL been awarded a DARWIN. Well,well done!

Click to expand...

Boo hoo, you were rude to me I demand an immediate apology and ask that you cease trying to intimidate me.


----------



## VoR (10 October 2011)

The anti-hunting 'lobby' (if they are reading this thread) must be beside themselves with joy seeing how the pro-hunters are tearing themselves apart, increasingly saddened and to avoid further depression will bow out of reading any further posts on this thread....so sad.


----------



## Maesfen (10 October 2011)

Couldn't agree more VoR with both of your posts.  Very disappointed in a lot of you that have posted on this thread.


----------



## Fiagai (10 October 2011)

combat_claire said:



			Who appointed you arbitrator of this thread. If I wish to refer back to other incidents where you and others of your *ilk* have been impolite to other users of this forum then I am at complete liberty to do so.
		
Click to expand...

CC You are obviously spoling for a huge argument. I am afraid I am going to disappoint you but I leave you to your own devices I will point out the folllowing

I see from athe above that "we" are ilk now as well? Is this in addition to your rude and unhelpfull references to Gangs Posses Groups etc ?



combat_claire said:



			Firstly who appointed you Troll Smeller Pursuivant.
		
Click to expand...

The only person who brought "Trolls" CC into this thread was you.  Thankfully "Trolls" are quite good at outing themselves.  If you wish to start a thread about trolls and whether you believe in them or not please do so BUt do not attempt to use it against others as a poster bashing tool



combat_claire said:



			Firstly I have not questioned your alliances, I have simply pointed out that many of the comments made in recent days have not been at all helpful. ..
		
Click to expand...

Let me see...simply pointed out...not helpfull!  This????


combat_claire said:



			My objection is that in numerous threads across this board you ands your posse have failed to follow this advice.  We have multiple incidents of your gang being insulting and rude to posters who hold opposing views, branding them as trolls...It would appear that it is allowable for your group to be rude....
		
Click to expand...

tbh you appear to have TRolls, Gangs and Posse's on the brain....
If you wish to simply insult and not debate or discuss then that is of course your business I am however not interested in your belligerence

YOU are making a mockery out of this forum with your rude and agressive argumentative method of attempting to destroy anyone who has a conatry view


----------



## rosie fronfelen (10 October 2011)

Maesfen said:



			Couldn't agree more VoR with both of your posts.  Very disappointed in a lot of you that have posted on this thread.
		
Click to expand...

Does this include me?


----------



## MerrySherryRider (10 October 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			Does this include me?
		
Click to expand...

There have been some classics on this thread, but my award goes to the Google King.


----------



## Fiagai (10 October 2011)

horserider said:



			There have been some classics on this thread, but my award goes to the Google King.
		
Click to expand...

Personally I agree with what has been said above.  Sadly what started as a discusion one way or the other has descended into a farce but who or what may I ask is "the google king"?


----------



## Herne (10 October 2011)

VoR said:



			The anti-hunting 'lobby' (if they are reading this thread) must be beside themselves with joy seeing how the pro-hunters are tearing themselves apart
		
Click to expand...

They will be happy - but it is nothing that they are not used to. Hunting people have always been their own worst enemies.

What this thread has boiled down to is a small number of people who support the policies of the Countryside Alliance and the fight for repeal being shouted down by an equally small number of people who don&#8217;t.

The tactics of the latter being to attempt to discredit the personal integrity of the former.

In this whole so-called debate, I don't think that anyone has tried to demonstrate that anything I have said is actually wrong. 

They merely concentrate on trying to make out that I am a horrible person who says it nastily.

Which is, if you think about it, actually kind of irrelevant to the actual subject of the debate. 

Something that is true doesn't become any less so because it is (supposedly) said nastily. 

Something that is incorrect does not become any less so because the person saying it is a terribly nice chap and someone else was (supposedly) horrid to him.

So it would still be kind of irrelevant even if they could demonstrate that I was nasty. But they haven't actually even attempted to do that - despite being asked on many occasions, because they don't need to. As every tabloid journalist knows, if you throw enough mud, it sticks.

The difference between me and my detractors is that far from shouting JM down, I have been actively trying to get him to *engage* in debate, either by promoting his theory or by shooting holes in mine; by conceding that his original position was in error or by demonstrating that mine was - because that is what a debate is supposed to be.


But as I say, in the end the numbers are so small on both sides that this it is all a storm in a tea-cup and will change nothing. Those of us that are working outside this forum to try to make a difference will continue to do so and may possibly change things for the better, and those that aren't will continue to do nothing and definitely won&#8217;t.


----------



## Rosie Round The Hills (10 October 2011)

In I creep to this contentious thread................Based on the fact that this thread has had 5000 views, I would imagine that there is a link to it from a number of 'interested' websites.  And I agree with those that have said that this kind of in-fighting and spatting is not a good advert for anyone involved in hunting....................... and out I step again.


----------



## Fiagai (10 October 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			i advise youto remain confused,its all a nonsense..,
		
Click to expand...

rosie...you have hit the nail on the head precisely....


----------



## MerrySherryRider (10 October 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Personally I agree with what has been said above.  Sadly what started as a discusion one way or the other has descended into a farce but who or what may I ask is "the google king"?
		
Click to expand...

The google king, is a reference to the poster who has a history of presenting quotes gleaned from google as his own.
 I am sometimes tempted to wonder if he has ever ridden a horse, let alone hunted on one.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (11 October 2011)

horserider said:



			The google king, is a reference to the poster who has a history of presenting quotes gleaned from google as his own.
 I am sometimes tempted to wonder if he has ever ridden a horse, let alone hunted on one.
		
Click to expand...

Haha,how wrong you are,AND itsnot me.......................


----------



## Fiagai (11 October 2011)

I come back to this thread with great reluctance but I felt obliged to do so

For me the saddest thing that has come out of this thread has been the rise of ego at the of cost common sense and normal good manners

The discussion in the first instance concerned a BCC programme about hunting which evolved into a fairly normal discussion concerning relevant parties. Normal good relations were maintained until the point ego reared its ugly head

It is unfortunate that after that point a small number of individuals then began to insist they were right because they said so

Anyone else who happened to hold a contrary view or dare disagree were variously attacked, assigned to secret cabals and insulted

This use of this nasty behaviour was excused as being the result of the righteous being questioned and therefore justified

Anyone attempting to engage in actual debate was variously met with insults and a barrage of political canvassing to show that such arguments were beyond reproof

And even where insulting behaviour was highlighted the same self-same righteousness was used as a platform to became both judge and jury for their own acquittal.

All parties have a role to play on what will happen in the future.  What the future holds no one really knows however to attempt to say that those who hold alternative positions are the enemy is beyond the ridiculous, it is simply contemptible.

But I have at least learned one thing from this thread and that is that
manners really do not cost anything but the lack of them may cost everything


----------



## rosie fronfelen (11 October 2011)

k



Fiagai said:



			I come back to this thread with great reluctance but I felt obliged to do so

For me the saddest thing that has come out of this thread has been the rise of ego at the of cost common sense and normal good manners

The discussion in the first instance concerned a BCC programme about hunting which evolved into a fairly normal discussion concerning relevant parties. Normal good relations were maintained until the point ego reared its ugly head

It is unfortunate that after that point a small number of individuals then began to insist they were right because they said so

Anyone else who happened to hold a contrary view or dare disagree were variously attacked, assigned to secret cabals and insulted

This use of this nasty behaviour was excused as being the result of the righteous being questioned and therefore justified

Anyone attempting to engage in actual debate was variously met with insults and a barrage of political canvassing to show that such arguments were beyond reproof

And even where insulting behaviour was highlighted the same self-same righteousness was used as a platform to became both judge and jury for their own acquittal.

All parties have a role to play on what will happen in the future.  What the future holds no one really knows however to attempt to say that those who hold alternative positions are the enemy is beyond the ridiculous, it is simply contemptible.

But I have at least learned one thing from this thread and that is that
manners really do not cost anything but the lack of them may cost everything
		
Click to expand...

Look out Fiagai,you'llget some cock-eyed answer to this.


----------



## Fiagai (11 October 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			k

Look out Fiagai,you'llget some cock-eyed answer to this.
		
Click to expand...

Rosie I took that as read ... it will go nicely with the rest of my week ....


----------



## EAST KENT (12 October 2011)

Fiagai said:



			I come back to this thread with great reluctance but I felt obliged to do so

For me the saddest thing that has come out of this thread has been the rise of ego at the of cost common sense and normal good manners

The discussion in the first instance concerned a BCC programme about hunting which evolved into a fairly normal discussion concerning relevant parties. Normal good relations were maintained until the point ego reared its ugly head

It is unfortunate that after that point a small number of individuals then began to insist they were right because they said so

Anyone else who happened to hold a contrary view or dare disagree were variously attacked, assigned to secret cabals and insulted

This use of this nasty behaviour was excused as being the result of the righteous being questioned and therefore justified

Anyone attempting to engage in actual debate was variously met with insults and a barrage of political canvassing to show that such arguments were beyond reproof

And even where insulting behaviour was highlighted the same self-same righteousness was used as a platform to became both judge and jury for their own acquittal.

All parties have a role to play on what will happen in the future.  What the future holds no one really knows however to attempt to say that those who hold alternative positions are the enemy is beyond the ridiculous, it is simply contemptible.

But I have at least learned one thing from this thread and that is that
manners really do not cost anything but the lack of them may cost everything
		
Click to expand...

Good sensible overview there,totally agree.


----------



## Herne (12 October 2011)

Fiagai,

If were discussing questions that were a matter of opinion, then you would have a point. 

Something like: Should we go for peaceful protest or civil disobedience? or Should the CA concentrate on Hunting or campaign on the Broad Agenda? These are questions where no one knows the answer and everyone has an opinion and everyones opinion has validity.

However, in this case we were not discussing a matter of opinion, we were discussing a matter of fact.

JM claimed that: Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004 can be repealed by use of a Statutory Instrument.

Well, that is a matter of Law. *Either* it can *or* it cant. End of.

And the fact is: it cant. 

Thats not an opinion. That is the Law. Its there in black and white: section 2(2) sets out what can be amended by order of the SoS, and S8 is not included. Read it. 

JM said it could. He was wrong. That is not an attack or an insult. It is merely a statement of what is written down in a publicly available document.

Upon this being pointed out, JM then went on to say, several times, that we should have Section 8 amended.

It was pointed out to him, several times, that we do not command enough votes to have the Bill repealed. That is also not an opinion. It is a fact. Count them.

JM then suggested that we should nibble away at the Act rather than going for repeal because wanting repeal was being greedy. This was again simply *wrong*.

If he had suggested: _If we commanded enough votes to have what we want, then I think we should go for amendment instead of repeal_, that would be an opinion of which we could debate the merits.

But, _As we havent got enough votes to achieve repeal, we should go for amendment instead, because thats easier to achieve_ (paraphrased) was not offered an opinion, it was stated as a fact.

And it was wrong. That is not my opinion. That is a fact. Parliamentary process does not work like that. Repeal is less complicated than amendment. It might not seem as if it should be that way  but it is.

There is no point in pretending that it isnt, just because someone wants to believe it.

Imagine that you were trapped behind a wall. You might be considering whether it would be best try to break though it or tunnel underneath it, when someone pipes up I think we should flap our arms and just fly over it!

You might be justified in giving that opinion slightly less weight than the previous two.

However, if, having explained to him the mysteries of human aerodynamics, the person continues to air the same opinion, you would probably be justified in getting somewhat frustrated.




Fiagai said:



			Anyone else who happened to hold a contrary view or dare disagree were variously attacked, assigned to secret cabals and insulted  This use of this nasty behaviour  met with insults
		
Click to expand...

Once again, I ask you to quote the passages in which I have attacked or insulted someone.




Fiagai said:



			All parties have a role to play on what will happen in the future.  What the future holds no one really knows however to attempt to say that those who hold alternative positions are the enemy is beyond the ridiculous, it is simply contemptible.
		
Click to expand...

Once again, I ask you to demonstrate where I, or anyone else, have made that claim.





rosiefronfelen said:



			Look out Fiagai,you'llget some cock-eyed answer to this.
		
Click to expand...

Was that cock-eyed?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (13 October 2011)

Herne said:



			Fiagai,

If were discussing questions that were a matter of opinion, then you would have a point. 

Something like: Should we go for peaceful protest or civil disobedience? or Should the CA concentrate on Hunting or campaign on the Broad Agenda? These are questions where no one knows the answer and everyone has an opinion and everyones opinion has validity.

However, in this case we were not discussing a matter of opinion, we were discussing a matter of fact.

JM claimed that: Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004 can be repealed by use of a Statutory Instrument.

Well, that is a matter of Law. *Either* it can *or* it cant. End of.
N
And the fact is: it cant. 

Thats not an opinion. That is the Law. Its there in black and white: section 2(2) sets out what can be amended by order of the SoS, and S8 is not included. Read it. 

JM said it could. He was wrong. That is not an attack or an insult. It is merely a statement of what is written down in a publicly available document.

Upon this being pointed out, JM then went on to say, several times, that we should have Section 8 amended.

It was pointed out to him, several times, that we do not command enough votes to have the Bill repealed. That is also not an opinion. It is a fact. Count them.

JM then suggested that we should nibble away at the Act rather than going for repeal because wanting repeal was being greedy. This was again simply *wrong*.

If he had suggested: _If we commanded enough votes to have what we want, then I think we should go for amendment instead of repeal_, that would be an opinion of which we could debate the merits.

But, _As we havent got enough votes to achieve repeal, we should go for amendment instead, because thats easier to achieve_ (paraphrased) was not offered an opinion, it was stated as a fact.

And it was wrong. That is not my opinion. That is a fact. Parliamentary process does not work like that. Repeal is less complicated than amendment. It might not seem as if it should be that way  but it is.

There is no point in pretending that it isnt, just because someone wants to believe it.

Imagine that you were trapped behind a wall. You might be considering whether it would be best try to break though it or tunnel underneath it, when someone pipes up I think we should flap our arms and just fly over it!

You might be justified in giving that opinion slightly less weight than the previous two.

However, if, having explained to him the mysteries of human aerodynamics, the person continues to air the same opinion, you would probably be justified in getting somewhat frustrated.




Once again, I ask you to quote the passages in which I have attacked or insulted someone.




Once again, I ask you to demonstrate where I, or anyone else, have made that claim.





Was that cock-eyed?
		
Click to expand...

I give up to be honest and just hope and pray we have a good season.End of-


----------



## EAST KENT (13 October 2011)

Herne said:



			Fiagai,

If were discussing questions that were a matter of opinion, then you would have a point. 

Something like: Should we go for peaceful protest or civil disobedience? or Should the CA concentrate on Hunting or campaign on the Broad Agenda? These are questions where no one knows the answer and everyone has an opinion and everyones opinion has validity.

However, in this case we were not discussing a matter of opinion, we were discussing a matter of fact.

JM claimed that: Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004 can be repealed by use of a Statutory Instrument.

Well, that is a matter of Law. *Either* it can *or* it cant. End of.

And the fact is: it cant. 

Thats not an opinion. That is the Law. Its there in black and white: section 2(2) sets out what can be amended by order of the SoS, and S8 is not included. Read it. 

JM said it could. He was wrong. That is not an attack or an insult. It is merely a statement of what is written down in a publicly available document.

Upon this being pointed out, JM then went on to say, several times, that we should have Section 8 amended.

It was pointed out to him, several times, that we do not command enough votes to have the Bill repealed. That is also not an opinion. It is a fact. Count them.

JM then suggested that we should nibble away at the Act rather than going for repeal because wanting repeal was being greedy. This was again simply *wrong*.

If he had suggested: _If we commanded enough votes to have what we want, then I think we should go for amendment instead of repeal_, that would be an opinion of which we could debate the merits.

But, _As we havent got enough votes to achieve repeal, we should go for amendment instead, because thats easier to achieve_ (paraphrased) was not offered an opinion, it was stated as a fact.

And it was wrong. That is not my opinion. That is a fact. Parliamentary process does not work like that. Repeal is less complicated than amendment. It might not seem as if it should be that way  but it is.

There is no point in pretending that it isnt, just because someone wants to believe it.

Imagine that you were trapped behind a wall. You might be considering whether it would be best try to break though it or tunnel underneath it, when someone pipes up I think we should flap our arms and just fly over it!

You might be justified in giving that opinion slightly less weight than the previous two.

However, if, having explained to him the mysteries of human aerodynamics, the person continues to air the same opinion, you would probably be justified in getting somewhat frustrated.




Once again, I ask you to quote the passages in which I have attacked or insulted someone.




Once again, I ask you to demonstrate where I, or anyone else, have made that claim.





Was that cock-eyed?
		
Click to expand...

For goodness sake ..give it a rest please,bored silly now.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (13 October 2011)

BY the way Herne,if you are ahuntsman/master how come you have all this time to write all this political jargon which is getting very boring for most,or do you have scores of lackeys to do your horses?


----------



## MerrySherryRider (13 October 2011)

As an observer, I'm sharing Hernes sense of frustration here.
 Stamping feet doesn't make laws changed. There is a correct process which is a part of living in a democracy, even when we don't like the laws that interfere with the lifestyle we choose.
It isn't Hernes fault. Don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## Herne (14 October 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			BY the way Herne,if you are ahuntsman/master how come you have all this time to write all this political jargon which is getting very boring for most,or do you have scores of lackeys to do your horses?
		
Click to expand...

Most people spend their working day on a computer and then go out into the countryside or sit on a horse for their recreation. 

I do it the other way round.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (14 October 2011)

Herne said:



			Most people spend their working day on a computer and then go out into the countryside or sit on a horse for their recreation. 

I do it the other way round.
		
Click to expand...

OK, so whyare you onthe computer  at 9 in the morning.


----------



## Herne (14 October 2011)

I was eating my breakfast. Now I am in for lunch.

I am absolutely fascinated to see how this line of questioning is going to prove to be relevant to the debate.

Perhaps I shall find out at tea-time...


----------



## rosie fronfelen (14 October 2011)

with all thesemeals do you have time to hunt?


----------



## Herne (14 October 2011)

I'm good at multi-tasking


----------



## rosie fronfelen (15 October 2011)

Herne said:



			I'm good at multi-tasking
		
Click to expand...

no man can multi-task,so dont giveme that one.


----------



## Herne (15 October 2011)

Ok, you caught me out - I actually have scores of lackeys who eat my meals for me...


----------



## rosie fronfelen (15 October 2011)

Herne said:



			Ok, you caught me out - I actually have scores of lackeys who eat my meals for me...
		
Click to expand...

oh yum,have you been cubbing today or just eating?Truthful answers now please.


----------



## Herne (16 October 2011)

Both, of course.

And today I'm off out building hunt jumps.


----------



## EAST KENT (16 October 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			no man can multi-task,so dont giveme that one.
		
Click to expand...

   Now THAT is the first bit of real common sense for a while hereabouts!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (16 October 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Now THAT is the first bit of real common sense for a while hereabouts!

Click to expand...

At least its gone away from the political nonsense,no doubt only briefly--


----------



## Herne (16 October 2011)

No doubt. Hunting and politics are pretty inextricably linked these days...


----------



## rosie fronfelen (16 October 2011)

Herne said:



			No doubt. Hunting and politics are pretty inextricably linked these days...
		
Click to expand...

i didnt think it would last-back to your politics H, but i'm bowing out now especially as our hounds are going well and i have no desire to read reams of political nonsense that i know nowt about and can do nothing about it anyway.byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.........................


----------

