# ANTIS = TERRORISTS



## CARREG (19 August 2006)

A gang of masked animal rights activists has attacked a group of anglers, prompting fears that extremists are determined to widen the scope of their campaign of intimidation.

The 35 masked extremists had earlier disrupted a grouse shoot before being moved on by police.

A handful of people, some of them families, was enjoying a day out at the Bank House fly fishery, at Caton, near Lancaster, when the saboteurs arrived.

Lucy Belson, of Kirkby Lonsdale, Cumbria, was fishing with a friend when they suddenly found themselves at the mercy of the gang.

"They began throwing stones at my rod and one of them said, 'It's the easy way or the hard way. You've been sabbed.' They told me to pack up and go or I was 'going to get wet'."

Fighting broke out as two anglers on a nearby stretch of bank struggled with the protesters. Miss Belson, a resuscitation nurse at Westmorland General Hospital, in Kendal, said: "I decided to get out of there and go home but suddenly they all ran towards me waving bats and blocks of wood, shouting, 'Get her'. "I was jostled and they smashed my fishing rod."

As she broke away from the melee, Miss Belson saw another woman being punched in the face and several cars being vandalised.

"I was shaken at the time but now I am angry," she said. "They are cowards and I certainly won't be frightened to go back to the lake. I love fishing and I have been doing it since I was a little girl."

Lancashire police believe that the anglers were the victims of an opportunistic attack. Earlier in the day the saboteurs had tried to disrupt a grouse shoot at Lowgill, near High Bentham.

At the height of the confrontation, police called in the force helicopter, an armed response vehicle and nine other vehicles. However, there were no arrests and the saboteurs headed away.

Pc Duncan Thomas, the force's wildlife officer, said that saboteurs were increasingly attacking anglers.

"Both anglers and grouse shooting parties should be aware of the threat to them and they should have contingencies in place to protect themselves."

A Countryside Alliance spokesman said: "It does seem to be the way animal rights extremists are heading. Their issue is not animal welfare - it is about hating people. They simply want to cause trouble."

Last year animal extremists attacked anglers on the Grand Union canal, in Milton Keynes. Some of the fishermen were thrown into the water.

Tom Fell, the regional director of the Countryside Alliance for Cumbria, said: "These people will stop at nothing to achieve their ends. They are a real worry and a real danger."


----------



## Super_Kat (19 August 2006)

All those poor people were doing was bloody fishing, honestly, the behaviour of some people is just disgusting!


----------



## allijudd (19 August 2006)

"Both anglers and grouse shooting parties should be aware of the threat to them and they should have contingencies in place to protect themselves."

WHY should these people have to protect THEMSELVES!!!! Can the law do nothing to stop the sabs?? 

Anyway with the new laws regarding trespass and reasonable force, if I was threatened with a beating at the hands of an armed gang and I was armed, I know what I would do........

Dont get me wrong Carreg, I dont hunt but I ride horses, I occasionally shoot rabbits and pheasants to control the vermin levels. But I am PRO hunting because I believe all the rights and freedoms which people of Great Britain have fought and died for are being handed over to the very people they were fighting against.
I dont believe that a minority of people should dictate policy to the majority but through threats of abuse and intimmidation have got their wish.......... untill the conservatives get in..


----------



## CARREG (19 August 2006)

".....I dont believe that a minority of people should dictate policy to the majority but through threats of abuse and intimmidation have got their wish...."

Im with you on that one.............Carreg


----------



## Fairynuff (19 August 2006)

Carreg, please dont lump us all together. The people who lower themselves to this level are extremists and not antis. Extremists will USE any excuse to use violence and to be honset I dont think they give a flying F**k about animals, birds and fish. Any excuse is a good one. I am anti but wouldnt dream of using violence of any sort-it doesnt help the outcome in any way.Please, in future dont mix antis with these criminals, we are normal people who dont happen to agree with hunting methods or ideals. Mairi.


----------



## allijudd (19 August 2006)

Mairi,
I can see your point and would agree with you that not all anti's are terrorists........ but how are people able to tell them apart. You have the extreemists as reported above, but when you read about the "monitors" with their cameras etc they wear hoodies and balaclavas. I dont believe this is necessary attire if all they are doing is filming activities of hunts from afar. IMO the only reason for hiding a face is if you dont want to be identified because of something you are doing. As I said before I dont hunt but believe in people's freedom of expression etc..... I dont see hunters wearing balaclavas. If I went out with my gun to shoot rabbits and wore a balaclava, i would look loke some one from the IRA or similar and can guarantee I would be surrounded by armed police within minutes. If hunts are open enough to allow filming usually by people trespassing on private land, then some consideration to being less intimidating should be considered, and possibly everyone could get on better rather than everyone trying to provoke the otherside into violent clashes.


----------



## allijudd (19 August 2006)

I seem to remember when the anti's were going after hunting they catagorically stated that fishing and shooting was not on their aganda to be banned. Since the ban they have made it clear that they are definately looking to stop fishing and shooting. LACS lie to their members and lie to the general public regarding their intentions. The ban has done nothing for the welfare of foxes, purely a class issue is you look to the base of the arguments. If the LACS acts like this, it is no wonder some of their supporters act in the way they do.


----------



## brighteyes (19 August 2006)

I can't wait for them to get started on horseracing - and see how far they get......  nowhere fast.  I wonder if there would be any 'tragic accidents' if they turned up to disrupt a pheasant shoot .


----------



## 6410 (19 August 2006)

Do you make cheese from goats milk in Italy?


----------



## Clodagh (19 August 2006)

They used to sab duck shooting in Oz. There were a couple of incidents of people having very light weight shot in their cartridges and accidently shooting them up the bum. (Not condonig it you understand!! lol.


----------



## Nigel (19 August 2006)

Hi Mairi,


    You are opposed to hunting, for what reasons? Why should we or anybody consider you normal when all the evidence suggests you have increased suffering? That was evident from the day Richard Course left the league. Personally I think you are all deluded nutters that need counselling. 

Cheers

Nigel


----------



## piebaldsparkle (19 August 2006)

Nigel

No need to insult Mairi, she is one of the few antis on this forum who seems to be reasonably educated and happy to debate (rather than just sling insults). 

 I like you may not agree with her views on fox hunting, but don't think this makes her a 'nutter' ('deluded' maybe!!).


----------



## allijudd (19 August 2006)

Hi Nigel,
I must agree with pieboldsparkie, regardless of the rights and wrongs of somebodies point of view, they have a right to voice it. If it differs from your own then so be it, we can have a debate, this is what makes debating enjoyable and to a point enlightening. I personally do not agree with the ban and believe it is driven by nothing more than petty class issues and nothing to do with animal welfare (as demonstrated by the current info on foxes and their welbeing). But if we jump on someone for having a different view, we take away their freedom of speech, and then we are no longer any better than the biggoted idiots who brought in the ban through mis information, intimidation and ignorance of the countryside.
Hunting will be back and the ban will be binned, the next conservative PM will see to it.


----------



## wurzel (20 August 2006)

Its nothing to do with insulting her, I am sure she is intellingent.

The point is her point of view is increasing suffering for foxes and deer.

Agree or not?



I would say anybody who increases the suffering of an animal is a nutter, yes?


----------



## Nigel (20 August 2006)

Hi,


   Piebalsparkle, alij thank you for your postings, I am perfectly happy to listen to anybodies  point of view, unlike those that oppose hunting I can admit when I am wrong , that is the very big difference. And Sorry I completely disagree with you. Please read my last posting currently at the top of the forum. Given all the evidence why should I not conclude they are all nutters? 

Cheers


Nigel


----------



## piebaldsparkle (20 August 2006)

Its nothing to do with insulting her, I am sure she is intellingent.

The point is her point of view is increasing suffering for foxes and deer.

Agree or not?
		
Click to expand...

 *Agreed* 

However I believe that the majority of antis campaigned against hunting with dogs in the misguided belief that it would reduce suffering.  Thus they are not nutters, just misinformed.  Perhaps more effort should be place in educating on this forum instead of just throwing flippant insults.  Which IMO is pointless.


----------



## Nigel (20 August 2006)

Hi Psparkle,

   I would agree with you if it was 7 years ago, but since then we have had a government inquiry telling us other methods would be used in place of hunting with worse welfare implications, another two high ranking officials of the main opposition defect to our point of view. A further two studies showing foxes are suffering as a result of the ban, when does misinformed get mistaken for bigotry and prejudice?

Cheers

Nigel


----------



## piebaldsparkle (20 August 2006)

Nigel

If you were stating that extremists are nutters, I would completely agree with you.  However IMO (please feel free to disagree) antis in general are still just holding onto the misguided belief that a hunting ban would cause less suffering.  Why this is I don't know, I don't know any antis personally.  I suspect most have just buried their heads in the sand or have only read whatever rubbish LACS have filtered down (obviously having omitting any parts that don't help their cause).  I just personally believe trading insults doesn't serve any purpose, and just makes people take you less seriously.


----------



## Clodagh (20 August 2006)

I have no problems with antis as such. We are all entitled to our opinion and the point of this forum is to spread the word as we see it!!
Its the violent extremists that need dealing with, not the man in the street that disagrees with whatever. I disagree with veal calf production, but I don't feel the need to blow up/beat up/ threaten people that do it.
I think its great that the anglers are getting targetted though, all those years of saying I'm alright Jack, may come back to haunt them yet. (No offence to individual anglers, but it would be great if Peter Foster had his car vandalised and his rod broken, hypocitical b*****...)


----------



## Nigel (20 August 2006)

Hi Psparkle,

      Not so much an insult as a well founded observation, as you said they appear to bury their head in the sand and read whatever rubbish Lacs filters down, that to me sounds like they are deluding themselves. Given that all the most recent information shows greater suffering as a result of the ban and yet they persist with their beliefs, I think they are nutters. Put the two together and you end up with deluded nutters.


 Important to stress, the above does not apply to the man in the street who may an express an opinion when asked.


Cheers

Nigel


----------



## allijudd (20 August 2006)

Nigel,
I dont disagree that antis are nutters because of the suffering they are causing, but surely you hit the nail on the head. A lot of antis are fed drivvel by LACS and dont have the inteligence to get off their own asses and find out the truth...... Therefore you and I and most of the pro hunters know what is really going on, but the majority of antis dont except what the LACS tells them. Surely, and I know its an immotive subject, educating the anti's on here with the truth through tack and persuasive agruments is better than p**sing them off by insulting them. I am sure the two guys from LACS who came over to the CA would not have done so if all the hunters and people at the top of CA called them names and made personal attacks on them. 
What makes us different to the uneducated, misguided and sometimes violent ways of the antis??......... TOLERANCE. I am sure we would not be seeing increasing numbers of people joining our hunts around the country if we rose to the bait of attacking the antis on the run up to the ban, even though the antis deserved a royal pasting, no hunts showed tollerance and restraint in the face of adversity and allowed out true colours to shine through and highlighted what the antis were really like.
By all means lambast the antis and critisise for all their misgivings, but by making any point inherantly personal towards one person is counter productive and they wont understand our point of view because they wont WANT to.


----------



## Fairynuff (20 August 2006)

Thankyou PieBS, I live far away from the LACs and co and have no idea what they say or preach. As an ex hunter I made up my own mind. I was as vitriolic as some of the pros who see to have slunk off into the sunset and hurled abuse along side of them against the antis. I have no problem with culling any wild animal as even I realise that in the long run it benefits the species and habitat. What I dont agree with is the stopping of earths,  digging and the use of hounds which dont get in and do the job  quicker than theyre bred to do. I find the drawn out chase, stopping and digging very UNSPORTING. I realise that the farmers are allowing the hunt on their land as a means to an end but surely enough foxes would be killed without the above practises. Believe me, I miss the adrenalin of hunting but cant swallow the way its done, ie, almost no chance for the fox and the further it runs the better the day out. Sorry! Mairi. PS, thanks to all who have said a word in my favour.


----------



## Fairynuff (20 August 2006)

Nigel, Im lost for words so I will stop here before I say something unpleasent.


----------



## Fairynuff (20 August 2006)

I did until the Brussells idiots started ruining everything. Im registered as a goat and sheep breeder with the Camera of Commerce and still pay the annual taxes although Ive given up my sheep and have only a 17 year old nanny and her castrated grandson. I produced cheese, goat, sheep or a mixture. It sold very well. My best was goat covered in chilli or wrapped in vineleaves and matured for six months. I quit when I recieved a letter saying that if I wanted to continue I had to have an area set aside completely tiled walls and floor and would have a milk quota put on me. "Bog Off". The pther thing that got me in the end was sending off the kids and lambs to the butcher down the road.When you have a few births a year you get to know them one by one and its hard to look them in the eye knowing where theyre going to end up.If youve got hundreds who live on the moors its probably less upsetting as theyre just white blobs in the distance. I now buy my cheese and leave the problems for the producers. Modern society=big is beautiful, small isnt to be encouraged. Mairi. :crazy:


----------



## mrdarcy (20 August 2006)

What tolerance is being shown towards anyone with a viewpoint different to your own?  I lurk around in this forum and see zero tolerance from pro's towards anti's.  

Why is it so hard for pro's to accept that some people just don't agree with hunting?  You're still taking part in hunts and are confident that the ban will be lifted at some point in the near future so why get so angry at people who disagree with you? I can understand you disliking the violent minority of anti's - who I also absolutely despise - but the rest of us?  Do you have the same attitude to people who disagree with you on other non-hunting related issues?

You talk about truth from the pro side and lies from the LACS... yet both sides are as dishonest as the other.  I wouldn't believe any statistics given by the CA, just as I wouldn't believe any from the LACS.  I pay no attention to either organisation.

All I can go on is my own conscience and gut feeling which is that I can't understand how anyone can get enjoyment out of being involved with the chase and kill of an animal.  It's not something I would ever want to be involved in. If someone could explain to me why that makes me a nutter I'd be very grateful.


----------



## brighteyes (20 August 2006)

You aren't a nutter.  You are a civilised person with a very balanced view and one who obviously has weighed up the arguments and made up your mind.  You keep your feelings to yourself and this is called respectable behaviour.  I have feelings similar to Mairi.  The galloping about is great and I have never witnessed much action, far less cruelty, whilst following hounds.  I'd prefer hare and deer not to be chased, but Mr Todd needs keeping in check and somebody has to do it.  I can't see a better way than hunting with 'dogs', but think the earth-stopping and digging out is unfair.  

The nutters are the ones who persist in violence and abuse towards folks trying to abide by the (ill conceived) law now, seemingly unsatisfied about getting what they wanted when The Ban was imposed.

I abhor Halal slaughter, bull fighting, intensive farming and smoking, but I wouldn't dream of anti type behaviour towards those involved in the above.


----------



## Hercules (20 August 2006)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion as long as that opinion is based on evidence, experience and fact.  If it is not than they must be told so and educated.

Tolerance is a key tenet in any liberal democracy.  However, the fact of the matter is that the hunt supporters have been far too tolerant for far too long.  That said, this season I will once again tolerate the LACS buffoons and their video cameras.  It is quite amusing to watch them wasting their time.


----------



## Fairynuff (20 August 2006)

Hercules, please define the word "tolerant". I dont like the word "buffoon"-its best left off in the nursery with nanny.Lacs(Ive got nought to to with them) seem to have bitten off more than they can chew. They mean well but to be honest, from what I can see dont seem to be in control of the situation and are trying to save the savable.  Be more tolerant of the adversary and you may find yourself with a winning hand in the end. Go one, "educate" me. M.


----------



## pelly (20 August 2006)

my cousins mate had great delight in breaking the leg of a pony that was out hunting! And he says Huntings cruel?????


----------



## brighteyes (20 August 2006)

What?  Did we really need to learn this?


----------



## Nigel (20 August 2006)

Hi Pelly,

 Youre a great footballer, pity you cant spell your name.

Chuckle Chuckle

Nigel


----------



## piebaldsparkle (20 August 2006)

What do you want us to be, suprised, shocked, impressed???


----------



## Nigel (20 August 2006)

Hi Gedenskis_girl,

  I will answer you questions,

What tolerance is being shown towards anyone with a viewpoint different to your own?

  Actually a great deal, if somebody does not like hunting or disagrees with it fine, I do not have a problem with that, don`t go hunting. But if you then want to ban or stop me from hunting and rely on corrupt data, twisted half truths and hearsay then naturally I have a problem.

Why is it so hard for pro's to accept that some people just don't agree with hunting?

Not hard at all. I fully respect people who disagree with hunting thats their choice, just don`t stop me because I agree with it.

You're still taking part in hunts and are confident that the ban will be lifted at some point in the near future so why get so angry at people who disagree with you?

Again I am not angry at those who disagree with hunting just those who feel the need to impose their will on me by banning hunting. Also they have tried to insinuate I am a child abuser and linked to the BNP, would`nt you be pissed off? 

 Do you have the same attitude to people who disagree with you on other non-hunting related issues?

No, but then again my mate who is a spurs fan does not call me a child abuser for supporting arsenal and think we should be banned.

I wouldn't believe any statistics given by the CA


Give me a few examples from the last five years of the statistics you would not believe?

Cheers

Nigel


----------



## mrdarcy (21 August 2006)

Hi Nigel

Thanks for answering.

In reply...

"Actually a great deal, if somebody does not like hunting or disagrees with it fine, I do not have a problem with that, don`t go hunting. But if you then want to ban or stop me from hunting and rely on corrupt data, twisted half truths and hearsay then naturally I have a problem."

You called all anti's nutters who need counselling.  I'm an anti... I don't go sabbing and don't condone any sort of violent protest but I'm still an anti so by your definition I'm a nutter.  That doesn't sound very tolerant to me.

Corrupt data, twisted half truths and hearsay applies equally to both sides.

"I fully respect people who disagree with hunting thats their choice, just don`t stop me because I agree with it."

None of your posts give any impression that you respect people who disagree with hunting.  We're all nutters after all...

"Again I am not angry at those who disagree with hunting just those who feel the need to impose their will on me by banning hunting."

I agree that the Hunting Bill is bad law... but not because I disagree with the intention... it's the execution that's flawed.  Personally, though I prefer there to be no hunting at all, I think some sort of compromise of licensed hunts would have been a better solution.

"Also they have tried to insinuate I am a child abuser and linked to the BNP, would`nt you be pissed off?"

There I agree with you absolutely.  I don't understand sabs who make that link - those are the thought processes of nutters.  But not all anti's think like that...

"No, but then again my mate who is a spurs fan does not call me a child abuser for supporting arsenal and think we should be banned."

I should hope not.  I'm an Arsenal fan too btw.  Surely only Spurs fans should be banned  

"Give me a few examples from the last five years of the statistics you would not believe?"

Anything that the CA commissions is bound to be spun in their favour.  That's not a criticism just a fact about modern day media spin.  The same thing applies to the LACS.

One particular one that springs to mind is the number of equine industry jobs that the CA claimed would be lost if the hunting ban came in (between 6,000 and 8,000 fulltime jobs per CA literature).  Here in the part of Lancashire I live there are no foxhound packs and only one small harrier pack, yet we have a thriving equine industry.  Tack shops springing up everywhere and expanding, farriers who are too busy to take on new clients, multiple livery yards, show centres and equine vet practices.  If my part of Lancashire can survive without hunting then why can't other areas?

I'm friends with people who hunt, shoot and fish.  I have been hunting - a good few years ago now but I felt I had to go before I could really make up my mind about how I felt about it - and without exception the people I met were good, welcoming people.  But equally I know a few sabs... non-violent ones but ones that do protest against our local harrier pack.  Again the ones I know are decent people who would never ever dream of harming an animal or putting one in danger.

I guess what I'm saying is that lumping people into one stereotype and insulting them out of hand does yourself no favours and your cause no favours either.  Again this applies whichever side of the fence you sit.


----------



## piebaldsparkle (21 August 2006)

Well said Gendenskis_Girl bang on.  (ducks ready for abuse!!!) - Obviously I will still be sitting on the otherside of the fence from you with regard to hunting, but apart from that I completely agree (ducks again!!!)


----------



## pelly (21 August 2006)

thanks for sticking up for me nigel! 
im also a Arsenal fan !


----------



## MagicMelon (21 August 2006)

May I just say that your title "antis = terrorists" is rather absurd. I am anit, however I am no terrorist as MOST anti's are not. You will find (as with anything) that it is the minority who take part in things such as this. So in future, please remember this and do no generalise.


----------



## combat_claire (21 August 2006)

OH MM, you have brightened up my evening by admitting that you are 'a nit'


----------



## CARREG (21 August 2006)

Have a run thru some of the thread titles started by antis, you'll get the picture...........Carreg


----------



## LACS (21 August 2006)

In any other country than the UK if a person started throwing glasses and fireworks at the police they'd be banged up for months if not years.


----------



## severnmiles (21 August 2006)

MM, 

Try not to be so naive.


----------



## pelly (22 August 2006)

OH MM, you have brightened up my evening by admitting that you are 'a nit'
		
Click to expand...

excellent!!!!!!!


----------



## MagicMelon (22 August 2006)

Oh shut up the lot of you. You really are the most immature bunch of punks I have ever had the misfortune to speak to! Honestly, please please just attempt to grow up a little. I've never got involved in such an argument whereby the 'other side' simply has hissy fits! Its rather pathetic.


----------



## combat_claire (22 August 2006)

And what would you call that latest posting, if it wasn't some hysterical outburst!


----------



## Doreys_Mum (22 August 2006)

And what would you call that latest posting, if it wasn't some hysterical outburst!
		
Click to expand...

She's anti - it's allowed when they do it


----------



## pelly (23 August 2006)

cant be apunk! My sisters on the Mod revival forum Lol!!!!!


----------

