# Crawley and Horsham Hunt. More monitors needed perhaps?



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

With the news that three leading members of the Crawley and Horsham Hunt have been found guilty of pursuing a fox illegally with hounds, between them five counts, is it time for an increase in monitoring? The guilty claimed they were merely trail hunting but this has been proven to be untrue. One wonder's how many other hunts are breaking the law under the same guise and getting away with it.
Is it not also time to see these actions as those of a corporate body giving the courts the power to confiscate their assets when crimes are proven?


----------



## BBH (15 May 2012)

They have been heavily fined and costs but I imagine local supporters will pay those for them.

Irrespective of the crime what annoys me is the arrogance of these people who think they are entitled to flout the law.


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

BBH, I do believe the judge described the hunts 'trail hunting', as a "charade". Perhaps the tide is about to turn and these crimes will actually be taken seriously. A huntsman with a duster on his whip  will not be 'proof', of trail hunting!


----------



## Grey_Eventer (15 May 2012)

I think you'll find the majority of hunts practise legally. 

The law needs overhauling, It should never have been banned in the first place. The law as it is does not work. Let us remember that 58% either didn't want it banned, or didn't care... supposedly this country is democratic, clearly on this law it was not.


----------



## PaddyMonty (15 May 2012)

Grey_Eventer said:



			I think you'll find the majority of hunts practise legally.
		
Click to expand...

If you say so


----------



## Grey_Eventer (15 May 2012)

PaddyMonty said:



			If you say so 

Click to expand...

I hunt twice a week, legally, with various packs around the area. I will continue to hunt legally until the law is changed and we can go back to our lives as it were. So yes, I do say we hunt legally- because we do.


----------



## Alec Swan (15 May 2012)

BBH said:



			They have been heavily fined and costs but I imagine local supporters will pay those for them.

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

Thanks for the heads-up!!  I've found their web page,  and the contact details,  and just as soon as they reply,  to confirm that what you say is the truth,  then I shall be as generous as I'm able,  with a donation,  and I'd encourage you all to follow my example.

Alec.


----------



## wizzlewoo (15 May 2012)

And whilst the goverment are implimenting a tighter monitoring system of the supposed 'non legal' hunting, (presumably in the form of personel from the poice force being brought in due to the increased risk of protestors) the NHS, police force, fire service, ambulance service and education system can hang on for a minute and hold out for there budgets because currently the budget is being spent on making sure 1 less fox  possibly, accidently doesn't get chased whilst the hunt is out hunting well within the hunting guidelines also outlined with the use of goverment and tax payers funds.


----------



## Grey_Eventer (15 May 2012)

wizzlewoo said:



			And whilst the goverment are implimenting a tighter monitoring system of the supposed 'non legal' hunting, (presumably in the form of personel from the poice force being brought in due to the increased risk of protestors) the NHS, police force, fire service, ambulance service and education system can hang on for a minute and hold out for there budgets because currently the budget is being spent on making sure 1 less fox  possibly, accidently doesn't get chased whilst the hunt is out hunting well within the hunting guidelines also outlined with the use of goverment and tax payers funds.
		
Click to expand...

I quite agree. The whole thing is a joke. There are more pressing issues that need to be sorted out than whether or not a hunt has killed a fox by mistake.
The law DOES need to be sorted out, but right now the economy is on the edge of disaster, the NHS needs reforming and the police certaintly don't need to be following hunts round the countryside waiting to see if they do something illegal- why not go and get the buggers that ARE actually doing something illegal. I hardly think the hunting community has a huge impact on the wider community.


----------



## guido16 (15 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			With the news that three leading members of the Crawley and Horsham Hunt have been found guilty of pursuing a fox illegally with hounds, between them five counts, is it time for an increase in monitoring? The guilty claimed they were merely trail hunting but this has been proven to be untrue. One wonder's how many other hunts are breaking the law under the same guise and getting away with it.
Is it not also time to see these actions as those of a corporate body giving the courts the power to confiscate their assets when crimes are proven?
		
Click to expand...

Get a grip.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (15 May 2012)

It is a pity that law abiding huntsmen don't take action against rogue hunts and its members instead of supporting them and paying their fines when the courts find them guilty of a crime.

Its a little sordid and tacky.


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Thanks for the heads-up!!  I've found their web page,  and the contact details,  and just as soon as they reply,  to confirm that what you say is the truth,  then I shall be as generous as I'm able,  with a donation,  and I'd encourage you all to follow my example.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

 You support criminals


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

wizzlewoo said:



			And whilst the goverment are implimenting a tighter monitoring system of the supposed 'non legal' hunting, (presumably in the form of personel from the poice force being brought in due to the increased risk of protestors) the NHS, police force, fire service, ambulance service and education system can hang on for a minute and hold out for there budgets because currently the budget is being spent on making sure 1 less fox  possibly, accidently doesn't get chased whilst the hunt is out hunting well within the hunting guidelines also outlined with the use of goverment and tax payers funds.
		
Click to expand...

Oooops you missed thread title about more monitors. Given their success against this hunt there is no need for any extra police being used, just more monitors. How about it?


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

Grey_Eventer said:



			I quite agree. The whole thing is a joke. There are more pressing issues that need to be sorted out than whether or not a hunt has killed a fox by mistake.
The law DOES need to be sorted out, but right now the economy is on the edge of disaster, the NHS needs reforming and the police certaintly don't need to be following hunts round the countryside waiting to see if they do something illegal- why not go and get the buggers that ARE actually doing something illegal. I hardly think the hunting community has a huge impact on the wider community.
		
Click to expand...

Monitors, not police. Now these 'buggers', from the hunt were breaking the law, got caught, convicted and now are criminals. I think you will find THEY were doing something illegal.


----------



## marmalade76 (15 May 2012)

Funnily enough, when the police attend our hunt it's because the 'monitors' are doing something illegal!


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

guido16 said:



			Get a grip.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry? Do you expect me to support all criminals or have you a specific list?!


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

marmalade76 said:



			Funnily enough, when the police attend our hunt it's because the 'monitors' are doing something illegal!
		
Click to expand...

No doubt marmalade you expect the police to do their job and deal properly with any law breaking as we all do.


----------



## guido16 (15 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			Sorry? Do you expect me to support all criminals or have you a specific list?!
		
Click to expand...

Do you paint your face with cammo paint and blow a horn when you go to the hunt.
Just a thought.....


----------



## marmalade76 (15 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			No doubt marmalade you expect the police to do their job and deal properly with any law breaking as we all do.
		
Click to expand...

Ohh, perhaps I should hand myself in for speeding I did earlier on today....


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

guido16 said:



			Do you paint your face with cammo paint and blow a horn when you go to the hunt.
Just a thought.....
		
Click to expand...

 No   Do you?


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

marmalade76 said:



			Ohh, perhaps I should hand myself in for speeding I did earlier on today....

Click to expand...

Oh no, just get up earlier for the school run perhaps.


----------



## marmalade76 (15 May 2012)

Nah, I wasn't on the school run (we walk),  I just like going fast!


----------



## guido16 (15 May 2012)

Dawnray - do you own a popcorn company? 
I can only presume you do as there will be lot of it getting handed out around here shortly...You would make a fortune if you did!


----------



## meesha (15 May 2012)

oooh did someone mention popcorn ! (settles back in chair in readiness)


----------



## guido16 (15 May 2012)

Lots of popcorn round here.
Might even be some wine later on Meesha!


----------



## meesha (15 May 2012)

could I have a merlot please oooh and buttery popcorn not salted !


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

guido16 said:



			Dawnray - do you own a popcorn company? 
I can only presume you do as there will be lot of it getting handed out around here shortly...You would make a fortune if you did!
		
Click to expand...

No, not a popcorn one.


----------



## meesha (15 May 2012)

maybe a wine company ?


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

meesha said:



			maybe a wine company ?
		
Click to expand...

Anything on topic meesha or only sillyness that a two year old using the search facility can figure out for themselves?


----------



## meesha (15 May 2012)

OOOhhhhhhh - you were the one wanting to point out you had a company ! 

Just trying to lighten the mood...... will go and play with my lego then !

btw I didnt use the search facility... and before you ask ... yes I do hunt !


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

meesha said:



			OOOhhhhhhh - you were the one wanting to point out you had a company ! 

Just trying to lighten the mood...... will go and play with my lego then !

btw I didnt use the search facility... and before you ask ... yes I do hunt !
		
Click to expand...

I do believe I responded to a question and did not want to point out anything to be fair! I was not going to ask you if you hunted nor do I care but anything else you need me to know I will be here about's when you are bored of your Lego meesha.


----------



## wizzlewoo (15 May 2012)

Are you a hunt monitor? And if so what is it that makes you want to be one. What factual evidence do you have that alows you to build such a strong adversion to Hunting?


----------



## Alec Swan (15 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Thanks for the heads-up!!  I've found their web page,  and the contact details,  and just as soon as they reply,  to confirm that what you say is the truth,  then I shall be as generous as I'm able,  with a donation,  and I'd encourage you all to follow my example.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...




DawnRay said:



			You support criminals 

Click to expand...

If there's a choice between supporting those who break the law,  and supporting an unjust,  ill thought out,  and corrupt law,  which has done our countryside no service at all,  then just as the large department stores,  a few years ago,  _"tested"_ the Sunday trading laws,  then I'll support those who _"test"_ our current hunting restrictions.  

Alec.


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

wizzlewoo said:



			Are you a hunt monitor? And if so what is it that makes you want to be one. What factual evidence do you have that alows you to build such a strong adversion to Hunting?
		
Click to expand...

Gosh it is like question time. No I am not a hunt monitor. Hence nothing makes me want to be that which I am not. The thread is unfortunately not about me it is about the conviction of Crawley and Horsham Hunt members who got caught by monitors hunting foxes illegally whilst pretending to be trail hunting. Do you have an opinion on the use of more monitors to deal with such lawlessness?


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			If there's a choice between supporting those who break the law,  and supporting an unjust,  ill thought out,  and corrupt law,  which has done our countryside no service at all,  then just as the large department stores,  a few years ago,  _"tested"_ the Sunday trading laws,  then I'll support those who _"test"_ our current hunting restrictions.  

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

At least you admit they were breaking the law but don't send all your money just now. There may be many more cases to come.


----------



## Alec Swan (15 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			At least you admit they were breaking the law but don't send all your money just now. There may be many more cases to come.
		
Click to expand...

They were found guilty of breaking the law,  just as some of your oddball animal rights,  rabble have been found wanting.  Whether in fact they were guilty,  is an entirely different matter.  

Those from Crawley and Horsham,  for instance,  didn't knowingly call hounds across a traffic filled road,  in the near certain knowledge that hounds would be killed.  They haven't *illegally* trapped wild deer and kept them in a compound without proper care,  and managed to fool too many that they speak with authority,  whilst by wilful neglect,  allowed their charges to live and then die and endure such miserable existences.  

Those from Crawley and Horsham aren't responsible for,  or been charged with criminal damage,  or put the lives of their fellow humans at risk.  

Were I in your shoes,  I'd consider your connections,  before you sit in judgement of others. 

Alec.


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			They were found guilty of breaking the law,  just as some of your oddball animal rights,  rabble have been found wanting.  Whether in fact they were guilty,  is an entirely different matter.  

Those from Crawley and Horsham,  for instance,  didn't knowingly call hounds across a traffic filled road,  in the near certain knowledge that hounds would be killed.  They haven't *illegally* trapped wild deer and kept them in a compound without proper care,  and managed to fool too many that they speak with authority,  whilst by wilful neglect,  allowed their charges to live and then die and endure such miserable existences.  

Those from Crawley and Horsham aren't responsible for,  or been charged with criminal damage,  or put the lives of their fellow humans at risk.  

Were I in your shoes,  I'd consider your connections,  before you sit in judgement of others. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

All nothing to do with me thankfully so I am happy and free to sit in judgement of those who break the law regardless of how much you may huff and puff


----------



## Alec Swan (15 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			All nothing to do with me thankfully so I am happy and free to sit in judgement of those who break the law regardless of how much you may huff and puff 

Click to expand...

That's an interesting change of face!!  So are we to assume that you are in agreement with me,  that the points I made,  regarding the illegal activities of your cohorts,  are just that,  illegal,  and something with which you would distance yourself?  They will of course see you as a Judas,  but as you would defend law and order,  that shouldn't matter to you too much! 

Alec.


----------



## JustKickOn (15 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			They were found guilty of breaking the law,  just as some of your oddball animal rights,  rabble have been found wanting.  Whether in fact they were guilty,  is an entirely different matter.  

Those from Crawley and Horsham,  for instance,  didn't knowingly call hounds across a traffic filled road,  in the near certain knowledge that hounds would be killed.  They haven't *illegally* trapped wild deer and kept them in a compound without proper care,  and managed to fool too many that they speak with authority,  whilst by wilful neglect,  allowed their charges to live and then die and endure such miserable existences.  

Those from Crawley and Horsham aren't responsible for,  or been charged with criminal damage,  or put the lives of their fellow humans at risk.  

Were I in your shoes,  I'd consider your connections,  before you sit in judgement of others. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Very well put.

I don't hunt, and nor am I a supporter or anti of it. In the world of hunting, I am Switzerland.

From what I have read about on here and in the general press about hunt 'monitors', they have caused a lot of damage to certain hunts. Endangering lives of both humans and animals is beyond unacceptable. 

May I also point out the join date of DawnRay is May 2012, and considering the nature of the topic being posted on no other than HORSE AND HOUND, dare I add this...?


----------



## guido16 (15 May 2012)

Dawn ray is 100% a troll.  Looking at the stirring it has done. I am disappointed it doesnt have a popcorn company. As I am disappointed it hasnt been very good it stirring. Alas I fear it is a rather immature troll. Dont worry, practice more and you will improve.


----------



## mutley75 (15 May 2012)

just goes to show how ill informed you are dawn ray, it was a master and a secretary, not members!


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

mutley75 said:



			just goes to show how ill informed you are dawn ray, it was a master and a secretary, not members!
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should point out to H&H magazine they are not members then! Oh, and I posted senior members to be correct.


----------



## DawnRay (15 May 2012)

guido16 said:



			Dawn ray is 100% a troll.  Looking at the stirring it has done. I am disappointed it doesnt have a popcorn company. As I am disappointed it hasnt been very good it stirring. Alas I fear it is a rather immature troll. Dont worry, practice more and you will improve.
		
Click to expand...

Of course, the troll accusations when faced with the truth if it differs from your own opinion.


----------



## ThreeTB's (15 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Those from Crawley and Horsham,  for instance,  didn't knowingly call hounds across a traffic filled road,  in the near certain knowledge that hounds would be killed.
		
Click to expand...

This is what I don't understand, the attitude of 'I don't like you killing animals, so I'm going to kill your animals in protest'  Not the best way to get animal lovers on your side, really, is it?



RiderLizzie said:



			I don't hunt, and nor am I a supporter or anti of it. In the world of hunting, I am Switzerland.
		
Click to expand...

LOL!


----------



## wizzlewoo (16 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			Gosh it is like question time. No I am not a hunt monitor. Hence nothing makes me want to be that which I am not. The thread is unfortunately not about me it is about the conviction of Crawley and Horsham Hunt members who got caught by monitors hunting foxes illegally whilst pretending to be trail hunting. Do you have an opinion on the use of more monitors to deal with such lawlessness?
		
Click to expand...


I am confused as to the purpose of your thread. When you complained because you felt there were no constructive comments I genuinely thought you might have been up for a good debate which is why I asked questions to get a bit of background knowledge. As it turns out I think you are nothing but a bored troll who can think of nothing more imaginative than hunting to start a controversial thread. But in answer to your question 'Do I have an opinion on monitors?', yes I do, I think they are mindless thugs who have no real interest in the safety and welfare of animals as they are happy to hurt, scare, intimidate, confuse and endanger any animal or human associated with the hunt, all in the name of a fox that does not exist?!


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

ThreeTB's said:



			This is what I don't understand, the attitude of 'I don't like you killing animals, so I'm going to kill your animals in protest'  Not the best way to get animal lovers on your side, really, is it?



LOL!
		
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is the determination by some on here to turn something that is very obviously bad about some huntsmen into an anti/pro debate, returning to now nonsense like the above?!


----------



## Amymay (16 May 2012)

wizzlewoo said:



			And whilst the goverment are implimenting a tighter monitoring system of the supposed 'non legal' hunting, (presumably in the form of personel from the poice force being brought in due to the increased risk of protestors) the NHS, police force, fire service, ambulance service and education system can hang on for a minute and hold out for there budgets because currently the budget is being spent on making sure 1 less fox  possibly, accidently doesn't get chased whilst the hunt is out hunting well within the hunting guidelines also outlined with the use of goverment and tax payers funds.
		
Click to expand...

Pre-bloomin-cisely!!!!


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

wizzlewoo said:



			I am confused as to the purpose of your thread. When you complained because you felt there were no constructive comments I genuinely thought you might have been up for a good debate which is why I asked questions to get a bit of background knowledge. As it turns out I think you are nothing but a bored troll who can think of nothing more imaginative than hunting to start a controversial thread. But in answer to your question 'Do I have an opinion on monitors?', yes I do, I think they are mindless thugs who have no real interest in the safety and welfare of animals as they are happy to hurt, scare, intimidate, confuse and endanger any animal or human associated with the hunt, all in the name of a fox that does not exist?!
		
Click to expand...

You are confused??? The magazine who's forum you are on have written a story about three senior members of a very well known hunt being found guilty of illegal hunting. Whilst claiming to be trail hunting, described by the judge as a "charade", they were instead hunting foxes. Now, all claims that hunts are trail hunting will be viewed with much more scepticism!
The old argument that actual hunts have not been prosecuted since the ban has now flown out of the window. Now if you don't think that is worthy news to discuss then carry on shouting troll at the top of your voice! For anyone actually concerned about this issue let the daft people confuse sabs/monitors purposely to stifle discussion as they choose. The motivation the anti's will get from this verdict is huge. If anybody thinks illegal hunting will not have an effect on how the supposed, decent  'trail hunting', hunts are viewed in the future then they are blinkered!


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

amymay said:



			Pre-bloomin-cisely!!!!
		
Click to expand...

Ignoring the fact that it is the actions of three senior members of the Crawley and Horsham hunt who have caused this by breaking the law


----------



## Amymay (16 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			Ignoring the fact that it is the actions of three senior members of the Crawley and Horsham hunt who have caused this by breaking the law 

Click to expand...

To be honest, I couldn't actually give a flying fig.

I'd like my tax payers money to go on something that matters.  Like, health, education, police, community, economy.......


----------



## wizzlewoo (16 May 2012)

OK so yes you do make a valid point in your last post about the anti's being motivated by this verdict. But I will also point out that you are very unclear as to your actual point in this thread as you change your angle of approach on each post. 

That aside, relating to your first initial post, yes we, the Pro Hunting contingent, will have been effected dramatically by this verdict and it will make our argument more difficult. But equally more monitors will not help the situation but simply aggravate it further and induce a greater level of safety issues for horse, rider, hound and follower (be them anti or pro). 
You said that I confuse monitors with anti's, I have yet to find a monitor that is not an anti and this is the problem. If monitors were genuinely non bias people then it would be a fair ruling should an issue be raised. There would also be no determination to 'catch out' a hunt nor would there be a threat to safety. But this will never be achieved and we do not live in such an idealistic world. Your views on this please.


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

wizzlewoo I am not changing my angle we are merely whilst discussing adding to the debate tbh. I accept the monitors are of course anti hunting but stressed the difference between those monitoring legally and sabs who are a completely different kettle of fish. The thread was to talk about the effectiveness now proven in court of the monitors so any talk of legal/illegal sab activity has no place here surely.


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

amymay said:



			To be honest, I couldn't actually give a flying fig.

I'd like my tax payers money to go on something that matters.  Like, health, education, police, community, economy.......
		
Click to expand...

As is your right to hope for that. Lets remember though amymay, this isnt a few poachers or lads from down the pub. Three senior hunt staff have been convicted of illegal hunting and waving a duster around on a riding crop for the camera's has merely compounded the ludicrous pretence of them trail hunting.
If as no doubt it will this has possibly large ramifications then there is only one place to lay the blame and that is the Crawley&Horsham Hunt. We might not like certain laws but breaking them is not the answer regardless of what certain people may think.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			......... I accept the monitors are of course anti hunting but stressed the difference between those monitoring legally and sabs who are a completely different kettle of fish. .........
		
Click to expand...

So are we to conclude from your shift of stance,  that whether Monitor or Sab,  you would insist that all should operate within the law?

Alec.


----------



## Serenity087 (16 May 2012)

I didn't realise hunting with a duster was illegal, but it's right got up Dawn's nose that they did that!

Is there a C&H hunt fund yet, Alec?  I've seen the monitors dirty work round here, I believe they threw a fox to the hounds then got the huntsman arrested for hunting it with one local pack... So I very much doubt with the sort of witches who "monitor" the C&H that they're guilty of anything!


----------



## marmalade76 (16 May 2012)

wizzlewoo said:



			If monitors were genuinely non bias people then it would be a fair ruling should an issue be raised.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly, no one would have a problem with moniters if they were completely neutral, the reality is these self-appointed 'moniters' are sabs under a different name. Round here, these 'monitors' block the route of the hunt and shout abuse them film the reaction in the hope of getting something they can pass onto the police. This includes shouting abuse at minors, my OH's 13yo god daughter was called a slut!

This story appaered in the local paper:-

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...le-hunt-land/story-15677525-detail/story.html

 But what the old hag failed to mention was that the ruck only started after her son attacted someone with a housebrick! It also turned out that these 'animal lovers' who feel the need to feed wild foxes couldn't be bothered to feed and look after their own pony who's care was taken over by someone who lived near by.

Lets face it, the majority couldn't give a stuff if people hunt or not, just like they don't give a stuff if people drive a few MPH over the speed limit, do a few jobs for cash in hand and not declare it, do a bit of shoplifting, smoke pot, I could go on...


----------



## Amymay (16 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			As is your right to hope for that. Lets remember though amymay, this isn't a few poachers or lads from down the pub. Three senior hunt staff have been convicted of illegal hunting and waving a duster around on a riding crop for the camera's has merely compounded the ludicrous pretence of them trail hunting.
		
Click to expand...

It's a riding whip.  A crop is something you find in a field.

As for the seniority of the staff - who else do you think is going to be prosecuted?




			If, as no doubt it will, this has possibly large ramifications then there is only one place to lay the blame and that is the Crawley&Horsham Hunt.
		
Click to expand...

I can't see what larger ramifications there will be.  And who else would be to blame, other than the perpetrators of the 'crime', i.e the Crawley & Horsham hunt?




			We might not like certain laws but breaking them is not the answer regardless of what certain people may think.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, but when nurses, doctors, policemen, teachers and firefighters are being made redundant because the Government can't afford to pay for them I object most strongly to frivolous expenditure of money on issues like this.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			........ Lets remember though amymay, this isnt a few poachers or lads from down the pub. Three senior hunt staff have been convicted of illegal hunting .......
		
Click to expand...

I'd take it from that comment,  that you are suggesting that the local poachers or the lads from the pub,  have somehow committed a lesser crime than "Three senior hunt staff".  You've offered a distinction between the two social classes (sic),  and it's becoming ever more obvious that you have a rather tilted view of justice.

It may well be that I'm wrong,  in that I've misunderstood your words,  and have taken you to mean what you say.

Alec.


----------



## jrp204 (16 May 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-17928339
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...the-hare-coursing-ban-is-flouted-6281580.html
http://www.garstangcourier.co.uk/news/local/farmers-foil-hare-coursers-1-4130254
These are just a few but i guess this is seen as ok since they are seen as 'working class'?
Perhaps the 'monitors' could spend a bit of time filming these groups, although i somewhat doubt they will be tolerated too well.


----------



## guido16 (16 May 2012)

Would it be seen as bad sport if we hunted monitors?
As long as we didnt have dusters on whips?


----------



## PaddyMonty (16 May 2012)

guido16 said:



			Would it be seen as bad sport if we hunted monitors?
		
Click to expand...

Dont think they'd provide much of a chase. Cant run very far or very fast.
That said I would prefer they were hunted instead of foxes which no one does obviously.

A quick question. Why do those that are pro hunting always seem to assume that someone who is anti must be a raving loony friutloop nutjob with no idea about hunting and who has a social axe to grind?


----------



## Alec Swan (16 May 2012)

PaddyMonty said:



			.......

A quick question. Why do those that are pro hunting always seem to assume that someone who is anti must be a raving loony friutloop nutjob with no idea about hunting and who has a social axe to grind?
		
Click to expand...

That's easily answered,  and it's because those who are opposed to the way that we would live our lives,  argue from the viewpoint of the "raving loony fuitloop nutjob",  or to be a trifle more courteous,  those who quote from what they've read or been told,  teachings from the equally misinformed,  and rarely consider the viewpoint of the person who speaks with experience.

"It's wrong,  to hunt with a pack of dogs",  and just as an example,  those who support this argument,  when asked for an alternative control method,  quote trapping,  snaring and shooting.  Having been responsible for all three of these alternatives,  the first is generally ineffective (with the possible exception of cubs),  the second is barbaric in the extreme,  and the third can all so often lead to wounding,  and a lingering death.

Following the hunting ban,  whereas previously coverts were sanctuary of the fox,  today the hand of everyone is turned against him. Those who promoted the ban on hunting  have rather strangely shot themselves and their cause,  in the foot,  and as The Fox,  they and we are now lingering.  

As a parallel and similar case,  we could consider that the Animal Rights lot,  or what ever they want to call themselves,  have campaigned by the very same disjointed route and prevented the control of badgers.  Badgers carry Bovine TB,  and they also suffer from it.  Cattle,  Farmers and the Economy (that's all of us,  incidentally) all suffer from it.  The vital cull measures are again put on hold,  because government has to be seen to cuddle a bunny,  and it's wrong.  Yet again,  the animal rights campaigners are misinformed,  and abusing the rather curious power which they seem to hold over our society.  

Those who invest their trust in many of these Welfare Groups,  are making a catastrophic mistake.  

Alec.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (16 May 2012)

amymay said:



			It's a riding whip.  A crop is something you find in a field.
		
Click to expand...

Am I old fashioned and have missed modern terminology ? I thought a crop was a short riding whip.
 Don't specific whips still have specific names to indicate different type and use ?http://www.huntingstockmarket.com/shop/Hunting_Whips/8.aspx


----------



## PaddyMonty (16 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			That's easily answered,  and it's because those who are opposed to the way that we would live our lives,  argue from the viewpoint of the "raving loony fuitloop nutjob",  or to be a trifle more courteous,  those who quote from what they've read or been told,  teachings from the equally misinformed,  and rarely consider the viewpoint of the person who speaks with experience.
		
Click to expand...

You just proved my case 
I'm against hunting but I certainly dont argue from a standpoint based on hearsay.
I grew up hunting with the Eridge, both mounted and with the terrier men.
I was blooded at 7 years old and didn't wash it off etc.
Also actively shot.
Certainly dont fit with your description 

Now I am anti on the simple grounds that I dont believe pleasure should not be taken at the death of an animal.
Sure its argued that people enjoy the chase, not the kill. That is not what I experienced.
I also get annoyed with the amount of twaddle spouted by both sides.

Examples from the pros....
Foxes kill for fun citing what a fox will do when it encounters penned chickens
Hunting with hounds is the best method for controlling foxes yet will also state the number killed does not adversly impact the survival of the species

Example from the antis....
Foxes suffer greatly when caught by hounds
Hunting is only for the rich

Perhaps if both sides stopped bickering, stuck to hard facts and actually listened to the other side progress would be made.

Sadly I doubt that will ever happen.


----------



## Amymay (16 May 2012)

horserider said:



			Am I old fashioned and have missed modern terminology ? I thought a crop was a short riding whip.
 Don't specific whips still have specific names to indicate different type and use ?http://www.huntingstockmarket.com/shop/Hunting_Whips/8.aspx

Click to expand...

I don't know, you may have missed modern technology.

But a whip is a whip, and crop is something in a field.


----------



## joeanne (16 May 2012)

amymay said:



			To be honest, I couldn't actually give a flying fig.

I'd like my tax payers money to go on something that matters.  Like, health, education, police, community, economy.......
		
Click to expand...

Couldnt agree more......and in fact I would imagine that to bring back traditional hunting would give the countryside economy one hell of a boost, not to mention provide much needed employment!

Alec if you have a link or contact to donate, perhaps you could pm it to me?


----------



## amandat (16 May 2012)

Uh oh - i've been a member of this forum for just over a month now & every thread i read ends up the same.   

A lot of posts in this thread are insulting to people that are animal lovers & i personally don't agree with hunting or any suffering inflicted on animals by PEOPLE in control of ferrets, dogs or guns.  I AM NOT some kind of LOONY i have an opinion.  Oh & i also call a whip a Crop as when i grew up whips are much longer with a whispy end .... we had riding crops & lunging whips - so what !!!

The people found guilty were found so by a Court of Law which means to most that THEY ARE GUILTY of committing a crime, so should be dealt with by the Courts.


----------



## Amymay (16 May 2012)

A lot of posts in this thread are insulting to people that are animal lovers
		
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any evidence of that at all.


----------



## amandat (16 May 2012)

Well you wouldn't would you


----------



## Amymay (16 May 2012)

amandat said:



			Well you wouldn't would you 

Click to expand...

Now that's a silly response

What insults have been leveled at animal lovers in the post?


----------



## amandat (16 May 2012)

Don't call me silly or anything else thankyou

The fact that if anyone doesn't agree with hunting must be with the Anti looneys just about sums it up for me


----------



## Amymay (16 May 2012)

amandat said:



			Don't call me silly or anything else thankyou

The fact that if anyone doesn't agree with hunting must be with the Anti looneys just about sums it up for me
		
Click to expand...

When you respond in the manner in which you did, of course I'm going to call you silly - because the response was silly.  I could have put immature, childish........  But went for the simpler 'silly'.

As for people being against hunting being 'looney's' - I don't agree.  However, you must be able to make a proper unsentimental argument about these things, and be able to debate the topic in an informed manner.

Now please - point me to the posts that denigrate animal lovers.


----------



## amandat (16 May 2012)

i've got children to pick up from school but as soon as i get back i'll happily oblige !!!


----------



## Serenity087 (16 May 2012)

No one insults animal lovers because the animal rights fanatics are far from lovers of animals.

They campaign against live exports and veal, but I bet they've never worked on a dairy farm shooting 10 bull calves a DAY because there's no market for them.
They campaign against animal testing, but I bet they've never seen a FMD funeral pyre first hand, not seen an entire herd lost to TB, or worse, BSE...
They campaign against culls, oblivious to the fact native wildlife is quite often at more of a risk than the animal intended for culling (squirrels, magpies, mink, badger, foxes...)
They campaigned against hunting despite the fact the hunts were just going to kill foxes anyway to make up scents.

These are the people who threatened to kill my Aunt and Uncle for working to try and SAVE animals from disease.  These are the people who murder foxes in grim ways to try and blame the hunts.  These people also call packs of hounds over railway lines and busy roads to murder them.

I think we can agree, these people do not love animals.  However they can use their powers of manipulation to turn even the most normal animal lover into an ardent supporter who doesn't even know what they're cheering for.


----------



## marmalade76 (16 May 2012)

PaddyMonty said:



			Hunting is only for the rich
		
Click to expand...

This IMO, is the reason most antis are anti, but I am living proof that the above statement is simply not ture!

Personally, I couldn't care less if a fox is killed by hounds or not, far worse things happen to animals every single day all over the world, but you don't see these 'montiors' traveling abroad to help them, just like you don't see them bothering the traveling community for hare coursing and all the other vile things they do to their animals (and if they did the police certainly wouldn't be in any rush to help them out!)


----------



## Dobiegirl (16 May 2012)

Who appoints the hunt monitors? might seem a silly question but as I havnt hunted for many years and years before the ban.


----------



## PaddyMonty (16 May 2012)

marmalade76 said:



			This IMO, is the reason most antis are anti, but I am living proof that the above statement is simply not ture!
		
Click to expand...

Is ture the posh way of saying true? 
Sorry, couldn't resist.

PS to all who read the quote from me above please note I put this as twaddle spouted by anti's.  Just thought I would put it in context as know what HHO can be like.


----------



## marmalade76 (16 May 2012)

Dobiegirl said:



			Who appoints the hunt monitors? might seem a silly question but as I havnt hunted for many years and years before the ban.
		
Click to expand...

Thay appoint themselves.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 May 2012)

Serenity087 said:



			No one insults animal lovers because the animal rights fanatics are far from lovers of animals.

They campaign against live exports and veal, but I bet they've never worked on a dairy farm shooting 10 bull calves a DAY because there's no market for them.
They campaign against animal testing, but I bet they've never seen a FMD funeral pyre first hand, not seen an entire herd lost to TB, or worse, BSE...
They campaign against culls, oblivious to the fact native wildlife is quite often at more of a risk than the animal intended for culling (squirrels, magpies, mink, badger, foxes...)
They campaigned against hunting despite the fact the hunts were just going to kill foxes anyway to make up scents.

These are the people who threatened to kill my Aunt and Uncle for working to try and SAVE animals from disease.  These are the people who murder foxes in grim ways to try and blame the hunts.  These people also call packs of hounds over railway lines and busy roads to murder them.

I think we can agree, these people do not love animals.  However they can use their powers of manipulation to turn even the most normal animal lover into an ardent supporter who doesn't even know what they're cheering for.
		
Click to expand...

An excellent post,  and the most valid point being that for those who direct the activists,  their interests seem to lay along way away from animal welfare.

Alec.


----------



## marmalade76 (16 May 2012)

PaddyMonty said:



			Is ture the posh way of saying true? 
Sorry, couldn't resist.

PS to all who read the quote from me above please note I put this as twaddle spouted by anti's.  Just thought I would put it in context as know what HHO can be like. 

Click to expand...

Hah ha, fingers going too fast and failed to proof read (naughty me! ) Had I been posh I probably would have done a better job.


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			So are we to conclude from your shift of stance,  that whether Monitor or Sab,  you would insist that all should operate within the law?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Pardon me but what change in stance?!


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

Serenity087 said:



			I didn't realise hunting with a duster was illegal, but it's right got up Dawn's nose that they did that!

Is there a C&H hunt fund yet, Alec?  I've seen the monitors dirty work round here, I believe they threw a fox to the hounds then got the huntsman arrested for hunting it with one local pack... So I very much doubt with the sort of witches who "monitor" the C&H that they're guilty of anything!
		
Click to expand...

I don't believe those now with criminal records find the duster stupidity and arrogance so funny.


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			I'd take it from that comment,  that you are suggesting that the local poachers or the lads from the pub,  have somehow committed a lesser crime than "Three senior hunt staff".  You've offered a distinction between the two social classes (sic),  and it's becoming ever more obvious that you have a rather tilted view of justice.

It may well be that I'm wrong,  in that I've misunderstood your words,  and have taken you to mean what you say.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

You know full well you are wrong yet choose to post regardless. How sad. Up to now those involved in hunting have revelled in blaming the above claiming the packs are innocent. It is proven to be untrue now and your attempt to make my comments appear in anyway class based rather pathetic tbh.


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

"It's a riding whip.  A crop is something you find in a field."

It is reported as and therefore a riding 'crop'. What on earth are you playing at?


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

jrp204 said:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-17928339
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...the-hare-coursing-ban-is-flouted-6281580.html
http://www.garstangcourier.co.uk/news/local/farmers-foil-hare-coursers-1-4130254
These are just a few but i guess this is seen as ok since they are seen as 'working class'?
Perhaps the 'monitors' could spend a bit of time filming these groups, although i somewhat doubt they will be tolerated too well.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could let the monitors know when and where these types illegally hunting will be and they can go after them?


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

guido16 said:



			Would it be seen as bad sport if we hunted monitors?
As long as we didnt have dusters on whips?
		
Click to expand...

Thought they were too violent by all accounts?


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

horserider said:



			Am I old fashioned and have missed modern terminology ? I thought a crop was a short riding whip.
 Don't specific whips still have specific names to indicate different type and use ?http://www.huntingstockmarket.com/shop/Hunting_Whips/8.aspx

Click to expand...

Very true horserider. Sadly for some reason certain people have started being silly and proving their own ignorance.


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

amymay said:



			When you respond in the manner in which you did, of course I'm going to call you silly - because the response was silly.  I could have put immature, childish........  But went for the simpler 'silly'.

As for people being against hunting being 'looney's' - I don't agree.  However, you must be able to make a proper unsentimental argument about these things, and be able to debate the topic in an informed manner.

Now please - point me to the posts that denigrate animal lovers.
		
Click to expand...

Debate the topic in an informed manner? Like you did wrongly picking me up about a 'crop'.


----------



## jrp204 (16 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			Perhaps you could let the monitors know when and where these types illegally hunting will be and they can go after them?
		
Click to expand...

No doubt if I lived in these areas I would since this activity doesn't happen by accident but  I would have thought the antis with their network would have a fair idea where it goes on but I suppose it is easier to pick on kids on ponies.


----------



## amandat (16 May 2012)

amymay said:



			When you respond in the manner in which you did, of course I'm going to call you silly - because the response was silly.  I could have put immature, childish........  But went for the simpler 'silly'.

As for people being against hunting being 'looney's' - I don't agree.  However, you must be able to make a proper unsentimental argument about these things, and be able to debate the topic in an informed manner.

Now please - point me to the posts that denigrate animal lovers.
		
Click to expand...

So i'm verging on immature & childish but put simply by you just silly, lovely thanks 



Alec Swan said:



			That's easily answered,  and it's because those who are opposed to the way that we would live our lives,  argue from the viewpoint of the "raving loony fuitloop nutjob",  or to be a trifle more courteous,  those who quote from what they've read or been told,  teachings from the equally misinformed,  and rarely consider the viewpoint of the person who speaks with experience.

So if someone doesn't agree with hunting foxes with a pack of dogs they must've read or been told to have their opinion by some loony & not just have the right to say they think it's a cruel attack on a fox that people enjoy as sport ???    I know plenty of people that are very pro hunting & they know my opinion, we agree to disagree without calling each other names !!!!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## guido16 (16 May 2012)

I shot a fox last night. Anyone want to comment?


----------



## undertheweather (16 May 2012)

guido16 said:



			I shot a fox last night. Anyone want to comment?
		
Click to expand...

Yes. I bloody well hope you shot it dead and checked it was dead. It makes me cry out hacking when I see a fox that has been shot badly and has clearly had a long a lingering death  Yes they are a bloody PITA but no animal (or person for that matter) deserves a painful and lingering death, if it can be avoided. 

And I hope you have relevant licenses


----------



## guido16 (16 May 2012)

I knew someone would take the bait.  
Just for the record, I am a great shot. It was stone dead, as was the buck I shot later. And as for relevant licences. 

Dont insult me.  Of course I have them. I am a law abiding citizen who is licensed to use my shotguns and rifles. The latter of which I used to take pleasure shooting these vermin.


----------



## undertheweather (16 May 2012)

guido16 said:



			I knew someone would take the bait.  
Just for the record, I am a great shot. It was stone dead, as was the buck I shot later. And as for relevant licences. 

Dont insult me.  Of course I have them. I am a law abiding citizen who is licensed to use my shotguns and rifles. The latter of which I used to take pleasure shooting these vermin.
		
Click to expand...

Chill out man. My post was a little tongue in cheek, but the first part is true, and I do come across poorly shot foxes in my area. People shooting badly really grates me. I follow the hunt on horseback, I even go hunting in the USA where they don't have the ridiculous ban. In fact, I much prefer it out there. 

I am totally against the hunting ban and the against the cost of enforcement. However i'm also against badger culling, but that is a whole other kettle of fish based on research on vaccination, on which papers were written with government funding but were prevented from being published. But there is a fat fox that teases my terriers every night from my paddocks when they are inside the house, if you would like to come shoot him, I would be thankful!


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

jrp204 said:



			No doubt if I lived in these areas I would since this activity doesn't happen by accident but  I would have thought the antis with their network would have a fair idea where it goes on but I suppose it is easier to pick on kids on ponies.
		
Click to expand...

For heavens sake this is not about anti's it is about those that monitor hunts with a view to obtaining video evidence to put before the courts.


----------



## DawnRay (16 May 2012)

guido16 said:



			I shot a fox last night. Anyone want to comment?
		
Click to expand...

Should that not be posted in the hunting section on a relevant thread


----------



## guido16 (16 May 2012)

Undertheweather, you and I are on the same page. Totally agree ref your post. 

Dawnthingy . . You seem to of arrived late to the party. Not to worry. Throw a six and john in.


----------



## case895 (16 May 2012)

Do you have an opinion on the use of more monitors to deal with such lawlessness?
		
Click to expand...

The Police have neither the time nor the inclination to enforce every law being potentially broken. To do so would require 50% of the population to be in the Police, in order to monitor the other 50% at all times. In fact, it would probably have to be 80% in the Police to allow the for time off!

Private individuals should not be enforcing the law. Hunt monitors are in the same category as busybodies who set up their own speed traps. I also object to the idea of these monitors following a person or group around on the off chance that they might break the law. If the Police or any other state body did that to private individuals, there would be an outcry.


----------



## Littlelegs (17 May 2012)

What is most ridiculous about this case is the fact that its all, just like the ban, based on the misconception all pros are upper class & loaded. I'm pretty confident I could neglect, beat & eventually kill all my own pets without any prosecution. But if I wore a red coat, rode my horse & my dog killed something, I'm certain I'd be up on a charge pronto. (despite the fact I'm certainly not either upperclass or rich!)


----------



## Moomin1 (17 May 2012)

littlelegs said:



			What is most ridiculous about this case is the fact that its all, just like the ban, based on the misconception all pros are upper class & loaded. I'm pretty confident I could neglect, beat & eventually kill all my own pets without any prosecution. But if I wore a red coat, rode my horse & my dog killed something, I'm certain I'd be up on a charge pronto. (despite the fact I'm certainly not either upperclass or rich!)
		
Click to expand...

Mmm I'm pretty sure you couldn't neglect, beat and kill your pets without prosecution!!


----------



## marmalade76 (17 May 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Mmm I'm pretty sure you couldn't neglect, beat and kill your pets without prosecution!!
		
Click to expand...

If she was a memeber of a certain community she sure could


----------



## igglepop (17 May 2012)

littlelegs said:



			What is most ridiculous about this case is the fact that its all, just like the ban, based on the misconception all pros are upper class & loaded. I'm pretty confident I could neglect, beat & eventually kill all my own pets without any prosecution. But if I wore a red coat, rode my horse & my dog killed something, I'm certain I'd be up on a charge pronto. (despite the fact I'm certainly not either upperclass or rich!)
		
Click to expand...

Not sure about neglect etc but if you wear a red coat and are on a horse it is apparently ok for somebody to yank a 16 year old off a horse and shout a abuse at her, crazy world we live in.


----------



## Amymay (17 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			Debate the topic in an informed manner? Like you did wrongly picking me up about a 'crop'. 

Click to expand...

But I wasn't wrong, and am still not.  I am helping inform you about the subject.  Remember, it's possible for the press to get their terminology wrong too - so don't be too quick to believe everything you read


----------



## Amymay (17 May 2012)

amandat said:



			So i'm verging on immature & childish but put simply by you just silly, lovely thanks 

Click to expand...

You're welcome.

Now, where's the links to the posts on here about being horrid to animal lovers?


----------



## Toffee44 (17 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			"It's wrong,  to hunt with a pack of dogs",  and just as an example,  those who support this argument,  when asked for an alternative control method,  quote trapping,  snaring and shooting.  Having been responsible for all three of these alternatives,  the first is generally ineffective (with the possible exception of cubs),  the second is barbaric in the extreme,  and the third can all so often lead to wounding,  and a lingering death.

.
		
Click to expand...

Trust me finding not one but three foxes limping through my fields with gangreen and then slowly dying in my stables is so much more humane than an instant death with dogs, Obviously!!! 

Luckily the last one we had a gun on the farm and were able to end its misery, they had all been like this a while, skin and bone. Poor foxes. This was over the course of a month, someone in the area needs to learn to shoot properly or not shoot at all.


----------



## Littlelegs (17 May 2012)

With my comment re neglect etc, I'm not saying that's legal, but even forgetting the big cases that make the headlines, I'm sure we all know of smaller cases near by when nobodys been in a rush to investigate. I was using it to illustrate the fact its got nothing to do with any concern for animals or foxes. I could just have easily said if I decided to start shooting foxes, despite being a crap shot & causing them long drawn out deaths nobody would be in a rush to charge me.


----------



## Moomin1 (17 May 2012)

marmalade76 said:



			If she was a memeber of a certain community she sure could 

Click to expand...

Not entirely the case - a member of a certain community has just been successfully prosecuted for leaving side reins on a youngster too long causing small superficial wounds to the corners of the mouth, and also kicking the horse in the side twice.  Horse was fine.  Certain member of said community was not!


----------



## Moomin1 (17 May 2012)

amymay said:



			But I wasn't wrong, and am still not.  I am helping inform you about the subject.  Remember, it's possible for the press to get their terminology wrong too - so don't be too quick to believe everything you read 

Click to expand...

A riding crop is an old term for a riding whip.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (17 May 2012)

amymay said:



			But I wasn't wrong, and am still not.  I am helping inform you about the subject.  Remember, it's possible for the press to get their terminology wrong too - so don't be too quick to believe everything you read 

Click to expand...

But I don't think whipmakers get their terminology wrong. Whips, canes and crops have different characteristics and uses. 
I was bought my first hunting crop in 1967, it is as far as I'm aware, still a crop today.


----------



## guido16 (17 May 2012)

Come on guys - you are all right!!



A crop, sometimes called a riding crop or hunting crop, is a short type of whip without a lash, used in horse riding, part of the family of tools known as horse whips.

A crop is a non-animal species or variety that is grown to be harvested as food, livestock fodder, fuel or for any other economic purpose. Major world crops include sugarcane, pumpkin, maize (corn), wheat, rice, cassava, soybeans, hay, potatoes and cotton.[1] While the term "crop" most commonly refers to plants, it can also include species from other biological kingdoms. For example, mushrooms like shiitake, which are in the fungi kingdom, can be referred to as crops. In addition, certain species of algae are also cultivated, although it is also harvested from the wild. In contrast, animal species that are raised by humans are called livestock, except those that are kept as pets. Microbial species, such as bacteria or viruses, are referred to as cultures. Microbes are not typically grown for food, but are rather used to alter food. For example, bacteria are used to ferment milk to produce yogurt.


----------



## wizzlewoo (17 May 2012)

No valuable, sensible, silly, immature, mature or structured comment to give but thought I might just add that it really is a very amusing thread to read as there is absolutely no logic to the thread at all despite what anyone says 

Oh and I am of the opinion a whip is a horse whip, a crop is a plant


----------



## DawnRay (17 May 2012)

guido16 said:



			Undertheweather, you and I are on the same page. Totally agree ref your post. 

Dawnthingy . . You seem to of arrived late to the party. Not to worry. Throw a six and john in.
		
Click to expand...

"Dawnthingy"??? How terribly immature of you guido16


----------



## DawnRay (17 May 2012)

amymay said:



			But I wasn't wrong, and am still not.  I am helping inform you about the subject.  Remember, it's possible for the press to get their terminology wrong too - so don't be too quick to believe everything you read 

Click to expand...

I am sorry but it was you that suggested I was wrong by calling the "crop", the huntsman had in his handing waving his little duster about a "CROP"! I do not believe everything I read thank you however you obviously post to score points when indeed you are mistaken. How foolish


----------



## EAST KENT (17 May 2012)

This is all very pointless and boring.... go away.


----------



## DawnRay (17 May 2012)

EAST KENT said:



			This is all very pointless and boring.... go away.
		
Click to expand...

Now that WAS pointless and boring. If you don't like the thread why even post on it?!


----------



## DawnRay (17 May 2012)

guido16 said:



			Come on guys - you are all right!!



A crop, sometimes called a riding crop or hunting crop, is a short type of whip without a lash, used in horse riding, part of the family of tools known as horse whips.

A crop is a non-animal species or variety that is grown to be harvested as food, livestock fodder, fuel or for any other economic purpose. Major world crops include sugarcane, pumpkin, maize (corn), wheat, rice, cassava, soybeans, hay, potatoes and cotton.[1] While the term "crop" most commonly refers to plants, it can also include species from other biological kingdoms. For example, mushrooms like shiitake, which are in the fungi kingdom, can be referred to as crops. In addition, certain species of algae are also cultivated, although it is also harvested from the wild. In contrast, animal species that are raised by humans are called livestock, except those that are kept as pets. Microbial species, such as bacteria or viruses, are referred to as cultures. Microbes are not typically grown for food, but are rather used to alter food. For example, bacteria are used to ferment milk to produce yogurt.
		
Click to expand...

I do believe if the above is accepted as true then one amymay was actually wrong to correct me


----------



## Ceris Comet (17 May 2012)

Do you have any friends DawnRay ?


----------



## DawnRay (17 May 2012)

Ceris Comet said:



			Do you have any friends DawnRay ?
		
Click to expand...

Yes. Do you have lots of cyber friends Ceris Comet?


----------



## marmalade76 (17 May 2012)

Moomin1 said:



			Not entirely the case - a member of a certain community has just been successfully prosecuted for leaving side reins on a youngster too long causing small superficial wounds to the corners of the mouth, and also kicking the horse in the side twice.  Horse was fine.  Certain member of said community was not!
		
Click to expand...

I am quite surprised to read that, especially as the crimes listed are most likely not the worst things they do to animals.


----------



## Ceris Comet (17 May 2012)

I know cybermen and daleks .


----------



## DawnRay (17 May 2012)

Ceris Comet said:



			I know cybermen and daleks .
		
Click to expand...

Sadly not their cousin, politeness.


----------



## Ceris Comet (17 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			Sadly not their cousin, politeness.
		
Click to expand...

Oh I know him too and some Clangers and a soup dragon!


----------



## Amymay (17 May 2012)

Ceris Comet said:



			Oh I know him too and some Clangers and a soup dragon! 

Click to expand...

PSML


----------



## Moomin1 (17 May 2012)

marmalade76 said:



			I am quite surprised to read that, especially as the crimes listed are most likely not the worst things they do to animals.
		
Click to expand...

Yes unfortunately many of these prosecutions go unnoticed by the press - but believe me there are members of those particular communities who are successfully prosecuted and treated like any other member of society.  The problem comes in identifying when an offence has taken place, because by the sheer culture of that community things are kept well hidden and not spoken about.


----------



## Angelbones (17 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Thanks for the heads-up!!  I've found their web page,  and the contact details,  and just as soon as they reply,  to confirm that what you say is the truth,  then I shall be as generous as I'm able,  with a donation,  and I'd encourage you all to follow my example.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## luckyoldme (18 May 2012)

I don t see what all the fuss is about . They acted illegally they broke the laws of our land and now they have or will be sentanced and have a criminal record. 
In my eyes its the same as the 70mph motorway speed limit. I don t agree with it but i can t complain if i get caught doing 80.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (18 May 2012)

No, if you're a hunt member you can break the hunting laws, tresspass and kill people's pets, be accused of rape and still have a queue of people waiting to pay your legal fees. Its almost as good being a foreign ambassador.

Of course, it may just be that laws are only to be obeyed if you agree with them.


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

luckyoldme said:



			I don t see what all the fuss is about . They acted illegally they broke the laws of our land and now they have or will be sentanced and have a criminal record. 
In my eyes its the same as the 70mph motorway speed limit. I don t agree with it but i can t complain if i get caught doing 80.
		
Click to expand...

I believe any fuss now concerns the fact that people disregard the rule of law in our country so much they are willing to offer financial reward to those convicted of crimes.


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

horserider said:



			No, if you're a hunt member you can break the hunting laws, tresspass and kill people's pets, be accused of rape and still have a queue of people waiting to pay your legal fees. Its almost as good being a foreign ambassador.

Of course, it may just be that laws are only to be obeyed if you agree with them.
		
Click to expand...

Or believe/expect you will not be convicted for various reasons perhaps.


----------



## Fiagai (18 May 2012)

Re: More monitors needed?
		
Click to expand...




DawnRay said:



			... One wonder's how many other hunts are breaking the law under the same guise and getting away with it.
		
Click to expand...




DawnRay said:



			All nothing to do with me thankfully so I am happy and free to sit in judgement of those who break the law regardless of how much you may huff and puff 

Click to expand...




DawnRay said:



			... Now these 'buggers', from the hunt were breaking the law, got caught, convicted and now are criminals...
		
Click to expand...




DawnRay said:



			You support criminals 

Click to expand...

No there will never be a place for so called 'monitoring' unless you are a supporter of vigilantism.   You can 'wonder' all you like however in a democracy, it is not joe publics role to take on police duties no matter how ardently 'joe' believes he is right.   

Ok worked example: How about we set up monitors in shopping centres to detect possible theft, at traffic lights to detect possible red light runners.  They can harass individuals they believe might break the law by following them around the shopping centres or on the roadway, pestering and videoing them and then bring private prosecutions! 

You can 'wonder' all you like about who might be breaking the law but it does not change that infringing others rights remains illegal.  whether that is through surveilance, harassment or physical assault (as has been the case in previous convictions of anti-hunt individuals / groups)  As you claim to be free to sit in judgement of those that break the law, I take it that you are showing bias for antis and sabs that also break the law in the mistaken belief that what they do is right and that you are in fact supporting criminal activity as long as it suits your interests?

Well done you.....


----------



## wizzlewoo (18 May 2012)

Quick, new area where hunt monitors are desperately needed!!

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/392/312661.html


----------



## Littlelegs (18 May 2012)

Perhaps a nice little job for someone on the 'horseriders against hunting' face book page?


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

Fiagai said:



			No there will never be a place for so called 'monitoring' unless you are a supporter of vigilantism.   You can 'wonder' all you like however in a democracy, it is not joe publics role to take on police duties no matter how ardently 'joe' believes he is right.   

Ok worked example: How about we set up monitors in shopping centres to detect possible theft, at traffic lights to detect possible red light runners.  They can harass individuals they believe might break the law by following them around the shopping centres or on the roadway, pestering and videoing them and then bring private prosecutions! 

You can 'wonder' all you like about who might be breaking the law but it does not change that infringing others rights remains illegal.  whether that is through surveilance, harassment or physical assault (as has been the case in previous convictions of anti-hunt individuals / groups)  As you claim to be free to sit in judgement of those that break the law, I take it that you are showing bias for antis and sabs that also break the law in the mistaken belief that what they do is right and that you are in fact supporting criminal activity as long as it suits your interests?

Well done you.....
		
Click to expand...

What utter nonsense. Vigilantism??? Neighbourhood watch now run by grannies with attitude or providing a community service freeing up police time?! Your worked example? All covered by camera's and cctv are the law abiding up in arms?!
Monitoring of hunts is absolutely legal and video evidence used to gather suitable proof of illegal activity to bring a case to court then successfully convict. All done for free by willing citizens allowing police to use their precious time on other important issues.
Free, legal and successful. YOU just don't like it nor do those breaking the law no doubt!


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

p.s Fiagai I have stated very clear I do not support ANY illegal activity so it is not 'well done me' thank you!


----------



## meesha (18 May 2012)

Wizzlewoo - that is really worrying - hope the fox is tracked down and dealt with appropriately, if it breeds we could have a whole new "giant" fox problem on our hands !! 

ps do you think we can persuade them to let us hunt it on horseback !


----------



## Fiagai (18 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			What utter nonsense. Vigilantism??? Neighborhood watch now run by grannies with attitude or providing a community service freeing up police time?! Your worked example? All covered by camera's and CCTV are the law abiding up in arms?!
Monitoring of hunts is absolutely legal and video evidence used to gather suitable proof of illegal activity to bring a case to court then successfully convict. All done for free by willing citizens allowing police to use their precious time on other important issues.
Free, legal and successful. YOU just don't like it nor do those breaking the law no doubt!
		
Click to expand...

No DR I don't like vigilantism in any guise and I don't like people taking the law into their own hands.  And *Vigilantism* is what you are advocating

Let me give you the definition of a vigilante




			1.*One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.*2. A member of a vigilance committee.
		
Click to expand...

Monitoring as advocated by you appears to imply that legal hunts should be followed around, harassed and filmed in the 'hope' that they are 'caught' and for the monitors or other anti organistations to then bring private prosecutions in other words taking the law into their own hands.

'Free willing citizens' are not necessarily best suited to law enforcement (think mob mentality).  I prefer to defer to the instruments of the law as they are, for the detection of criminal activity and not random groups and individuals with obvious leanings and connections with some of the most nasty right wing animal extremist lobby. 

By the way CCTV coverage is run by real security companies and or the police who operate within the guidelines of the law and are answerable for their actions.  Something that is completely missing in the world of Anti style 'monitoring' activity

Why are you against 'monitoring' all possible criminal activity and select only that you perceive to be of interest to your ideas of right and wrong?

Why should all potential criminal activity not be so monitored if it 'helps' the police and frees up their valuable time as you claim?  In fact using this logic why not let us all follow each other around with video cameras so that we can catch each other out.  I am sure such a society would be delightful with individuals being terrorised by each other.

Why do you choose to advocate the harassment of  only certain individuals, follow them around and film them in the hope that you will catch them out? 

So 'they' help the police?  Who are 'they' answerable to then when people get hurt and anti individuals take the law into their own hands and for example
commit assault.  This is what vigilantism is; Free, willing harassment and thuggery of others.

I have no wish to live in a vigilante state where the police are 'helped' by such individuals without direction or control.  The activities of such groups are not state sanctioned and will never be though I do believe that it is only a matter of time until such activity will be fully outlawed in order to protect the rights of individuals against such vigilantism.

You would appear to be still adamant in supporting criminal activity as long as it suits your interests....

Really well done you.....


----------



## Luci07 (18 May 2012)

horserider said:



			No, if you're a hunt member you can break the hunting laws, tresspass and kill people's pets, be accused of rape and still have a queue of people waiting to pay your legal fees. Its almost as good being a foreign ambassador.

Of course, it may just be that laws are only to be obeyed if you agree with them.
		
Click to expand...


Whoa ... Too much of a sweeping statement. Rape? 

Well I do support hunting albeit on foot for a while as not had a horse who would hunt for a while. Having read through this thread....well all you have persuaded me is to join Alec in looking for the link to help pay the fines.


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

Fiagai said:



			No DR I don't like vigilantism in any guise and I don't like people taking the law into their own hands.  And *Vigilantism* is what you are advocating

Let me give you the definition of a vigilante



Monitoring as advocated by you appears to imply that legal hunts should be followed around, harassed and filmed in the 'hope' that they are 'caught' and for the monitors or other anti organistations to then bring private prosecutions in other words taking the law into their own hands.

'Free willing citizens' are not necessarily best suited to law enforcement (think mob mentality).  I prefer to defer to the instruments of the law as they are, for the detection of criminal activity and not random groups and individuals with obvious leanings and connections with some of the most nasty right wing animal extremist lobby. 

By the way CCTV coverage is run by real security companies and or the police who operate within the guidelines of the law and are answerable for their actions.  Something that is completely missing in the world of Anti style 'monitoring' activity

Why are you against 'monitoring' all possible criminal activity and select only that you perceive to be of interest to your ideas of right and wrong?

Why should all potential criminal activity not be so monitored if it 'helps' the police and frees up their valuable time as you claim?  In fact using this logic why not let us all follow each other around with video cameras so that we can catch each other out.  I am sure such a society would be delightful with individuals being terrorised by each other.

Why do you choose to advocate the harassment of  only certain individuals, follow them around and film them in the hope that you will catch them out? 

So 'they' help the police?  Who are 'they' answerable to then when people get hurt and anti individuals take the law into their own hands and for example
commit assault.  This is what vigilantism is; Free, willing harassment and thuggery of others.

I have no wish to live in a vigilante state where the police are 'helped' by such individuals without direction or control.  The activities of such groups are not state sanctioned and will never be though I do believe that it is only a matter of time until such activity will be fully outlawed in order to protect the rights of individuals against such vigilantism.

You would appear to be still adamant in supporting criminal activity as long as it suits your interests....

Really well done you.....
		
Click to expand...

However much nonsense you spout the courts, cps and police were grateful to the monitors who legally filmed huntsmen breaking the law. It is legal, will continue to be legal and the legal work carried out by hunt monitors should be applauded. If YOU do not like it fiagai so blooming what?!


----------



## igglepop (18 May 2012)

Isn't filming minors without parental permission illegal. If so every time a minor appears on film a criminal act has been committed. Could be wrong.


----------



## Alec Swan (18 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			However much nonsense you spout the courts, cps and police were grateful to the monitors who legally filmed huntsmen breaking the law. It is legal, will continue to be legal and the legal work carried out by hunt monitors should be applauded. If YOU do not like it fiagai so blooming what?!
		
Click to expand...

Fiagai,  I suspect that the police and the courts, actually and more correctly,  The Crown Prosecution Service,  are aware that illegally obtained footage is not permissible as evidence in Court.  You and I will know that,  but probably not the village idiot!!

Whilst there is no law of trespass per se,  in England, once a person has been ejected from private land,  I would be most surprised to hear that filmed footage made by those who are in effect trespassing,  would be accepted as evidence.

I suspect that the reality is that those who hunt,  or support those that do,  will be able,  legally,  to monitor the activities of the Antis,  filming their behaviour,  by way of a counter claim,  and encourage those who live with the fairies,  to join the real world. 

Fiagai,  the simple fact is that the Courts and the Police are hard pressed enough to deal with genuine crime,  than to go to the trouble of dealing with those involved in what in effect is little more than civil disobedience! 

Alec.


----------



## Fiagai (18 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			However much nonsense you spout the courts, cps and police were grateful to the monitors who legally filmed huntsmen breaking the law. It is legal, will continue to be legal and the legal work carried out by hunt monitors should be applauded. If YOU do not like it fiagai so blooming what?!
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear my  BS monitor is on overload and is emitting large amounts of smoke  ...

This from the Hunt Sab Assoc




			The Hunting Act has muddied the water. Are we now hunt saboteurs,
simply disrupting the hunt as before, or are we hunt monitors, collecting
evidence of illegal hunting? Im sure all groups have wrestled with this
question...There is, however, another way in which the Hunting Act has confused
things, and that is in terms of the relationship between hunt saboteurs
and the police. Prior to the Act, our relationship was antagonistic, but
simple. We all knew the police were not (and are not) impartial, or
simply stuck in the middle between hunters and hunt sabs. We all
knew where their sympathies lay. It was best to keep away from the
police at all times. Any interaction with the police was not likely to be
beneficial to hunt sabs, and was likely to be detrimental to the practice
of hunt sabotage. We knew exactly where we stood. Now, however, we
are in uncharted territory. Just as sab groups struggled with their identity
after the Act came into force, so we struggled, and still do struggle, to
define our relationship with the police. On the one hand, we want to
maintain some sort of constructive relationship with the police because
they are, in principle at least, potentially on our side.Initial optimism in the early days of the Hunting Act led to
many sabs thinking we could discard the hunting horn, whip and spray
in favour of the video camera. There was even talk of changing the
name of the Hunt Saboteurs Association to the Hunt Monitors
Association. However, following the very small number of prosecutions
of organised hunting, the lack of interest shown by the police in
enforcing the Hunting Act, and the business-as-normal attitude of most
hunts, that optimism has all but died out. Recognising that the Hunting
Act does not do what it says on the tin, most groups now take a more
realistic view of their role, and a consensus seems to have emerged that
we are still, and always will be, hunt saboteurs.
		
Click to expand...

Do go away and try your twisted approach somewhere else...Just in case you havn't noticed, it's not working...


----------



## Fiagai (18 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Fiagai,  I suspect that the police and the courts, actually and more correctly,  The Crown Prosecution Service,  are aware that illegally obtained footage is not permissible as evidence in Court.  You and I will know that,  but probably not the village idiot!!

Whilst there is no law of trespass per se,  in England, once a person has been ejected from private land,  I would be most surprised to hear that filmed footage made by those who are in effect trespassing,  would be accepted as evidence.

I suspect that the reality is that those who hunt,  or support those that do,  will be able,  legally,  to monitor the activities of the Antis,  filming their behaviour,  by way of a counter claim,  and encourage those who live with the fairies,  to join the real world. 

Fiagai,  the simple fact is that the Courts and the Police are hard pressed enough to deal with genuine crime,  than to go to the trouble of dealing with those involved in what in effect is little more than civil disobedience! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Ah thanks for that Alec - very interesting indeed. Certainly it would make for very interesting fictional 'documentaries' .  something for the long winter nights after hunting perhaps...


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Fiagai,  I suspect that the police and the courts, actually and more correctly,  The Crown Prosecution Service,  are aware that illegally obtained footage is not permissible as evidence in Court.  You and I will know that,  but probably not the village idiot!!

Whilst there is no law of trespass per se,  in England, once a person has been ejected from private land,  I would be most surprised to hear that filmed footage made by those who are in effect trespassing,  would be accepted as evidence.

I suspect that the reality is that those who hunt,  or support those that do,  will be able,  legally,  to monitor the activities of the Antis,  filming their behaviour,  by way of a counter claim,  and encourage those who live with the fairies,  to join the real world. 

Fiagai,  the simple fact is that the Courts and the Police are hard pressed enough to deal with genuine crime,  than to go to the trouble of dealing with those involved in what in effect is little more than civil disobedience! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

You can get as hissy as you want Mr Swan, call me an idiot or suggest I am away with the fairies but the fact remains the topic is the legal monitoring of hunts which led to this successful conviction. Unless you are suggesting the evidence gathered was not legal in which case please enlighten us and make your accusations?


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

igglepop said:



			Isn't filming minors without parental permission illegal. If so every time a minor appears on film a criminal act has been committed. Could be wrong.
		
Click to expand...

The three members of the hunt convicted were not minors.


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

Fiagai said:



			Oh dear my  BS monitor is on overload and is emitting large amounts of smoke  ...

This from the Hunt Sab Assoc



Do go away and try your twisted approach somewhere else...Just in case you havn't noticed, it's not working...
		
Click to expand...

Do keep to topic or you will send me to sleep again. Any old nonsense you care to post about hunt sabs has no relation to the topic of legal monitoring leading to successful prosecution of now criminals. Is that really too difficult to understand or are you being purposely dim fiagai?


----------



## Fiagai (18 May 2012)

Oh btw DR I forgot this from the same source - the Hunt Sab Assoc

and I quote for your benefit




			Before the Hunting Act came into force, everything was very simple. The
hunt was there to hunt, the sabs were there to disrupt the hunt, and the
police were there to protect the hunt and stop (or, if possible, arrest) the
sabs. *Disrupting the hunt sometimes (though by no means always)
involved committing minor criminal offences, especially aggravated
trespass. *The police tried to arrest us whether or not we had broken the
law, the hunt tried to get away from us, or failing that, beat us up, and
we tried to keep away from the police and keep up with the hunt (or
keep away from them as well if they were trying to beat us up). This
was not a pleasant state of affairs, but it was at least straightforward
and everyone knew where they stood.
		
Click to expand...

Lovely!



DawnRay said:



			You support criminals 

Click to expand...

Looks like you support criminals as well. tut tut....

Right on topic btw


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

Fiagai said:



			Oh btw DR I forgot this from the same source - the Hunt Sab Assoc

and I quote for your benefit



Lovely!



Looks like you support criminals as well. tut tut....

Right on topic btw
		
Click to expand...

Looks like you are still being dim fiagai. I have never mentioned the HSA as well you know so I do not support criminals. And to think you accuse others of being liars!


----------



## Fiagai (18 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			Looks like you are still being dim fiagai. I have never mentioned the HSA as well you know so I do not support criminals. And to think you accuse others of being liars!
		
Click to expand...

You really do not read or maybe understand what has been posted do you DR?

So I will quote again for your benefit




			...There was even talk of changing the
name of the Hunt Saboteurs&#8217; Association to the Hunt Monitors&#8217;
Association...
		
Click to expand...


One and the same as far as I can see - sabs / monitors all criminals once they engage in criminal activities such as aggravated trespass etc

So yes you are supporting criminals no matter how much you say otherwise...now go away


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

Fiagai said:



			You really do not read or maybe understand what has been posted do you DR?

So I will quote again for your benefit




One and the same as far as I can see - sabs / monitors all criminals once they engage in criminal activities such as aggravated trespass etc

So yes you are supporting criminals no matter how much you say otherwise...now go away
		
Click to expand...

Go away? I think you will find you are on a thread started by me not vice versa and it is in fact you who keeps posting to me.


----------



## Mrs B (18 May 2012)

What I can't understand, DawnRay, is why you have wound yourself up into such a state about an ill-conceived law (which is the opposite of beneficial to the fox) being broken?


----------



## Alec Swan (18 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			...... and it is in fact you who keeps posting to me.
		
Click to expand...

...... and how easy,  boys and girls,  would this be to remedy?  Were we to leave our recently,  and committed member to their own distress,  without any offers of assistance,  then that I would suggest will remedy a situation which holds little future,  despite our valid points. 

Alec.


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

Mrs B said:



			What I can't understand, DawnRay, is why you have wound yourself up into such a state about an ill-conceived law (which is the opposite of beneficial to the fox) being broken?
		
Click to expand...

That is an interesting take on things. I am calm as you like and happy with the law/convictions. It would appear it is those against the law who are upset, name calling and stereotyping with vigour.


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			...... and how easy,  boys and girls,  would this be to remedy?  Were we to leave our recently,  and committed member to their own distress,  without any offers of assistance,  then that I would suggest will remedy a situation which holds little future,  despite our valid points. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I thought you were going to do that a long time ago when you dishonestly claimed you were or do you bend the rules to suit yourself!


----------



## Fiagai (18 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			...... and how easy,  boys and girls,  would this be to remedy?  Were we to leave our recently,  and committed member to their own distress,  without any offers of assistance,  then that I would suggest will remedy a situation which holds little future,  despite our valid points. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec once again you are the bearer of truth...something that our little friend appears to have huge problems with.  I of course concur with your sentiments and will now take myself out the back to give myself a good talking too


----------



## Mrs B (18 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			That is an interesting take on things. I am calm as you like and happy with the law/convictions. It would appear it is those against the law who are upset, name calling and stereotyping with vigour. 

Click to expand...

Merely an observation. And what did you think the reaction to your original post on HHO would be? Heaven forbid that you did it deliberately to provoke a reaction, then kept posting for more such reactions, in order for you to then complain that folk were being rude...

Or could it be that stirring things was your intention? An odd thing to do if you are "calm as you like and happy with the law/convictions".


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

Mrs B said:



			Merely an observation. And what did you think the reaction to your original post on the HHO hunting board would be? Heaven forbid that you did it deliberately to provoke a reaction, then kept posting for more such reactions, in order for you to then complain that folk were being rude...

Or could it be that stirring things was your intention? An odd thing to do if you are "calm as you like and happy with the law/convictions".
		
Click to expand...

I posted the original post in the latest news section following reading the story written by H&H. I do not wish to be flippant but are we only to discuss hunt censored news and if so who is to be doing the censoring?


----------



## Mrs B (18 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			I posted the original post in the latest news section following reading the story written by H&H. I do not wish to be flippant but are we only to discuss hunt censored news and if so who is to be doing the censoring?
		
Click to expand...

You can discuss whatever you like here, as long as it's within the T&Cs.


----------



## luckyoldme (18 May 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Fiagai,  I suspect that the police and the courts, actually and more correctly,  The Crown Prosecution Service,  are aware that illegally obtained footage is not permissible as evidence in Court.  You and I will know that,  but probably not the village idiot!!

Whilst there is no law of trespass per se,  in England, once a person has been ejected from private land,  I would be most surprised to hear that filmed footage made by those who are in effect trespassing,  would be accepted as evidence.

I suspect that the reality is that those who hunt,  or support those that do,  will be able,  legally,  to monitor the activities of the Antis,  filming their behaviour,  by way of a counter claim,  and encourage those who live with the fairies,  to join the real world. 

Fiagai,  the simple fact is that the Courts and the Police are hard pressed enough to deal with genuine crime,  than to go to the trouble of dealing with those involved in what in effect is little more than civil disobedience! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec i like a lot of what you say but i don t agree with you on this one. Its a genuine law and it is a genuine crime.
You can t just choose which laws you should abide by and which ones you don t.
A few years back i chose to break a law i did nt agree with. I got caught and i got community service. I did nt hurt anyone i didn t steal anything and my actions had no effect on anyone at all. that said i broke the law and i had to pay the price. It really is that simple. I did the crime and i did the time . simples.


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

Thank you


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

If I am correct was it not the Crawley and Horsham hunt who tried desperately through a failed court case to keep themselves from prying eyes? I guess they didn't want to get caught illegally hunting foxes.


----------



## Mrs B (18 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			If I am correct was it not the Crawley and Horsham hunt who tried desperately through a failed court case to keep themselves from prying eyes? I guess they didn't want to get caught illegally hunting foxes.
		
Click to expand...

.... but you see, your posts don't really come under the heading of 'discussion' do they? Either here or on the other thread. More like accusatory and blinkered.  

Just a word to the wise: the more you continue in the same vein, the less seriously you will be taken. But maybe the urge to promote whatever anti-hunting agenda you have blinds you that fact.


----------



## Fiagai (18 May 2012)

luckyoldme said:



			Alec i like a lot of what you say but i don t agree with you on this one. Its a genuine law and it is a genuine crime.
You can t just choose which laws you should abide by and which ones you don t.
A few years back i chose to break a law i did nt agree with. I got caught and i got community service. I did nt hurt anyone i didn t steal anything and my actions had no effect on anyone at all. that said i broke the law and i had to pay the price. It really is that simple. I did the crime and i did the time . simples.
		
Click to expand...

I may be wrong but I think the main  point Alec is making was that the monitoring where it takes place may be as much criminal activity as what the 'monitors' are hoping to catch on film.  Often their activities involves aggrevated trespass and or other forms of illegal activity.  The presumption of criminal activity does not allow others to commit other forms of illegal activity so that they may prove that something might be going on.  Enforcement and detection remain the reserve of the law in this country as far as I am aware.


----------



## igglepop (18 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			The three members of the hunt convicted were not minors.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't refering to the court case just a general point of video on youtube, showing minors whilst out hunting.


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

Fiagai said:



			I may be wrong but I think the main  point Alec is making was that the monitoring where it takes place may be as much criminal activity as what the 'monitors' are hoping to catch on film.  Often their activities involves aggrevated trespass and or other forms of illegal activity.  The presumption of criminal activity does not allow others to commit other forms of illegal activity so that they may prove that something might be going on.  Enforcement and detection remain the reserve of the law in this country as far as I am aware.
		
Click to expand...

If that was the case why in a court of law was such 'illegally', obtained evidence accepted. In a working scenario fiagai? rolleyes


----------



## DawnRay (18 May 2012)

igglepop said:



			I wasn't refering to the court case just a general point of video on youtube, showing minors whilst out hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Very legal. Do I think it is right NO, I find it rather uncomfortable and wouldn't like it if it was my children igglepop.


----------



## Fiagai (19 May 2012)

Fiagai said:



			I may be wrong but I think the main  point Alec is making was that the monitoring where it takes place may be as much criminal activity as what the 'monitors' are hoping to catch on film.  Often their activities involves aggrevated trespass and or other forms of illegal activity.  The presumption of criminal activity does not allow others to commit other forms of illegal activity so that they may prove that something might be going on.  Enforcement and detection remain the reserve of the law in this country as far as I am aware.
		
Click to expand...

Meant to add that the very best evidence of illegal activity is from the horses mouth so to speak, so whilst I am again reluctantly obliged to quote words from the mouth of hunt sabs oops I meant monitors or was that sabs (It's so easy to get confused)

From the Hunt Sab Assoc



			Disrupting the hunt sometimes...involved committing minor criminal offences, especially aggravated trespass.
		
Click to expand...

So in effect many sabs/monitors engage in illegal activity such as aggravated trespass to achieve their ends including hopes of disruption, obtaining video footage etc etc.

The image potrayed by such groups that they are whiter than white is simply a front to beguile others into believing they are somehow above or beside the law in relation to their own activities.


----------



## DawnRay (19 May 2012)

Fiagai said:



			Meant to add that the very best evidence of illegal activity is from the horses mouth so to speak, so whilst I am again reluctantly obliged to quote words from the mouth of hunt sabs oops I meant monitors or was that sabs (It's so easy to get confused)

From the Hunt Sab Assoc


So in effect many sabs/monitors engage in illegal activity such as aggravated trespass to achieve their ends including hopes of disruption, obtaining video footage etc etc.

The image potrayed by such groups that they are whiter than white is simply a front to beguile others into believing they are somehow above or beside the law in relation to their own activities.
		
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the footage used in this court case to convict these huntsmen was gained through illegal activity fiagai? It would appear you are suggesting it was.


----------



## Fiagai (19 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			Are you suggesting the footage used in this court case to convict these huntsmen was gained through illegal activity fiagai? It would appear you are suggesting it was.
		
Click to expand...

If you really wish to enter into a discussion concerning the merits or otherwise of the issues brought up in this thread HOW about actually answering some of the questions that have been already been put to YOU and which you have failed to answer. I include them here again for you attention:



Fiagai said:



			Why are you against 'monitoring' all possible criminal activity and select only that you perceive to be of interest to your ideas of right and wrong?

Why should all potential criminal activity not be so monitored if it 'helps' the police and frees up their valuable time as you claim?  In fact using this logic why not let us all follow each other around with video cameras so that we can catch each other out.  I am sure such a society would be delightful with individuals being terrorised by each other.

Why do you choose to advocate the harassment of  only certain individuals, follow them around and film them in the hope that you will catch them out? 

So 'they' help the police?  Who are 'they' answerable to then when people get hurt and anti individuals take the law into their own hands and for example
commit assault.  

...
		
Click to expand...

and btw throwing insults or one liners instead of entering into discussion (as was pointed out by another-see below) user will not help you to be taken seriously.  You have already shown yourself as being less than truthful so either fess up or try at least to cop on.





			Quote from Ms B:
but you see, your posts don't really come under the heading of 'discussion' do they? Either here or on the other thread. More like accusatory and blinkered. 
Just a word to the wise: the more you continue in the same vein, the less seriously you will be taken. But maybe the urge to promote whatever anti-hunting agenda you have blinds you that fact.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## DawnRay (19 May 2012)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiagai  
Why are you against 'monitoring' all possible criminal activity and select only that you perceive to be of interest to your ideas of right and wrong?

Why should all potential criminal activity not be so monitored if it 'helps' the police and frees up their valuable time as you claim? In fact using this logic why not let us all follow each other around with video cameras so that we can catch each other out. I am sure such a society would be delightful with individuals being terrorised by each other.

Why do you choose to advocate the harassment of only certain individuals, follow them around and film them in the hope that you will catch them out? 

So 'they' help the police? Who are 'they' answerable to then when people get hurt and anti individuals take the law into their own hands and for example
commit assault. 





I have not answered the questions fiagai because they in no way relate to me  or any opinion I have posted. However strange it is then that you address me with them let me take time to answer for you.

1) Where possible if not probable criminal activity will occur then monitoring either to prevent a crime or capture one on film is a great idea if people are prepared to do so. I am not selective about the type of activity in any way.

2) I have not ever suggested all potential criminal activity should not be monitored if people are prepared to do so.

3) I do not choose to advocate the harassment of only certain individuals. Firstly it is not harassment. Secondly I have now clearly stated that this should be used in other cases and I have certainly never suggested it should only be used for hunting with hounds.

Your last question refers to 'they'. They as we all do answer fully to the police enforcing the law of this land and rightly so. The very same as the more prolifically reported with evidence huntsmen taking the law into their own hands.


----------



## Fiagai (19 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			Quote:
I have not answered the questions fiagai because they in no way relate to me  or any opinion I have posted. However strange it is then that you address me with them let me take time to answer for you.
		
Click to expand...

Again I can only wonder at your complete lack of understanding or perhaps your refusal to acknowledge genuine discussion - Remember that YOU posted the thread title and I quote:




			Crawley and Horsham Hunt. *More monitors needed perhaps*?
		
Click to expand...

In reply I gave an answer that stated no they were not needed and explained why Monitors are NOT a good idea.

In return (and do remember this is a discussion based Forum) I asked you to explain why you thought more monitors might be needed considering that our current police force are fully entrusted with detection and law enforcement without bias.

This is why these questions were put to you, so yes they do 'relate' to you  and what you have posted and no it is not strange that I then 'address you' 



DawnRay said:



			Quote:
1) Where possible if not probable criminal activity will occur then monitoring either to prevent a crime or capture one on film is a great idea if people are prepared to do so. I am not selective about the type of activity in any way.
		
Click to expand...

The grammar used in this sentence makes it very difficult to read, but I believe you are saying something like that we should all follow each other around with video cameras, on the off chance that someone, someplace will commit a crime that can be reported.  Personally I believe our police and current CCTV camera system do a more than adequate job in this regard.  Both public surveillance and police forces are answerable for their actions as part of the public service under democratic government structures, something 'willing' individuals are not. Having vigilantes do-gooders take up this role does no-one any favours.  I do not support such activity and I believe such activity remains an infringement of an individuals democratic rights.



DawnRay said:



			Quote:
2) I have not ever suggested all potential criminal activity should not be monitored if people are prepared to do so.
		
Click to expand...

There is a double negative in this sentence, so I am afraid you have lost me.  Could you rephrase this please?



DawnRay said:



			Quote:
3) I do not choose to advocate the harassment of only certain individuals. Firstly it is not harassment. Secondly I have now clearly stated that this should be used in other cases and I have certainly never suggested it should only be used for hunting with hounds.
		
Click to expand...

Well indeed in your first post you posed the question / statement, should more monitors be needed for existing hunt activity (following the recent court case).  By the way 'Harass' in this context (with reference to the OED) means to trouble individuals or a group persistently or incessantly and that is what 'monitoring' as you describe it.  I remain amazed you advocate that we should become a vigilante state with everyone watching each other and reporting a la the style of George Orwell's novel 1984 - a truly horrible dystopian vision of the world which we may well encounter in the future if this type of behaviour continues to be encouraged. 



DawnRay said:



			Quote:
Your last question refers to 'they'. They as we all do answer fully to the police enforcing the law of this land and rightly so. The very same as the more prolifically reported with evidence huntsmen taking the law into their own hands.
		
Click to expand...

Again the grammar here is rather peculiar but I will attempt to guess that you mean that those who choose to take on detection and law enforcement duties from those legally employed to do so would somehow become deputised to undetake such activity.  I must ask in response how would this self elected group of individuals gain rights over above and above the fellow citizens?  I don't see how this can work in any democratic state and I really don't understand 'how' huntsman are 'taking the law into their own hands'?  Would you explain this?


----------



## DawnRay (21 May 2012)

Only now that I have answered the questions you have asked does my grammar become such a great issue that you are unable to understand what I have posted? 

NO fiagai I will not be changing my style of writing or rephrasing my words for you!

The only point I will address is your ludicrous notion that I am suggesting those who monitor should in some way be deputised??? How on earth you can come to that conclusion from my posting that "They as we all do answer fully to the police enforcing the law of this land and rightly so", suggests you choose to twist my words to suit a particular agenda.


----------



## Fiagai (21 May 2012)

DawnRay said:



			Only now that I have answered the questions you have asked does my grammar become such a great issue that you are unable to understand what I have posted?
		
Click to expand...

Well it is because you have managed to ignore several of the rules of basic grammar, including a nearly complete absence of comas and the inclusion of at least one double set of negatives in your reply, rendering some of your sentences apparently meaningless. 

Do remember that just because you answer someone elses question does not mean that the answers are going to be automatically understandable by anyone else especially where grammatical usage is a bit dodgy.  I did however attempt to gauge your implied meanings and stated this when possible, as for the rest I asked for you to rephrase or elaborate so that the meaning was clearer - simples!



DawnRay said:



			NO fiagai I will not be changing my style of writing or rephrasing my words for you!
		
Click to expand...

Well if we are to gain a modicum of understanding then some attempt by your good self would be benefical for the purposes of discussion, would it not?



DawnRay said:



			The only point I will address is your ludicrous notion that I am suggesting those who monitor should in some way be deputised??? How on earth you can come to that conclusion from my posting that "They as we all do answer fully to the police enforcing the law of this land and rightly so", suggests you choose to twist my words to suit a particular agenda.
		
Click to expand...

Why a response to only the one point DR?  what about the others? I replied as best I could, so I would at least expect a certain level of comment regarding what was written, I believe this is common curtesy!

That said, I will gather what crumbs that are available and reply that in relation to that one point that you did refer to; that I was indicating that any individual or group who undertake detection and law enforcement at their own volition are in effect taking on the roles and responsibilities of the instruments of the law, police included. 

And it would appear that these individuals or groups are taking on such roles and responsibilities through deputising themselves to do so!  Nobody has employed them to do this, there is no legislative background to validate their self-adopted roles or behaviour and no one (and remember this is important in a democratic state) has elected them to that office.  It is true that you and I as disinterested individuals are answerable to the rule of the land.  However if some benighted group of individuals with an agenda get together and decide to take on police responsibilities and then use these against me, then they have usurped my rights because they have selected to sit in a position of judgement over me - hardly fair or equitable is it?  So you see I have not twisted your words, I have simply extrapolated this from the point that you yourself put forward.


----------

