# Daily Mail inaccuracies



## Raynard (8 March 2011)

This column in the DM was brought to my attention today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-ready-The-FOs-march.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

As the DM is no longer accepting comments on this page, I thought Id respond to it here.

For quite some time, Ive been aware of the fact that the DM has a skewed perspective of Britain and the British. Now I know for a FACT that they publish falsehoods and fallacy. Mr Letts, not only are you woefully ill-informed, you also seem to think that the obligation of the press to verify facts before publication, do not apply to you.

Regarding the last piece in Mr Letts column; the hunt saboteurs, whose attentions were focused on the South Herefordshire hunt on the 15th January, were NOT using red diesel, nor were their vehicles taxed inappropriately, nor were those vehicles seized by the police.

What DID happen is this:

A member of the hunt called the police with an allegation of aggravated trespass against the hunt saboteurs who were out on foot that day. The police attended the scene and, rather conveniently for the hunt, proceeded to arrest the only four saboteurs who hadnt set foot outside their vehicles all day. Rather than leave the vehicles in situ, where they would likely be subject to acts of vandalism by hunt supporters (this has happened in the past  even when the vehicles were occupied), the arrestees requested that the vehicles be moved to a place of safety. They were subsequently moved by the police to Ross police station.

This left the saboteurs on foot stranded in the field, but thanks to a countrywide network of supporters, they were able to secure a lift to a warm place to wait whilst the police processed the four who had been wrongfully arrested.

The foot saboteurs waited for their lift at a bus stop in St Weonards . There, they were spotted by a hunt supporter, so no prizes for guessing where the final titbit in Mr Letts' report came from.

The following week, when the same saboteurs were again out in the countryside, saving British wildlife from pointless savagery, it transpired that there was another rumour circulating. Apparently, the vehicles in question had been crushed by the authorities. As the saboteurs were sitting in one of those vehicles at the time, the driver quipped, whilst pushing his hand against the roof of the vehicle Yeah, I pushed this one back out this morning.

As for the allegation of saboteurs damaging hunt supporters cars with acid, thats a new one on me. Can anyone provide me with a crime number?

I would apply for a job on the DMs staff, but apparently they dont employ folks who report FACT, opting instead to publish rumour, gossip and drivel from a community whose thuggery and lies are well hidden by the popular media, including the DM itself.


----------



## Giles (8 March 2011)

Sounds like a great laugh.  Have you guys ever thought about getting horses? - you'd have an even better time.


----------



## giveachance (8 March 2011)

It seems unlikely that the police would arrest people for sitting in their cars on a public road. Although I am not saying that the Daily Mail report is true, not knowing any facts or details other then what is written, however I think you need to think your story through properly before posting it on a forum.

You claim that the saboteurs were arrested and left the others stranded in a field, did none of the others have a driving license?? Surely the police would have taken the saboteurs in the field as they were evidently trespassing? It doesn't really add up. You also claim that they waited for there lift in a warm place, but also at a bus stop? Also you state that it was 'alleged trespassing' but if they were following on foot then they were definitely would have been trespassing almost the entire time, I'm afraid the council doesn't own the countryside, and neither do saboteurs have any right to go across peoples grounds without permission. Perhaps they should think about this every time they break the law by trespassing on private property especially if the whole thing is "pointless"!!!


----------



## Raynard (8 March 2011)

It seems unlikely that the police would arrest people for sitting in their cars on a public road.I would have been inclined to agree with you, until January 15th. Feel free to request verification from Sgt Glover of Hereford police station. Apparently, the OS maps and comms equipment in the vehicle were sufficient for Sgt Glover to suspect a conspiracy. I suspect Sgt Glover is familiar with a certain secret handshake. Although I am not saying that the Daily Mail report is true, not knowing any facts or details other then what is written, however I think you need to think your story through properly before posting it on a forum. Hasn't the penny dropped, yet?

You claim that the saboteurs were arrested and left the others stranded in a field, did none of the others have a driving license?? As none of the foot sabs was in the vicinity of the vehicles at the time, and the police took the keys, it would have been difficult for them to take possession of the vehicles. Surely the police would have taken the saboteurs in the field as they were evidently trespassing? Never heard of public footpaths? It doesn't really add up. You also claim that they waited for there lift in a warm place, but also at a bus stop? I stated that they waited at the bus stop for their lift to the warm place. ie. They were picked up at the bus stop and taken to someone's house. Can I make it any clearer for you? Also you state that it was 'alleged trespassing' but if they were following on foot then they were definitely would have been trespassing almost the entire time, I'm afraid the council doesn't own the countryside, and neither do saboteurs have any right to go across peoples grounds without permission.I repeat, ever heard of public footpaths? They criss-cross much of the countryside, don't you know. Perhaps they should think about this every time they break the law by trespassing on private property especially if the whole thing is "pointless"!!! Again, read my OP properly, will you? It is the savagery of the hunt that is pointless. The work of the saboteurs is anything but.


----------



## Giles (9 March 2011)

Most Hunt sabotage is illegal being the deliberate obstruction of a legal activity.  The fact is that even the LACS disassociate themselves from people like you.


----------



## Alec Swan (9 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			......., the arrestees requested that the vehicles be moved to a place of safety. They were subsequently moved by the police to Ross police station.......
		
Click to expand...

Quote....As none of the foot sabs was in the vicinity of the vehicles at the time, and the police took the keys, it would have been difficult for them to take possession of the vehicles..... Unquote.

Point 1; Both quotes are yours,  Raynard,  which would you prefer to rely on?  

Point 2; and from your first post. I'd be amazed to hear that the Police now supply a free recovery service.

I suspect that the Daily Mail aren't the only ones guilty of manipulating facts,  to their own advantage.

Alec.


----------



## Dirtymare (9 March 2011)

Alec Swan said:





I suspect that the Daily Mail aren't the only ones guilty of manipulating facts,  to their own advantage.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I dont usually come into this forum. 
But I really have to agree with AS here.


----------



## Raynard (9 March 2011)

Giles said:



			Most Hunt sabotage is illegal being the deliberate obstruction of a legal activity.  The fact is that even the LACS disassociate themselves from people like you.
		
Click to expand...

Sabotage only occurs when _illegal_ hunting takes place.

And if the HSA is quite low down in the LACS estimation, where the hell does that leave you?


----------



## Raynard (9 March 2011)

Alec, not only did the police move the vehicles to Ross police station, they also gave the four arrested saboteurs a lift from Hereford police station to Ross to recover the vehicles upon their release.

I have to admit, these acts of benevolence are surprising but if you think I am bluffing, why don't you call my bluff? Call Sgt Glover, I implore you, then come back here and tell everyone what he said.


----------



## EAST KENT (9 March 2011)

I think Quintan Letts was being humourus,and I for one much enjoy his writings.


----------



## Herne (10 March 2011)

I am curious as to why when the Hunt Monitors think it is ok for them to rush around interfering with other people on the grounds that they "_think_" that illegal hunting "_might_" be taking place; they get so upset when the Police interfere with them on the grounds that they "_think_" that illegal trespass "_might_" be taking place.

Touch of double standards going on there, perhaps...


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

Herne, your comparison is so fragile it almost made me laugh.

*Firstly, when saboteurs consider the possibility that a hunt might be hunting illegally, their 'interference' merely involves following the hunt by road and public footpath.*

As I stated previously, sabotage only actually takes place when illegal hunting occurs. Surely, you'd sabotage a mugger's attempt to rob an elderly lady if you saw it taking place? Any right minded individual with a bit of pluck will take action to defend the victims of illegal activity, be it an elderly lady or a fox.

(This begs the question, why *are* the hunts _always_ displeased (that's putting it mildly, in some cases) to see saboteurs? If they're legally drag hunting, the presence of saboteurs should be neither here nor there, surely?)

*Secondly, when the police consider the possibility that saboteurs might be acting illegally, the consequences are more severe for the saboteurs, as they were on January 15th. The police's 'interference' tends to involve saboteurs being arrested, handcuffed and incarcerated.*

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the police possess a lot more power than saboteurs do.


----------



## Giles (10 March 2011)

If you can prove that illegal hunting is taking place then get a prosecution.  The fact is you cannot.

This is like me wrestling a random person to the ground in a shop because I am convinced they are a suicide bomber.


----------



## Giles (10 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			Sabotage only occurs when _illegal_ hunting takes place.

And if the HSA is quite low down in the LACS estimation, where the hell does that leave you?
		
Click to expand...

They love me.  I am on first name terms with their chief exec.


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

Giles said:



			If you can prove that illegal hunting is taking place then get a prosecution.  The fact is you cannot.

This is like me wrestling a random person to the ground in a shop because I am convinced they are a suicide bomber.
		
Click to expand...

Well, it's quite telling that you compare hunts to suicide bombers.

As you are aware, monitors are really up against it when it comes to securing convictions. The whole process has to be caught on film, from fox, to hounds, to huntsmen, to the horn call egging the hounds on. This is extremely difficult, especially when hunting occurs in coverts, and/or some distance from public roads and footpaths. Neverthless, there have been convictions.

I notice you didn't address my question regarding the displeasure of the hunt when saboteurs are in the vicinity.


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

Giles said:



			They love me.  I am on first name terms with their chief exec.
		
Click to expand...

And that is why saboteurs disassociate themselves from the LACS.


----------



## Giles (10 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			And that is why saboteurs disassociate themselves from the LACS.
		
Click to expand...

Because they are (at times) capable of behaving in a civilised way towards people that they disagree with?

Why donlt you just admit that you don't believe the law works so you take the law into your own hands?


----------



## Giles (10 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			Well, it's quite telling that you compare hunts to suicide bombers.

As you are aware, monitors are really up against it when it comes to securing convictions. The whole process has to be caught on film, from fox, to hounds, to huntsmen, to the horn call egging the hounds on. This is extremely difficult, especially when hunting occurs in coverts, and/or some distance from public roads and footpaths. Neverthless, there have been convictions.

I notice you didn't address my question regarding the displeasure of the hunt when saboteurs are in the vicinity.
		
Click to expand...

I haven't compared a hunt with a suicide bomber.  It's quite telling that you think I have.


----------



## Giles (10 March 2011)

Yes there have been convictions.  Roughly 11 of the 50,000 or so that hunt on a regular basis.


----------



## VoR (10 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			I suspect Sgt Glover is familiar with a certain secret handshake.[/COLOR] 



Raynard said:



			I have to admit, these acts of benevolence are surprising but if you think I am bluffing, why don't you call my bluff? Call Sgt Glover, I implore you, then come back here and tell everyone what he said.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe I'll call the good Sergeant, I'm sure he'd be interested in your comments about the handshake and will perhaps be less benevolent next time around!



Raynard said:



			I notice you didn't address my question regarding the displeasure of the hunt when saboteurs are in the vicinity.
		
Click to expand...

Ok, how would you feel if you were going about your daily and legal business and everywhere you went you were followed, filmed and then reported to the police everytime the film showed anything that could be construed as illegal even if it were not so or (and lets foget this rubbish about only sabbing when the hunting is illegal) those following you simply obstructed you as you went about your legal business? 

Granted there have been some convictions under the hunting act (although given the number of hunts in the UK and the number of days where these meet, frankly very few!), some of these may have been correct however, let us not forget that there have in history been plenty of innocent people convicted, so lets not assume ALL these cases came to right conclusion!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

Giles said:



			Because they are (at times) capable of behaving in a civilised way towards people that they disagree with?

Why donlt you just admit that you don't believe the law works so you take the law into your own hands?
		
Click to expand...

Have I been uncivil? I think not. Unlike the LACS, however, I will never love you.

And you're quite right. The Hunting Act is relatively ineffective. It needs to be strengthened. That's the way a lot of animal welfare legislation starts out, though.

As for taking the law into our own hands, surely that would constitute administering punishment to those who break it? Saboteurs don't administer punishment. They intervene on behalf of the victim when a crime is in progress.


----------



## Giles (10 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			Have I been uncivil? I think not. Unlike the LACS, however, I will never love you.

And you're quite right. The Hunting Act is relatively ineffective. It needs to be strengthened. That's the way a lot of animal welfare legislation starts out, though.

As for taking the law into our own hands, surely that would constitute administering punishment to those who break it? Saboteurs don't administer punishment. They intervene on behalf of the victim when a crime is in progress.
		
Click to expand...


Yes you are uncivil.  The way the law works in a civil society is we have laws.  If you suspect someone is breaking the law then you should take steps to get them before the courts where if you can prove them guilty they will be convicted.  

I make no bones about it I regularly set my dogs in pursuit of wildlife.  If you have a problem with that then take me to court or get the police to.  If you cannot do that because it would clearly be a waste of time and money then it is tough luck.  You are not welcome on my land interfering with my pursuit of wildlife and if you do set foot on it I will get you turfed off.


----------



## irish_only (10 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			Sabotage only occurs when _illegal_ hunting takes place.

QUOTE]

If only. 

The great unwashed who go out with my local pack obviously leave their brains and common sense at home. I have SEEN them interfering with hounds and causing obstruction when it is blatantly obvious what the two people on horses 20 minutes away dragging a line are doing.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

Maybe I'll call the good Sergeant, I'm sure he'd be interested in your comments about the handshake and will perhaps be less benevolent next time around!

How can he be less benevolent? He happened upon four saboteurs and arrested them on sight.

Ok, how would you feel if you were going about your daily and legal business and everywhere you went you were followed, filmed and then reported to the police everytime the film showed anything that could be construed as illegal even if it were not so or (and lets foget this rubbish about only sabbing when the hunting is illegal) those following you simply obstructed you as you went about your legal business? 

What's wrong with being followed and filmed? And saboteurs only tend to call the police when they've been assaulted by hunt members and supporters, and not always then. As their encounter with Sgt Glover indicates, they don't get much support from the police. (And let's forget this rubbish about hunts only hunting within the law.)

Granted there have been some convictions under the hunting act (although given the number of hunts in the UK and the number of days where these meet, frankly very few!), some of these may have been correct however, let us not forget that there have in history been plenty of innocent people convicted, so lets not assume ALL these cases came to right conclusion.

Copy and paste:

And you're quite right. The Hunting Act is relatively ineffective. It needs to be strengthened. That's the way a lot of animal welfare legislation starts out, though.

Given the volume of evidence required to secure a conviction, I'd be very surprised if there has been a miscarriage of justice. I do concede that it's not impossible, just unlikely.


----------



## VoR (10 March 2011)

How can he be less benevolent? He happened upon four saboteurs and arrested them on sight.

Errm, your words not mine were that your were surprised by the benevolence

What's wrong with being followed and filmed? And saboteurs only tend to call the police when they've been assaulted by hunt members and supporters, and not always then. As their encounter with Sgt Glover indicates, they don't get much support from the police. (And let's forget this rubbish about hunts only hunting within the law.)

Honestly, you'd actually be happy to be followed, filmed and obstructed as you went about your daily legal activities by someone who's sole intent was to catch you out?
Please don't play the 'poor old sabs are always picked on' card, the fact that there have been convictions under the act disproves this and, if we are to look at assaults and intimidation I have seen an 80 year old follower surrounded in her vehicle by sabs who then intimidated the occupants, so let's accept that there are those on both sides who can act and react with violence!
Also, not sure I ever stated that all hunts had always acted within the law did I? Not all the convictions can be wrong so that would be a futile argument indeed!


And you're quite right. The Hunting Act is relatively ineffective. It needs to be strengthened. That's the way a lot of animal welfare legislation starts out, though.

Strengthening would simply lead to more animosity and violence, what is needed is for both sides to accept that they have their view and somewhere in the middle is the truth of the matter, perhaps some form of licensed hunting? I'm not sure but until people stop being so bloody-minded and accept that their view isn't necessarily right, we will continue to go round-and-round in circles!

Given the volume of evidence required to secure a conviction, I'd be very surprised if there has been a miscarriage of justice. I do concede that it's not impossible, just unlikely.[/QUOTE][/COLOR]

At least we sort of agree on this! 

By the way, replying in red is extremely aggressive and reduces the affect of any views or opinions you have.


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

In response to Giles:

Yes you are uncivil.  The way the law works in a civil society is we have laws.  If you suspect someone is breaking the law then you should take steps to get them before the courts where if you can prove them guilty they will be convicted.

So Ann Timson shouldn't have battered those gem thieves in Northampton with her handbag? She is an uncivil robbery saboteur?

I make no bones about it I regularly set my dogs in pursuit of wildlife.  If you have a problem with that then take me to court or get the police to.  If you cannot do that because it would clearly be a waste of time and money then it is tough luck.  You are not welcome on my land interfering with my pursuit of wildlife and if you do set foot on it I will get you turfed off.

All I can say is, if you are hunting with more than two dogs, I hope you are caught and justice is served.


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

irish_only said:



			If only. 

The great unwashed who go out with my local pack obviously leave their brains and common sense at home. I have SEEN them interfering with hounds and causing obstruction when it is blatantly obvious what the two people on horses 20 minutes away dragging a line are doing.
		
Click to expand...

The great unwashed! Gosh. That's gonna hurt for days.

If any saboteur harmed a horse or hound, they would be unceremoniously ejected from the group. Most saboteurs are vegans, whose main concern is animal welfare/rights. They would no more harm a horse or a hound than they would a fox.


----------



## Megan_T (10 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			What's wrong with being followed and filmed?
		
Click to expand...

Quite a significant amount actually.

Let's not forget that it's the intent that is the issue. I'm quite sure if an individual were to follow you around with a camera, insistant that they were on the verge of catching you doing something illegal, you'd be pretty miffed.


----------



## Herne (10 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			As I stated previously, sabotage only actually takes place when illegal hunting occurs. Surely, you'd sabotage a mugger's attempt to rob an elderly lady if you saw it taking place? Any right minded individual with a bit of pluck will take action to defend the victims of illegal activity, be it an elderly lady or a fox.
		
Click to expand...

Of course your claim to be only upholding the law would be a lot more believeble if you hadn't carried out such operations before the Law was introduced.

And you also miss the obvious poiunt that it is not for *you* to decide when hutning is "illegal". People are innocent until proven guilty in a court of Law, remember? If you think an illegal act is occurring, your corrrect action is to report it to the proper authorities.

Now as the number of aquittals over the  number of convictions demosntrates, it is actually extremely difficult to prove that a crime has been committed even in a court of Law and therefore it is not at all the same thing as seeing a mugging going on and intervening.




			(This begs the question, why *are* the hunts _always_ displeased (that's putting it mildly, in some cases) to see saboteurs? If they're legally drag hunting, the presence of saboteurs should be neither here nor there, surely?)
		
Click to expand...

Well, the answer to that question is entirely obvious. Because Hunts do not trust you not to try to frame them or set them up. After the number of failed convictions that there have been, it is seeming increasing likely that they are wise in not having that trust.

Unfortunately, after the constant stream of lies and misinformation that anti hunt people have told about Hunting over the past 40 years, it is pretty niaive of you to expect the Hunting world to suddenly believe tha you have all turned in to paragons of virtue overnight.

You may claim that, possibly with justification, that there are dishonest huting people, too, but that does not disguise the fact that there are plenty of people on your side of the fence who have been and are still prepared to indulge in dishonesty and law-breaking to pursue their objectives.


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

VoR said:



How can he be less benevolent? He happened upon four saboteurs and arrested them on sight.

Errm, your words not mine were that your were surprised by the benevolenceOh, yes. I stand corrected.

What's wrong with being followed and filmed? And saboteurs only tend to call the police when they've been assaulted by hunt members and supporters, and not always then. As their encounter with Sgt Glover indicates, they don't get much support from the police. (And let's forget this rubbish about hunts only hunting within the law.)

Honestly, you'd actually be happy to be followed, filmed and obstructed as you went about your daily legal activities by someone who's sole intent was to catch you out?
Please don't play the 'poor old sabs are always picked on' card, the fact that there have been convictions under the act disproves this and, if we are to look at assaults and intimidation I have seen an 80 year old follower surrounded in her vehicle by sabs who then intimidated the occupants, so let's accept that there are those on both sides who can act and react with violence!I'm glad you said 'both sides'. (I never said all sabs are perfect.)


And you're quite right. The Hunting Act is relatively ineffective. It needs to be strengthened. That's the way a lot of animal welfare legislation starts out, though.

Strengthening would simply lead to more animosity and violence,For a while, perhaps. what is needed is for both sides to accept that they have their view and somewhere in the middle is the truth of the matter, perhaps some form of licensed hunting? I'm not sure but until people stop being so bloody-minded and accept that their view isn't necessarily right, we will continue to go round-and-round in circles! As it stands at the moment, hunting with more than two hounds is illegal. Perhaps the hunting community should accept this?

Given the volume of evidence required to secure a conviction, I'd be very surprised if there has been a miscarriage of justice. I do concede that it's not impossible, just unlikely.

Click to expand...

[/COLOR]

At least we sort of agree on this! 

By the way, replying in red is extremely aggressive and reduces the affect of any views or opinions you have.[/QUOTE]Point taken.


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

Megan_T said:



			Quite a significant amount actually.

Let's not forget that it's the intent that is the issue. I'm quite sure if an individual were to follow you around with a camera, insistant that they were on the verge of catching you doing something illegal, you'd be pretty miffed.
		
Click to expand...

If someone were to film me leaving my house and doing my shopping and so forth, I would take out a restraining order against them. If someone were to film me partaking in a sport? No objections whatsoever.


----------



## VoR (10 March 2011)

Raynard I quote; As it stands at the moment, hunting with more than two hounds is illegal. Perhaps the hunting community should accept this?

So, what you are saying is, if we went out every weekend with two hounds and flushed a fox to the gun (i.e. legal as I understand it) you, LACS, your sab colleagues et al would be happy and leave us alone? Really? I think we both know that this isn't true don't we.


----------



## VoR (10 March 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hbU8rYobCY

Raynard,

Use this link, your friends do you no favours do they! 
IF sabs are just individuals who care about wildlife and upholding the law, then why do they dress like para-militaries? 
I'm sorry but they do this to intimidate. The mounted followers in this clip (mainly ladies it appears) are doing nothing wrong, they are at a meet NOT 'hunting illegally', which you claim is the only time sabs would interfere. 
The sabs, you could say are just walking down a public road, but with faces covered? With military clothing? If the hunt was not there would you accept this as normal behaviour? If they have no intention of doing anything wrong why the secrecy? The hunt followers do not seem to be covering up!
I put it to you that far from being caring, law abiding people they are in fact 'rent-a-mob' who are out to deliberately cause trouble!


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

Herne said:



			Of course your claim to be only upholding the law would be a lot more believeble if you hadn't carried out such operations before the Law was introduced. Ah, the old guard. Saboteurs have evolved since then.

And you also miss the obvious poiunt that it is not for *you* to decide when hutning is "illegal". People are innocent until proven guilty in a court of Law, remember? If you think an illegal act is occurring, your corrrect action is to report it to the proper authorities. 

Now as the number of aquittals over the  number of convictions demosntrates, it is actually extremely difficult to prove that a crime has been committed even in a court of Law and therefore it is not at all the same thing as seeing a mugging going on and intervening. There are plenty of experienced saboteurs who know when the hunt have flushed a fox.

Well, the answer to that question is entirely obvious. Because Hunts do not trust you not to try to frame them or set them up. After the number of failed convictions that there have been, it is seeming increasing likely that they are wise in not having that trust. The lack of trust is the hunt's problem, not the saboteurs'. They need to relax and enjoy their day's drag hunting.

Unfortunately, after the *constant stream of lies and misinformation *that anti hunt people have told about Hunting over the past 40 years, it is pretty niaive of you to expect the Hunting world to suddenly believe tha you have all turned in to paragons of virtue overnight. Hmm, the term 'Quick nip to the back of the neck' springs to mind.

You may claim that, possibly with justification, that there are dishonest huting people, too, but that does not disguise the fact that there are plenty of people on your side of the fence who have been and are still prepared to indulge in dishonesty and law-breaking to pursue their objectives. Hmm, perhaps a bit of horn calling. (It's only interfering with a lawful activity if the activity being interfered with is actually lawful.)

Click to expand...

how odd


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

VoR said:



			Raynard I quote; As it stands at the moment, hunting with more than two hounds is illegal. Perhaps the hunting community should accept this?

So, what you are saying is, if we went out every weekend with two hounds and flushed a fox to the gun (i.e. legal as I understand it) you, LACS, your sab colleagues et al would be happy and leave us alone? Really? I think we both know that this isn't true don't we.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure that kind of hunting occurs every day of the week. They don't get sabotaged. Not that the saboteurs don't want to; but it's actions, not thought crimes, that we're discussing here.


----------



## ChesnutsRoasting (10 March 2011)

Raynard, Chillax. I've just had a vodka and lemonade, I recommend you do the same.


----------



## Fiagai (10 March 2011)

blazingsaddles said:



			Raynard, Chillax. I've just had a vodka and lemonade, I recommend you do the same.
		
Click to expand...

Mines a straight whiskey thanks


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

VoR said:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hbU8rYobCY

Raynard,

Use this link, your friends do you no favours do they! 
IF sabs are just individuals who care about wildlife and upholding the law, then why do they dress like para-militaries? 
I'm sorry but they do this to intimidate. The mounted followers in this clip (mainly ladies it appears) are doing nothing wrong, they are at a meet NOT 'hunting illegally', which you claim is the only time sabs would interfere. 
The sabs, you could say are just walking down a public road, but with faces covered? With military clothing? If the hunt was not there would you accept this as normal behaviour? If they have no intention of doing anything wrong why the secrecy? The hunt followers do not seem to be covering up!
I put it to you that far from being caring, law abiding people they are in fact 'rent-a-mob' (Rent-a-mob? Ha! Saboteurs PAY to sabotage. There are expenses that need to be met.)who are out to deliberately cause trouble!
		
Click to expand...

Ah, the Glasshouse. It's standard practice for saboteurs to wait at the meet to see in which direction the hunt sets off.

The sight of them gathering at the meet might look a little scary, but that's nothing to the heart pounding terror suffered by the fox, running for his life from a pack of baying hounds. I have no sympathy for those intimidated by a certain type of clothing.

They were gathered in such numbers at the Cotswold Vale hunt last Saturday because the week before, some saboteurs (from a group of four women and three men) were assaulted by members and supporters of that hunt.

HSA press release:

http://hsa.enviroweb.org/index.php/news/latest/295-cvh26022011

In addition, the press release doesn't mention that John Hodges almost lifted one saboteur from the ground by her hair, from the relative safety of his saddle, of course. In the ensuing struggle, the saboteur in question also sustained bruising to both of her arms; on her right arm, a deep, black bruise sustained when Hodges used his horse to barge her into a fence; on her left arm, a distinct set of Hodges' fingermarks. What a deeply unpleasant man.

Well, on Saturday, the Cotswold Vale hunt spent the day holed up in The Grange, apparently fearful that they were going to reap what they had sown the week before. None of the saboteurs out that day intended to assault anyone (I can't make you believe that, and quite frankly, I don't care if you do or don't); the sheer volume of numbers was to serve as a deterrent only.

As for the masks, some hide their identity for fear of reprisals from hunt members and supporters. Not surprising, really.

Anyway. That video - was that the worst you could do?

I'll be back with some links of my own ....


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

blazingsaddles said:



			Raynard, Chillax. I've just had a vodka and lemonade, I recommend you do the same.
		
Click to expand...

What a splendid idea!

<Raynard reaches for the White Zinfandel>


----------



## Megan_T (10 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			If someone were to film me leaving my house and doing my shopping and so forth, I would take out a restraining order against them. If someone were to film me partaking in a sport? No objections whatsoever.
		
Click to expand...

... even if they were constantly trying to catch you out? 

I'm afraid I find this very, very hard to believe.

It's far too easy for you to sit at your computer and say that you'd have no problems with an individual or group following you around, watching your every move, hoping you'll they'll catch you doing something illegal.

Anyway, I fear any point that anyone raises here you will think you have an answer for it. Mostly because it is YOUR opinion - which of course you are perfectly entitled to.

As is everyone else.


----------



## Alec Swan (10 March 2011)

Raynard,

I'm beginning to wonder if the sabs don't enjoy hunting,  as much as the rest of us,  and from what you say,  they pay for their sport.  Is there a standard cap,  for your days entertainment?

Alec.


----------



## EAST KENT (10 March 2011)

Oh Lordy..is this cretin B........s@F..k   back again ? Guess it must be boring with nothing to pester after the season`s end


----------



## Fiagai (10 March 2011)

Raynard said:



.. The way the law works in a civil society is we have laws.  If you suspect someone is breaking the law then you should take steps to get them before the courts where if you can prove them guilty they will be convicted.

This is vigilantism...The law is enforced by the relevant authorities eg the police etc -  taking the law into your hands results in harrasment which is in itself can be a criminal offence




Raynard said:



			...What's wrong with being followed and filmed?
		
Click to expand...

The rights and wrongs of this are these activities fall under what is termed a right to privacy - this is determined by law not by individual opinion
Note: The black, red, blue phrasing is nearly impossible to read - there are Quote buttons contained within each post - much easier to read

Click to expand...


----------



## Giles (10 March 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			Raynard,

I'm beginning to wonder if the sabs don't enjoy hunting,  as much as the rest of us,  and from what you say,  they pay for their sport.  Is there a standard cap,  for your days entertainment?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Of course they do!  Hunt sabbing is basically just another form of hunting.  They get as much fun out of it as anyone does,


----------



## Giles (10 March 2011)

VoR said:



			Raynard I quote; As it stands at the moment, hunting with more than two hounds is illegal. Perhaps the hunting community should accept this?

So, what you are saying is, if we went out every weekend with two hounds and flushed a fox to the gun (i.e. legal as I understand it) you, LACS, your sab colleagues et al would be happy and leave us alone? Really? I think we both know that this isn't true don't we.
		
Click to expand...

Hunting with more than two hounds is NOT illegal.  Hunting a wild mammal with more than two hounds is.  However there is still a lot of uncertainty about the definition of hunting.  I set more than two dogs after deer and have no problem with it because I choose not to kill them.


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

Megan_T said:



			... even if they were constantly trying to catch you out?
		
Click to expand...

Why would I fear being caught out?


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			Raynard,

I'm beginning to wonder if the sabs don't enjoy hunting,  as much as the rest of us,  and from what you say,  they pay for their sport.  Is there a standard cap,  for your days entertainment?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Hello again, Alec. The saboteurs' standard 'cap' is a few quid for fuel. Fundraising through the summer pays for vehicles and maintenance. The HSA is very popular with the general public.

Oh, and sometimes it is highly entertaining (one cannot help but feel a touch of _schadenfreude_ at the sight of mud plastered up the back of a huntsman's coat). A lot of the time, though, it's quite frightening.


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Oh Lordy..is this cretin B........s@F..k   back again ? Guess it must be boring with nothing to pester after the season`s end 

Click to expand...

You want to watch yourself with that namecalling, EK. I was told off once by the Fat Controller for calling someone a 'bald-faced liar'. It was very wrong of me. The man might've had a beard, for all I knew.


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

Fiagai said:





Raynard said:



.. The way the law works in a civil society is we have laws.  If you suspect someone is breaking the law then you should take steps to get them before the courts where if you can prove them guilty they will be convicted.

This is vigilantism...The law is enforced by the relevant authorities eg the police etc -  taking the law into your hands results in harrasment which is in itself can be a criminal offence




The rights and wrongs of this are these activities fall under what is termed a right to privacy - this is determined by law not by individual opinion
Note: The black, red, blue phrasing is nearly impossible to read - there are Quote buttons contained within each post - much easier to read

Click to expand...



Oh, Lordy. Copy and paste, _again_:

As for taking the law into our own hands (or _vigilantism_ if you prefer, Fiagai), surely that would constitute administering punishment to those who break it? Saboteurs don't administer punishment. They intervene on behalf of the victim when a crime is in progress.

Also, the privacy laws would apply if a person were to film you through a gap in your curtains. Taking part in a sporting activity out in the open does not entitle you to privacy.

Click to expand...


----------



## Raynard (10 March 2011)

Giles said:



			Hunting with more than two hounds is NOT illegal.  Hunting a wild mammal with more than two hounds is.  However there is still a lot of uncertainty about the definition of hunting.  I set more than two dogs after deer and have no problem with it because I choose not to kill them.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.


----------



## Herne (11 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			And you also miss the obvious poiunt that it is not for you to decide when hutning is "illegal". People are innocent until proven guilty in a court of Law, remember? If you think an illegal act is occurring, your corrrect action is to report it to the proper authorities. 

Now as the number of aquittals over the number of convictions demosntrates, it is actually extremely difficult to prove that a crime has been committed even in a court of Law and therefore it is not at all the same thing as seeing a mugging going on and intervening. There are plenty of experienced saboteurs who know when the hunt have flushed a fox.

Click to expand...

And it is not for them to play judge and jury either. As I say, the number of failed accusations that your lot have made clearly demonstrate that you do not have infallible judgement - so learn by your mistakes and leave it to the law.




			Well, the answer to that question is entirely obvious. Because Hunts do not trust you not to try to frame them or set them up. After the number of failed convictions that there have been, it is seeming increasing likely that they are wise in not having that trust. The lack of trust is the hunt's problem, not the saboteurs'. They need to relax and enjoy their day's drag hunting.

Click to expand...

That answer make no sense whatsoever. How can hunts relax when we have plenty of experience that anti-hunters bring spurious and even dishonest accusations against people - often just to enjoy the publicity it generates before the case is thrown out of court.





			Unfortunately, after the *constant stream of lies and misinformation* that anti hunt people have told about Hunting over the past 40 years, it is pretty niaive of you to expect the Hunting world to suddenly believe tha you have all turned in to paragons of virtue overnight. Hmm, the term 'Quick nip to the back of the neck' springs to mind.

You may claim that, possibly with justification, that there are dishonest huting people, too, but ...
		
Click to expand...

Is it any wonder we find it less interesting hunting people? It's just too easy to catch them...

One telegraphs one's punches as much as one is able, but still they just walk straight into them...

Did no one ever point out to you, dear Raynard, that two wrongs don't make a right.

When someone accuses your side of telling porkies, it is *NOT* a defence to say "oh, well your side told fibs, too" *

It is actually more in the line of a tacit admission that your side does lie.

[size=-4]* _And, before you try it, no I do not concede that my side told fibs in that regard and I will be happy to discuss that issue in a separate thread, should you desire..._[/size]


----------



## Fiagai (11 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			As for taking the law into our own hands (or _vigilantism_ if you prefer, Fiagai), surely that would constitute administering punishment to those who break it? Saboteurs don't administer punishment. They intervene on behalf of the victim when a crime is in progress.

Also, the privacy laws would apply if a person were to film you through a gap in your curtains. Taking part in a sporting activity out in the open does not entitle you to privacy.
		
Click to expand...

The definition of vigilantism is not "punishment" which is administered by the court system AFTER someone has been found guilty of an offence.  Vigilantism is the (illegal) taking on of the role of law enforcement- the police.  So your surmise is incorrect.  Adopting the role of a wannabe lynch mob is neither legal nor advisable in any democratic society.

Hunting is not a football match where you pay to view the players in action.  There is no presumption of a right to view any activity taking place either in a private or public place.  A wedding may be held in public, but the organisers of any such "private event" may refuse you permission to view or participate.

Q. Why do think so many HS get arrested?  A. Mainly because they are breaking the law of the land.


----------



## jokadoka (11 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			The great unwashed! Gosh. That's gonna hurt for days.

If any saboteur harmed a horse or hound, they would be unceremoniously ejected from the group. Most saboteurs are vegans, whose main concern is animal welfare/rights. They would no more harm a horse or a hound than they would a fox.
		
Click to expand...

Get real.


----------



## Megan_T (11 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			Why would I fear being caught out?
		
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you if you feared it. It's not about fear. The hunts don't fear the sabbs - the question raised is whether you'd feel irritated and angry about someone following you trying to catch you out.


----------



## wench (11 March 2011)

I would love a hunt sab to set about me....


----------



## Alec Swan (11 March 2011)

wench said:



			I would love a hunt sab to set about me....
		
Click to expand...

More a discussion for soapbox,  I'd suggest!! 

Alec.


----------



## VoR (11 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			Ah, the Glasshouse. It's standard practice for saboteurs to wait at the meet to see in which direction the hunt sets off.

The sight of them gathering at the meet might look a little scary, but that's nothing to the heart pounding terror suffered by the fox, running for his life from a pack of baying hounds. I have no sympathy for those intimidated by a certain type of clothing.

They were gathered in such numbers at the Cotswold Vale hunt last Saturday because the week before, some saboteurs (from a group of four women and three men) were assaulted by members and supporters of that hunt.

HSA press release:

http://hsa.enviroweb.org/index.php/news/latest/295-cvh26022011

In addition, the press release doesn't mention that John Hodges almost lifted one saboteur from the ground by her hair, from the relative safety of his saddle, of course. In the ensuing struggle, the saboteur in question also sustained bruising to both of her arms; on her right arm, a deep, black bruise sustained when Hodges used his horse to barge her into a fence; on her left arm, a distinct set of Hodges' fingermarks. What a deeply unpleasant man.

Well, on Saturday, the Cotswold Vale hunt spent the day holed up in The Grange, apparently fearful that they were going to reap what they had sown the week before. None of the saboteurs out that day intended to assault anyone (I can't make you believe that, and quite frankly, I don't care if you do or don't); the sheer volume of numbers was to serve as a deterrent only.

As for the masks, some hide their identity for fear of reprisals from hunt members and supporters. Not surprising, really.

Anyway. That video - was that the worst you could do?

I'll be back with some links of my own ....
		
Click to expand...

Raynard, I have accepted that pro hunters have erred as the courts have proven, you have not accepted that antis could ever do anything other than be tree-hugging vegans, spreading love and understanding in the world, you know that is not the case!
The report you post is from the HSA website, do you know any reporters? Have you ever discussed with then how they can sway opinion by giving one side of a story and avoiding cetrtain facts, how another paper/website will give the opposite view and somewhere in the middle is the truth? I think you have jumped the gun here and perhaps rather than give this in evidence should have waited until the police (and if applicable courts) have reached their conclusions, oh, but of course, they'll find on the side of the hunt because antis are always picked on even though they do no wrong!
The sight of them is 'a little scary', oh come on, if you saw this mob coming down the road towards you you'd either run or prepare to defend yourself, it's called fight or flight, the fox usually takes flight as is it's natural instinct and I'm not sure if there is any scientific evidence proving that it feels terror (although I stand to be corrected if there is!).
You also shoot youself in the foot by apparently gloating that the Cotswold was unable/unwilling (the truth of this again is likely to be somewhere in the middle) to leave The Grange, despite previously stating that the sabs wouldn't interfere unless there was an incident of illegal hunting, so, after making their point why did they not withdraw?
Please, just for once in your life, stop thinking that you and yours are incontrovertibly right and accept that this was pure intimidation and that there are factions in the sabs who are out to and do cause trouble even if, as with hunt supporters, the majority are not and do not deliberately do so.


----------



## Giles (11 March 2011)

VoR said:



Raynard, I have accepted that pro hunters have erred as the courts have proven, you have not accepted that antis could ever do anything other than be tree-hugging vegans, spreading love and understanding in the world, you know that is not the case!
The report you post is from the HSA website, do you know any reporters? Have you ever discussed with then how they can sway opinion by giving one side of a story and avoiding cetrtain facts, how another paper/website will give the opposite view and somewhere in the middle is the truth? I think you have jumped the gun here and perhaps rather than give this in evidence should have waited until the police (and if applicable courts) have reached their conclusions, oh, but of course, they'll find on the side of the hunt because antis are always picked on even though they do no wrong!
The sight of them is 'a little scary', oh come on, if you saw this mob coming down the road towards you you'd either run or prepare to defend yourself, it's called fight or flight, the fox usually takes flight as is it's natural instinct and I'm not sure if there is any scientific evidence proving that it feels terror (although I stand to be corrected if there is!).
You also shoot youself in the foot by apparently gloating that the Cotswold was unable/unwilling (the truth of this again is likely to be somewhere in the middle) to leave The Grange, despite previously stating that the sabs wouldn't interfere unless there was an incident of illegal hunting, so, after making their point why did they not withdraw?
Please, just for once in your life, stop thinking that you and yours are incontrovertibly right and accept that this was pure intimidation and that there are factions in the sabs who are out to and do cause trouble even if, as with hunt supporters, the majority are not and do not deliberately do so.

Click to expand...

The hunt leaving the grange would not have been a criminal offense so if the sabs obstructed them from doing so they would have been breaking the law.


----------



## VoR (11 March 2011)

You are correct, but don't really see you point given the context?


----------



## Raynard (12 March 2011)

Here are the links I promised you, VoR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YccRUc2SDBs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJneRSgJcxI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJH...uery=fox+hunting+violence&aq=f&has_verified=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABzNXIfbeb4&feature=related

I haven't even scratched the surface yet. There are so many videos of a similar ilk. Each one of these videos trumps your 'sabs walking down a country road' effort.

Anyway, as much as I love sparring with you folks, I have things to do today. I will be back to address all comments as soon as is convenient.

Toodle pip!


----------



## Fiagai (12 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			This column in the DM was brought to my attention today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-ready-The-FOs-march.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

As the DM is no longer accepting comments on this page, I thought Id respond to it here...
		
Click to expand...

Apologies to going back to the start of the discussion , however I do have to ask the question...Why?

That is -Why did you think to respond to it here?


----------



## Jerroboam (12 March 2011)

Firstly, is it not for the Police to uphold the law? Hunt Sabs seem to be incredibly confused with their position within society, you do not create the law and nor do you uphold it, that is the job of proffessional, OBJECTIVE, policemen and women. Your constant harassment of hunt staff and hunt followers is not an issue of animal welfare any longer, you sabs enjoy hunting as much as huntings law abiding followers do, without hunting what would you people do? Perhaps a job.....


----------



## Binkle&Flip (12 March 2011)

Jerroboam said:



			Firstly, is it not for the Police to uphold the law? Hunt Sabs seem to be incredibly confused with their position within society, you do not create the law and nor do you uphold it, that is the job of proffessional, OBJECTIVE, policemen and women. Your constant harassment of hunt staff and hunt followers is not an issue of animal welfare any longer, you sabs enjoy hunting as much as huntings law abiding followers do, without hunting what would you people do? Perhaps a job.....
		
Click to expand...

I agree it is not the job of the sabs to uphold the law but a clear distinction should be made between those who intend to sab a hunt and those there to monitor with video cameras etc.
Monitoring itself is a valuable weapon for the police and CPS in their efforts to police illegal hunting. Proven by the thanks given in court to those who have supplied evidence of illegal hunting which has led to conviction. Sadly monitors are being attacked and obstructed going about their legal business. It really isnt on and we should all commend the bravery of these individuals given the circumstances I believe.


----------



## Fiagai (12 March 2011)

Re hunt monitoring and legality of same- I will repost the same...

Quote:



			Originally Posted by Raynard  

As for taking the law into our own hands (or vigilantism if you prefer, Fiagai), surely that would constitute administering punishment to those who break it? Saboteurs don't administer punishment. They intervene on behalf of the victim when a crime is in progress.

Also, the privacy laws would apply if a person were to film you through a gap in your curtains. Taking part in a sporting activity out in the open does not entitle you to privacy.
		
Click to expand...

The definition of vigilantism is not "punishment" which is administered by the court system AFTER someone has been found guilty of an offence.  Vigilantism is the (illegal) taking on of the role of law enforcement- the police.  So your surmise is incorrect.  Adopting the role of a wannabe lynch mob is neither legal nor advisable in any democratic society.

Hunting is not a football match where you pay to view the players in action.  There is no presumption of a right to view any activity taking place either in a private or public place.  A wedding may be held in public, but the organisers of any such "private event" may refuse you permission to view or participate.

Q. Why do think so many HS get arrested?  A. Mainly because they are breaking the law of the land.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (12 March 2011)

Did you have a point? Hunt monitoring is a valuable, legal tool encouraged by the law enforcement agency's with their thanks given in court to those who have provided proof of illegal hunting via legal methods. Are you going to deny this Faigai?


----------



## Giles (12 March 2011)

Jerroboam said:



			Firstly, is it not for the Police to uphold the law? Hunt Sabs seem to be incredibly confused with their position within society, you do not create the law and nor do you uphold it, that is the job of proffessional, OBJECTIVE, policemen and women. Your constant harassment of hunt staff and hunt followers is not an issue of animal welfare any longer, you sabs enjoy hunting as much as huntings law abiding followers do, without hunting what would you people do? Perhaps a job.....
		
Click to expand...

Indeed and the last time I looked police don't generally  enforce the law by turning up in groups of 50 or so donning balaclavas and intimidating people so they cannot ride down the public highway.


----------



## Giles (12 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			I agree it is not the job of the sabs to uphold the law but a clear distinction should be made between those who intend to sab a hunt and those there to monitor with video cameras etc.
Monitoring itself is a valuable weapon for the police and CPS in their efforts to police illegal hunting. Proven by the thanks given in court to those who have supplied evidence of illegal hunting which has led to conviction. Sadly monitors are being attacked and obstructed going about their legal business. It really isnt on and we should all commend the bravery of these individuals given the circumstances I believe.
		
Click to expand...

the clue is in the name:


Hunt Saboteurs Association.


----------



## Fiagai (12 March 2011)

....*rolls around laughing so much it hurts*


----------



## Ahunter (13 March 2011)

"Monitoring itself is a valuable weapon for the police and CPS in their efforts to police illegal hunting. Proven by the thanks given in court to those who have supplied evidence of illegal hunting which has led to conviction. Sadly monitors are being attacked and obstructed going about their legal business. It really isnt on and we should all commend the bravery of these individuals given the circumstances I believe"

What a load of old Cobblers! 

They should repeal the act then pursue the idiot organizations that dreamed up this waste of time ban for the amount it has cost the British taxpayer. Monitor that.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (13 March 2011)

Giles said:



			the clue is in the name:


Hunt Saboteurs Association.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. I simply replied to the post about the hunt sabs being confused by their role. Hoping to clear up any confusion about the difference between illegal/threatening sab activity and legal monitoring.


----------



## Hanno Verian (13 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			Did you have a point? Hunt monitoring is a valuable, legal tool encouraged by the law enforcement agency's with their thanks given in court to those who have provided proof of illegal hunting via legal methods. Are you going to deny this Faigai? 

Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between recording all activity at a hunt and editing, cutting and pasting clips to produce a grossly distorted view to support your own preconcieved ideas and objectives.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (13 March 2011)

What a load of old Cobblers! 

They should repeal the act then pursue the idiot organizations that dreamed up this waste of time ban for the amount it has cost the British taxpayer. Monitor that.
		
Click to expand...

"Cobblers", because I posted the truth obviously. How has the Act cost the British taxpayer any more than policing hunting cost the taxpayer before the ban?


----------



## Binkle&Flip (13 March 2011)

Hanno Verian said:



			There is a huge difference between recording all activity at a hunt and editing, cutting and pasting clips to produce a grossly distorted view to support your own preconcieved ideas and objectives.
		
Click to expand...

I am sorry but if you are suggesting convictions have been gained through distorted filming you are very much mistaken. The illegal hunting has been very clear for all to see.


----------



## oakash (13 March 2011)

Not so, B & F! Look at the video of Tony Wright hunting the Exmoor. It LOOKED illegal, if you knew nothing about hunting, but it was NOT! I trust you and your ilk will agree the Act needs repeal?


----------



## oakash (13 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			Did you have a point? Hunt monitoring is a valuable, legal tool encouraged by the law enforcement agency's with their thanks given in court to those who have provided proof of illegal hunting via legal methods. Are you going to deny this Faigai? 

Click to expand...


B & F. (or may I call you BF for short?) please tell us which court case against a hunt resulted in the monitors being thanked by the judge?


----------



## Ahunter (13 March 2011)

"Cobblers", because I posted the truth obviously. 
How has the Act cost the British taxpayer any more than policing hunting
cost the taxpayer before the ban?

Its Cobblers because you are portraying a one sided view that is devoid of any reality. Given Boths sideas cant stand one another its like Chelsea fans monitoring Millwall fans,thats reality.

Out on my own the other day by one of your idiot monitors, just as it was leaving it still had to shout out you brute, it could not keep its gob shut, it wants the confrontation, it wants a reaction thats reality.


"How has the Act cost the British taxpayer any more than policing hunting
cost the taxpayer before the ban?"

Not just policing my friend, what about the wasted millions spent passing this rubbish.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			"Cobblers", because I posted the truth obviously. How has the Act cost the British taxpayer any more than policing hunting cost the taxpayer before the ban?
		
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if you actually thought about this quote.  Read it again,  and you'll see that it makes for little sense.

Alec.

Ets,  if Policing before the ban,  cost nothing (it wasn't Policed),  then the Act itself cost several million pounds. a.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (13 March 2011)

oakash said:



			Not so, B & F! Look at the video of Tony Wright hunting the Exmoor. It LOOKED illegal, if you knew nothing about hunting, but it was NOT! I trust you and your ilk will agree the Act needs repeal?
		
Click to expand...

Oh come on. Video evidence is never the sole form of evidence used in court, we all know that. Just because it looks illegal, without supporting evidence it can not convict. 

My ilk? Sorry, what kind of person do you believe I am? We were out at an 80th Birthday party of a family member at St.Tudy in Cornwall today. Along with good sheep farming friends who were losing chickens to a fox last night. Fortunately they heard the commotion and said fox was blasted and is no more. Excellent stuff, all for it.
I simply cannot and will not agree the Act should be repealed. I do not agree with hare coursing for sport, stag hunting or killing with dogs. I do however believe it should be ammended a.s.a.p. No more trail hunting for starters using fox scent.


----------



## EAST KENT (13 March 2011)

Policing before the daft ban?Why? we behaved ourselves with our own strict rules of etiquette and never a policeman in sight until the Great Unwashed appeared!


----------



## Binkle&Flip (13 March 2011)

oakash said:



			B & F. (or may I call you BF for short?) please tell us which court case against a hunt resulted in the monitors being thanked by the judge?
		
Click to expand...

I mdidnt say the judge oakash it was the police. I will find the quotes for you.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (13 March 2011)

Its Cobblers because you are portraying a one sided view that is devoid of any reality. Given Boths sideas cant stand one another its like Chelsea fans monitoring Millwall fans,thats reality.
Out on my own the other day by one of your idiot monitors, just as it was leaving it still had to shout out you brute, it could not keep its gob shut, it wants the confrontation, it wants a reaction thats reality.
Not just policing my friend, what about the wasted millions spent passing this rubbish.
		
Click to expand...

People on both sides let themselves and others down. I would like to think they are still the minority. All laws cost money to get through parliament. There is no doubt the opposition to this ban did their upmost to delay it for as long as possible costing great amounts of time and money but also to include some daft ammendments and exemptions we all mock today. You cannot blame the law makers for the games played by opponents.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (13 March 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			I'm wondering if you actually thought about this quote.  Read it again,  and you'll see that it makes for little sense.

Alec.

Ets,  if Policing before the ban,  cost nothing (it wasn't Policed),  then the Act itself cost several million pounds. a.
		
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense Alec try reading it again. Policing hunting before the ban cost thousands of pounds and man hours due to the aggrovation between two sides the pro hunting and anti hunting groups. I have no doubt the hunts should have payed for this police presence but sadly the tax payer, myself, picked up the bill. Then we had the bill for all the cases of violence, intimidation, vandalism from both sides to pay for. Suggesting we have suddenly gained some new large cost due to the Hunting Ban is simply a ludicrous suggestion.
Once again the reason  the Act took so long to go through parliament and cost so much was delaying tactics by the pro lobby. The proposed law itself was far clearer and easy to pass than many others or could have been without the games.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 March 2011)

Explain to me,  if you will,  just how policing a *legal* activity,  and *before* the ban,  cost the taxpayer anything.

The word Policing,  would imply that there was wrong doing,  on the part of those who hunt.  As a perfectly legal activity,  perhaps you could explain to me just how complicit we were.

You are arguing from the point of view of a childish and wholly inaccurate standpoint.  

Perhaps not on this specific thread,  but it would be on others,  you've made wildly silly claims.  I know nothing of building,  or engineering,  and as I accept that,  so I listen to those who do.  The simple fact is that you argue from the viewpoint of someone who has no experience of your subject,  what so ever,  and sadly,  you wont be told.

Alec.


----------



## oakash (13 March 2011)

BF. please heed Alec Swans comments. You must be aware that morally and ethically you are disadvantaged. If you know ANYTHING about hunting, you will know that foxes are being killed by crueller methods now hunting is banned. You claim that 'blasting the fox with a shotgun' is HUMANE!!! You obviously have no idea of the state of maimed foxes when this, all too frequently, happens. Hunting is the natural way of fox and deer control. You (should) know it makes sense. Support it if you are concerned about mindless and unecessary cruelty to animals.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (13 March 2011)

*sigh*

I am arguing from the point of view of a childish and wholly inaccurate standpoint?? Me?

"The word Policing, would imply that there was wrong doing, on the part of those who hunt. As a perfectly legal activity, perhaps you could explain to me just how complicit we were."

Alec you really are just arguementative for the sake of it. Any number of events are policed. If I were to say policing of football matches costs a great deal of money would you accuse me of suggesting football is illegal or footballers are doing wrong?! Of course you wouldnt.

That policing of the hunts created cost to the taxpayer.


----------



## Fiagai (13 March 2011)

The Antis & Hunt sabs undertook violent and agressive activities against Hunts before the 2004 Hunting Act (even though the Hunts were hunting legally)

The Antis & Hunt sabs continue to be violent and agressive to those participating hunting after the 2004 Act (even though the Hunts are hunting legally) just in case they might not be!

No matter what is done / changed / legislated this bunch of eejits will never be happy because at the bottom of it they are in the main a motely collection of anarchists persuing a class war against what they perceive as the "upper classes" with a sprinkling of extreme vegans who want the countryside closed down so that it can revert to nature! 

The police have to intervene because of the continued agression of these groups interfering with Hunts who are participating in an legal activity

Unfortunately the tax payer has to pay for the antics of these misanthropes

Being nice to them and attempting to explain things truthfully really is a futile waste of time


----------



## Binkle&Flip (13 March 2011)

I really have tried to support it oakash. I have good friends who support it and know my stance. We have worked together, hunted together and talked often about it (without all of the internet bile). I simply cannot accept that killing with a pack of hounds is humane.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (13 March 2011)

In the end Fiagai it isnt the antis or hunt sabs you talk about that you need to make the effort to be nice to or explain anything. It is those members of the public and MP's who are against hunting as was pre-ban who need your effort. They need to be convinced of the humane pest control arguement from your own standpoint if there is to be any chance of repeal.
Perhaps if lucky there are one or two posters on this forum who would stand some chance to get that message across to others if they went public. The majority though......


----------



## Herne (13 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			There is no doubt the opposition to this ban did their upmost to delay it for as long as possible costing great amounts of time and money but also to include some daft ammendments and exemptions we all mock today. You cannot blame the law makers for the games played by opponents.
		
Click to expand...




Binkle&Flip said:



			The proposed law itself was far clearer and easy to pass than many others or could have been without the games.
		
Click to expand...

B&F, you really do talk some nonsense. The Hunting Act was passed in almost exactly the same form as it was first laid before the House - the form in which it was drafted with the assistance of the League Against Cruel Sports. YOUR side created the exemptions, not ours!

You are as misinformed here as you were about snares - or were you just careless with your wording again?

When are you going to admit to yourself that you really don't know what you are talking about on this subject?





Binkle&Flip said:



			Any number of events are policed. If I were to say policing of football matches costs a great deal of money would you accuse me of suggesting football is illegal or footballers are doing wrong?! Of course you wouldnt.
		
Click to expand...

You really do walk straight into these things, don't you...?

It isn't football that needs policing, it's the hooligans that disrupt it. Oh, yes, just like hunting. Thanks for that...


----------



## Alec Swan (13 March 2011)

Football is a game,  and one which attracts opposing supporters.  Those opposing supporters both support "The Game",  and neither would want to see the demise of the opposition.  Would you agree with that?

To compare the Policing of Football,  and the now introduced Policing of Hunting is a rather childish argument.

Hunting was a sport,  which before the ban,  was conducted in a legal fashion,  and generally,  still is.

Quote.  "Alec you really are just arguementative for the sake of it.  and that would be the response of someone who sees the flaws in their own contradictions.Any number of events are policed. If I were to say policing of football matches costs a great deal of money would you accuse me of suggesting football is illegal or footballers are doing wrong?! Of course you wouldnt.   I can do nothing else but refer you to my opening paragraph." Unquote.

Quote "That policing of the hunts created cost to the taxpayer." Unquote.  Yes,  your right,  but at who's instigation,  and to the benefit of who?  Reply "Foxes",  and you have no real comprehension of the countryside,  what-so-ever.

Alec.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (13 March 2011)

It isn't football that needs policing, it's the hooligans that disrupt it. Oh, yes, just like hunting. Thanks for that... 

Click to expand...

I dont disagree. It is the two sets of supporters that require the match to be policed. The only difference with hunting is one of the groups doesnt support the event. The event over its period of happening needs policing. You know full well what I am stating Herne.

The opponents to the hunting ban proposed over 400 ammendments to the bill in an attempt to delay it I believe. Only a handfull slipped through I agree. Wasnt one on the eve of the vote?


----------



## Binkle&Flip (13 March 2011)

Quote "That policing of the hunts created cost to the taxpayer." Unquote.  Yes,  your right,  but at who's instigation,  and to the benefit of who?  Reply "Foxes",  and you have no real comprehension of the countryside,  what-so-ever.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

  "Yes,  your right,"   Right, so you now agree I was right to call it policing of the hunts. To the benefit of who? All law abiding people so in my opinion mostly the hunters.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			"Yes,  your right,"   Right, so you now agree I was right to call it policing of the hunts. To the benefit of who? All law abiding people so in my opinion mostly the hunters.
		
Click to expand...

Silly posts,  such as that,  make debate a pointless exercise.

Alec.


----------



## Fiagai (13 March 2011)

OK lets keep it simple then...

Warning: This Link contains graphic content of shot foxes....

Because the alternative is this....  LINK

Comment with photo on web site




			...Thats the trouble with a .22 RF on foxes. Lots of blood indicates it wasn't an instant kill, even if the fox went down and stayed down the heart was still pumping blood out. Messy but it obviously did the job.
		
Click to expand...

and shotguns are even less efficient at killing cleanly.

Hunting with hounds always means that fox die quickly.


----------



## Fiagai (13 March 2011)

Herne said:



			B&F, you really do talk some nonsense. !

You really do walk straight into these things, don't you...?

It isn't football that needs policing, it's the hooligans that disrupt it. Oh, yes, just like hunting. Thanks for that... 

Click to expand...


Like this...


----------



## Fiagai (13 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			This column in the DM was brought to my attention today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-ready-The-FOs-march.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

As the DM is no longer accepting comments on this page, I thought I&#8217;d respond to it here.

...What DID happen is this:

A member of the hunt called the police with an allegation of aggravated trespass against the hunt saboteurs who were out on foot that day. The police attended the scene and, rather conveniently for the hunt, proceeded to arrest the only four saboteurs who hadn&#8217;t set foot outside their vehicles all day...This left the saboteurs on foot stranded in the field ...they were able to secure a lift to a warm place to wait whilst the police processed the four who had been wrongfully arrested.

.
		
Click to expand...


Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJA) defines Aggrevated Trespass as follows:  A person commits aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land with the intention of disrupting, or intimidating those taking part in, lawful activity taking place on that or adjacent land.

You dont have "to set foot outside" a vehicle to commit aggrevated trespass.  Hunts agree access with landowners in advance - this agreement does not include those not affiliated with the hunt.   They were commiting an offence under Section 68 of the criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and were not "wrongfully arrested" from the facts provided


----------



## Serenity087 (14 March 2011)

B&F

Hunting only cost money to police because your ilk got kicks out of assaulting women, children and animals.  Hunts on their own didn't need policing.

Although, the amount of times I've seen Surrey Police Officers sat on their utes with their packed lunches and binoculars cos there ain't no sabs out, so they're just going to enjoy the hunting, one does have to wonder... (There and then I wanted to be a copper... paid to watch hunting?  Get in!)

Reguardless.  The point I origionally wanted to make was this.

How does it make you feel to know the reason so many hunting cases have been thrown out of court is that the judges have ruled the evidence your chums gather is unlawful?
Usually because of attacks on hunt staff which took place before the camera was turned on?

Such kind and caring people aren't they, hunt monitors, when they have to make up incidents to prove illegal hunting...


----------



## Fiagai (14 March 2011)

I do apologise ... once gain I forgot that replies containing more than one clause can lead to confusion...so I will repeat the Main point of my previous post (#86)




			No matter what is done / changed / legislated the anti's and Hunt sabuteurs will never be happy
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Binkle&Flip (14 March 2011)

Serenity087. I can assure you my "ilk", as you put it do not get their kicks out of assaulting women, children or animals! Nor are hunt monitors my "chums"!
I am pro pest control. I am certainly not a sab thankyou!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (14 March 2011)

May i ask why you repeat the same old thing night and day- i think us hunters are aware of your views by now?Nothing else to do bar look at a computer screen?


----------



## Herne (14 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			I dont disagree. It is the two sets of supporters that require the match to be policed. The only difference with hunting is one of the groups doesnt support the event. The event over its period of happening needs policing. You know full well what I am stating Herne.
		
Click to expand...

No. Prior to the ban, the event would not have needed policing if the saboteurs had stayed at home and not tried to interfere with a legal activity going on on private land to which they were not invited. The blame for the cost of Policing hunts therefore fell *entirely* on the shoulders of the anti-hunt lobby. I trust you will concede that.

Post the ban, there should still be no need for policing hunts, because hunt supporters _should_ just ignore the silly little monitors and the monitors, if they do feel the need to play vigilante should do so solely from public rights of way and should refrain from bringing malicious false prosecutions. Unfortunately, however, four or five decades of mutual hostilty have ingrained habits and mutual hostilityinto both sides that seem unlikely to break now.





			The opponents to the hunting ban proposed over 400 ammendments to the bill in an attempt to delay it I believe. Only a handfull slipped through I agree. Wasnt one on the eve of the vote?
		
Click to expand...

You see, this is the probem with people like you, B&F - you are completely unwilling to learn from your mistakes.

You stated, nay crowed about the "fact", that it was the pro-hunting side that "_include_[d] _some daft ... exemptions we all mock today_"

You were wrong about that. Misinformed. Incorrect. Factually at error. However you wish to put it...

Just like you were about "snares being excellent killers".

However, no matter how many times we point out to you where you are completely wrong about something, you just pretend it never happened.

When are you going to start taking responsibility for your errors and admitting that you do not know as much about this as you think you do?

One of the most important rules of life is to learn from your mistakes. How can you learn from your mistakes, when you refuse ever to admit that you have made any?


----------



## Giles (14 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			OK lets keep it simple then...

Warning: This Link contains graphic content of shot foxes....

Because the alternative is this....  LINK

Comment with photo on web site



and shotguns are even less efficient at killing cleanly.

Hunting with hounds always means that fox die quickly.
		
Click to expand...

Whether it is a clean kill largely depends on where the fox is hit.  People often talk about a 'head' shot however actually head shots can merely wound.  I shall drag out a photo of a hind shot through the head with a rifle and found and dispatched  by the staghounds several days later.

Foxes are often lamped at night and the only target to shoot at is a pair of eyes.

One of the most interesting findings of research into wounding rates in shot foxes in common conditions was that the ratio between wounding and fatal shots was approximately the same for expert and inexpert marksmen.  The difference was that the expert marksmen both killed AND wounded more foxes.

IMO lamping foxes without dogs to follow up and either locate or dispatch any wounded animals that escape is wrong.


----------



## farmergirly (14 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			Alec, not only did the police move the vehicles to Ross police station, they also gave the four arrested saboteurs a lift from Hereford police station to Ross to recover the vehicles upon their release.

I have to admit, these acts of benevolence are surprising but if you think I am bluffing, why don't you call my bluff? Call Sgt Glover, I implore you, then come back here and tell everyone what he said.
		
Click to expand...

Why are you wasting police resources? There was nothing for you to see that day. Everything was being done legally and correctly. The only reason police come to the hunts and cost the tax payer money is because people like you turn up ,are ill informed and cause trouble.


----------



## Herne (14 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			I really have tried to support it oakash. I have good friends who support it and know my stance. We have worked together, hunted together and talked often about it (without all of the internet bile). I simply cannot accept that killing with a pack of hounds is humane.
		
Click to expand...

I find that statement very hard to beleive.

If you had really "tried" to understand the pro-hunting argument, if you had really talked it over ratioanlly with pro-hunting friends, then you would be able to have a sensible discussion about the relative adverse welfare implications of snaring versus hunting with me rather than ducking the issue.

The question is not whether hunting with hounds in isolation is humane. 

If you accept the need to control foxes, as you say you do, the question is which methods of fox control are better to use under which circumstances - and in order to make that call, you need to understand the pros and cons of both - which is something that you have not demonstrated that you do.


----------



## Giles (14 March 2011)

exactly Herne and putting aside the arguments about pack hunting for a minute there is little doubt that hunting with dogs can be an appropriate means.  A good example is fnding and flushing animals in undergrowth or taking out wounded animals.

What we need is sensible legislation that targets animal welfare.  This legislation would first require their to be a need for control and secondly would require the means used not to involve undue suffering.

Any means of control that involves undue suffering to wild animals should be illegal.

This is the approach that is supported by the Countryside Alliance and opposed by LACS who actually oppose making causing undue suffering to wildlife per se illegal.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (14 March 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			May i ask why you repeat the same old thing night and day- i think us hunters are aware of your views by now?Nothing else to do bar look at a computer screen?
		
Click to expand...

I dont repeat it night and day for heavens sake. It was obvious that the poster I replied to ( not you!), was unaware of my stance or wouldnt have posted the following........"Hunting only cost money to police because your ilk got kicks out of assaulting women, children and animals. Hunts on their own didn't need policing."

Or did you miss the post I was replying to? 

I enjoy looking at my computer screen when I have a break for coffee. It is nice to sit down occasionaly with a biccie to dunk and some other peoples posts are interesting.


----------



## EAST KENT (14 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			OK lets keep it simple then...

Warning: This Link contains graphic content of shot foxes....

Because the alternative is this....  LINK

Comment with photo on web site



and shotguns are even less efficient at killing cleanly.

Hunting with hounds always means that fox die quickly.
		
Click to expand...

Urgh,that is horrifying, how long before those poor foxes actually died? Hardly instant and humane in those cases was it?


----------



## Giles (14 March 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			Urgh,that is horrifying, how long before those poor foxes actually died? Hardly instant and humane in those cases was it?

Click to expand...

one of the worst I have seen

http://www.skyshot.co.uk/client/gap_bwm/phrifle.php


----------



## suestowford (14 March 2011)

I found a fox that looked like that hind, hiding behind our dungheap. Half its face was shot away. It was still alive.
It was a horrible horrible find and judging by the state of the animal, the poor thing had been suffering for several days.


----------



## Giles (14 March 2011)

suestowford said:



			I found a fox that looked like that hind, hiding behind our dungheap. Half its face was shot away. It was still alive.
It was a horrible horrible find and judging by the state of the animal, the poor thing had been suffering for several days.
		
Click to expand...

yeap headshots do not always kill straight away by any means and being shot in the gut is incredibly painful going by what soldiers say.  The surest chance of an instant kill is heart and lungs I believe.

I hope you killed the fox asap.  Of course dogs are far far better than people at finding injured animals.


----------



## Raynard (14 March 2011)

Wow, eleven pages. I have stirred up a hornets' nest, haven't I?

Just took a peek to see how things are going in here. Still don't really have the time right now to chat with you folks, but rest assured, you will all be answered in good time.


----------



## Fiagai (14 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			Wow, eleven pages. I have stirred up a hornets' nest, haven't I?.
		
Click to expand...

As I supsected just another Troll....

While your at it - please answer this post before we take this any further...




			Originally Posted by Raynard  
This column in the DM was brought to my attention today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml
As the DM is no longer accepting comments on this page, I thought I&#8217;d respond to it here...
		
Click to expand...

Apologies to going back to the start of the discussion , however I do have to ask the question...*Why*?

That is -Why did you wish to respond to it here?


----------



## Tinkerbee (14 March 2011)

Oh my. You expected the Daily Mail to be accurate?


----------



## VoR (14 March 2011)

Raynard said:



			Here are the links I promised you, VoR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YccRUc2SDBs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJneRSgJcxI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJH...uery=fox+hunting+violence&aq=f&has_verified=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABzNXIfbeb4&feature=related

I haven't even scratched the surface yet. There are so many videos of a similar ilk. Each one of these videos trumps your 'sabs walking down a country road' effort.

Anyway, as much as I love sparring with you folks, I have things to do today. I will be back to address all comments as soon as is convenient.

Toodle pip!
		
Click to expand...

Once again, I have not said that the pro hunting community is always 'whiter-than-white', you however, seem incapable of such open and honest communication. I dare say on the web there are many examples of intimidation by sabs in the same vein as those you have links to. You appear to have completely missed the point of my original post, which was the question why, if there is no intent to provoke and intimidate do they dress so?
Thanks for the 'sparring' as you put it, but in 'sparring' both sides need to accept a few blows and give a few, I've given and taken some, but in the light of your inability to accept that sabs ever act inappropriately you show yourself to be lacking in the basic intelligence to hold a balanced debate so I bid you fairwell I'm going to find someone who is able to have a sensible and balanced 'sparring' session.


----------



## Fiagai (15 March 2011)

Herne said:



			...You see, this is the probem with people like you, B&F - you are completely unwilling to learn from your mistakes...You were wrong about that. Misinformed. Incorrect. Factually at error...However, no matter how many times we point out to you where you are completely wrong about something, you just pretend it never happened...When are you going to start taking responsibility for your errors and admitting that you do not know as much about this as you think you do?  One of the most important rules of life is to learn from your mistakes. How can you learn from your mistakes, when you refuse ever to admit that you have made any?
		
Click to expand...


Herne -  Pointing out inaccuracies in a polite and informative way and not rising to anything else in the hope that they might get bored and move on is not always possible is it?  Personally I dont bother anymore....


----------



## Herne (16 March 2011)

Fiagai, dear heart, my message was not impolite and it was also informative.

Furthermore, it sticks to the subject - the errors that have been made. When you are pointing out that a poster has been at error on a number of occasions, it is not "abusive" or irrelevant to point out that they have been at error on a number of occasions, nor that they do not seem to be leaning from these errors.

You will observe that I only point out that the claims made were wrong. I do not accuse him/her of deliberately lying or descend into other abuse.

Nor do I waste everybody's time with endless repetitive comments about rabbits, trolls or other irrelevancies - which simply serve to divert the reader&#8217;s attention away from the paucity of my opponent&#8217;s knowledge.

It is also, perhaps, interesting to observe how much editing of my message you felt you had to do to try and make it a bit more &#8220;ranty-looking&#8221; in order to play your little tit-for-tat game.

One might also take a leaf from your own book and enquire _why_ you felt the need to do this here? After all, my posting about the best way to deal with trolls (in another thread) that you paraphrase here was in response to a direct request from you for suggestions. What is your excuse&#8230;?


----------



## Fiagai (16 March 2011)

Herne - No offence meant.  You have pointed out well the "errors" encountered.  There is no point in being devisive.  The fact that this has to be repeated again and again, is as you pointed out necessary and not abusive either.  I replied because I have covered this ground previously and know from experience it really is a futile exercise.  I like to call a spade a spade and not beat around the bush.  The inacurracies of the posts is open for all to see.  Even your last post was showing the pure exasperation of this process.  The term "rabbits" is simply a take on the posters handle - look it up yourself on google.  There is really no need to get het up about this.  The poster has been labelled a "troll" by myself and others and it is useful for other posters to be aware of the fact.  The "editing" of your reply btw is the correct way to post comments that are commented on relevent sections - you will see it much used in research etc. So no intention of making it "ranty".    I hadn't replied to your original post as I had missed it and then replied to do so. The underlying point here is that no matter how much you explain, explain and explain again you end up having to say the same thing again, again and again as you also have pointed out.


----------



## EAST KENT (16 March 2011)

Tinkerbee said:



			Oh my. You expected the Daily Mail to be accurate? 

Click to expand...

Of course not,but it is so entertaining,every day is April Fool`s Day!


----------



## Amymay (16 March 2011)

the hunt saboteurs, whose attentions were focused on the South Herefordshire hunt on the 15th January
		
Click to expand...

For what purpose exactly


----------



## Herne (17 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Even your last post was showing the pure exasperation of this process.
		
Click to expand...

Far from it. What you mistake for exasperation is, in fact, glee. (Note to self: Make more use of emoticons&#8230 Being able to point out to these people where they are wrong, with proof, is what it is all about!

As is discussed in the &#8220;Miles Cooper&#8221; thread, the way to overcome these people is to consistently confront them with the lack of consistency in their own arguments, not in the brilliance of our own. The reason why so many high-ranking members of the anti-fraternity fall by the wayside is because their positions force them to look deeper than the propaganda and they see the underlying faults and weaknesses in their own case.

We don&#8217;t persuade them by force that we are right, we help them come to realise for themselves that they are wrong. 

I can quite understand why, if your attempts to argue the case achieve the results that you describe, you become frustrated and want to concede that you are unable to achieve anything positive. Personally, however, I find that my efforts usually do eventually achieve the results that I am aiming for, so I find the experience to be quite rewarding and even enjoyable.




			The term "rabbits" is simply a take on the posters handle - look it up yourself on google.
		
Click to expand...

Or I could save myself the trouble and just read the post elsewhere on here where you have already pointed out the reference. Oh, I already did&#8230;

My point about your rabbit references was merely that the constant repetition thereof was getting a bit stale &#8211; but, more to the point, it interferes with the flow of the thread to the third party reader, who, I am sure you would concur, we would want to come away with the impression that the anti side lost the argument, rather than that the pro side was rather rude and boring.




			The "editing" of your reply btw is the correct way to post comments that are commented on relevent sections - you will see it much used in research etc.
		
Click to expand...

I have given some thought to how to respond to that little claim, and, after consideration, the most appropriate comment seems to be: Eh?




			There is really no need to get het up about this.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed not. I&#8217;m having fun. I am, I might observe, the one responding to your interjections, not the other way around&#8230;




			The poster has been labelled a "troll" by myself and others and it is useful for other posters to be aware of the fact.
		
Click to expand...

Golly! A fact! I was not aware that you were an official OffTroll Inspector. And there was I naively thinking that we could all make up our own minds about such things. Tut.

Incidentally, when thinking about the conventions of trollish behaviour on the internet, you might want to give some consideration to Godwin&#8217;s Law&#8230;


----------



## Fiagai (17 March 2011)

Herne - I will repeat that there is no reason to be devisive. Maybe we will have to agree to have different opinions on how to handle this type of online behaviour.  Facts can be proved or disproved as needs be but It is preferable to respect a persons opinions whilst holding your own.  I did not say your approach is wrong, just that I observed in your last post that you had got to the point where you stated there it was futile to repeat arguements where the end result was always the same.




			Far from it. What you mistake for exasperation is, in fact, glee. (Note to self: Make more use of emoticons&#8230 Being able to point out to these people where they are wrong, with proof, is what it is all about!
		
Click to expand...

No the post definitly came across as "exasperation".  Maybe BF can lead the way in the use of emoticons...




			As is discussed in the &#8220;Miles Cooper&#8221; thread, the way to overcome these people is to consistently confront them with the lack of consistency in their own arguments, not in the brilliance of our own. The reason why so many high-ranking members of the anti-fraternity fall by the wayside is because their positions force them to look deeper than the propaganda and they see the underlying faults and weaknesses in their own case.We don&#8217;t persuade them by force that we are right, we help them come to realise for themselves that they are wrong.
		
Click to expand...

This argument is fine as long as the posters purpose is  putting together  consistant arguements as opposed to posting repeated contradictory statements.  As brillant as your own arguements may be, it as you previously stated  "no matter how many times we point out to you where you are completely wrong about something, you just pretend it never happened." 




			I can quite understand why, if your attempts to argue the case achieve the results that you describe, you become frustrated and want to concede that you are unable to achieve anything positive. Personally, however, I find that my efforts usually do eventually achieve the results that I am aiming for, so I find the experience to be quite rewarding and even enjoyable.
		
Click to expand...

Again as s you said "no matter how many times we point out to you where you are completely wrong about something, you just pretend it never happened."   It is not fustration here - its is the realisation that the posting of what could be termed "white noise" has other purposes than rational arguement




			Or I could save myself the trouble and just read the post elsewhere on here where you have already pointed out the reference. Oh, I already did&#8230;
My point about your rabbit references was merely that the constant repetition thereof was getting a bit stale &#8211; but, more to the point, it interferes with the flow of the thread to the third party reader, who, I am sure you would concur, we would want to come away with the impression that the anti side lost the argument, rather than that the pro side was rather rude and boring.
		
Click to expand...

Well done then for spoting that, so you will see that this term has become well used and not used just by myself.  Moreover a little bit of humour always helps for those that can appreciate it.




			I have given some thought to how to respond to that little claim, and, after consideration, the most appropriate comment seems to be: Eh?
		
Click to expand...

This is standard usage when quoting large sections of text.




			Indeed not. I&#8217;m having fun. I am, I might observe, the one responding to your interjections, not the other way around&#8230;
		
Click to expand...

So you do understand humour - good.




			Golly! A fact! I was not aware that you were an official OffTroll Inspector. And there was I naively thinking that we could all make up our own minds about such things. Tut.
		
Click to expand...

So wherin lies the problem then?  Please do feel free to make up your own mind but do not deny others the same.




			..Incidentally, when thinking about the conventions of trollish behaviour on the internet, you might want to give some consideration to  Godwin&#8217;s Law
		
Click to expand...

Unfortuantely like bacteria we will always have trolls ... at least National Socilaism as an idealogy is dead.

ciao


----------



## Herne (17 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			just that I observed in your last post that you had got to the point where you stated there it was futile to repeat arguements where the end result was always the same.
		
Click to expand...

No, You are the one who appears to have decide that it is futile, not me.

Pointing out to the opponent  again and again if necessary  how many times they have made errors without acknowledging them is part of the process of making them  eventually  realise how poor their arguments are.

Its a process that is not aided by other people taking the conversation off on tangents.




			This argument is fine as long as the posters purpose is  putting together  consistant arguements as opposed to posting repeated contradictory statements.
		
Click to expand...

That is the nature of the beast  its something we have to deal with.

Look at it this way  you shouldnt expect them to be able to argue clearly, concisely and logically like we can, because they do not benefit from the advantage that we do of being right.

It is illogical to expect them to be logical when they are trying to defend the illogical.





			Moreover a little bit of humour always helps for those that can appreciate it.
		
Click to expand...

Quite agree. But the relevant word is little. Crack a funny, smile at it and move on. Dont beat us all around the head with it forever. 







Herne said:





Fiagai said:



			The "editing" of your reply btw is the correct way to post comments that are commented on relevent sections - you will see it much used in research etc.
		
Click to expand...

I have given some thought to how to respond to that little claim, and, after consideration, the most appropriate comment seems to be: Eh?
		
Click to expand...

This is standard usage when quoting large sections of text.
		
Click to expand...

Im sorry, but this is drivel. You cannot excuse selective editing by claiming that you are following some nebulous standard procedure. No editing protocol gives you carte blanche to cut out anything that doesnt suit your purpose.


----------



## Giles (17 March 2011)

This is a forum about hunting which is a controversial subject so it is inevitable that people will seek to depict those that differ from them as trolls.  I don't find such an approach especially constructive.


----------



## Fiagai (17 March 2011)

Herne said:



			No, You are the one who appears to have decide that it is futile, not me.
		
Click to expand...

This WAS your statement from the post - 
"no matter how many times we point out to you where you are completely wrong about something, you just pretend it never happened." This is the impression taken from what uou said.




			Pointing out to the opponent &#8211; again and again if necessary &#8211; how many times they have made errors without acknowledging them is part of the process of making them &#8211; eventually &#8211; realise how poor their arguments are.  It&#8217;s a process that is not aided by other people taking the conversation off on tangents.
		
Click to expand...

Never said otherwise.




			That is the nature of the beast &#8211; it&#8217;s something we have to deal with.
Look at it this way &#8211; you shouldn&#8217;t expect them to be able to argue clearly, concisely and logically like we can, because they do not benefit from the advantage that we do of being right.
It is illogical to expect them to be logical when they are trying to defend the illogical.
		
Click to expand...

Fine




			Quite agree. But the relevant word is &#8220;little&#8221;. Crack a funny, smile at it and move on. Don&#8217;t beat us all around the head with it forever.
		
Click to expand...

That was the idea before you made it a repeating issue..




			I&#8217;m sorry, but this is drivel. You cannot excuse selective editing by claiming that you are following some nebulous &#8220;standard procedure&#8221;. No editing protocol gives you carte blanche to cut out anything that doesn&#8217;t suit your purpose.
		
Click to expand...

You have used this process yourself - check your own posts.  Look it up - it is standard practice. I posted the parts that I commented on.  Those that were not commented on, I left out.  End of story.  Dont make a big issue of it.


----------



## Herne (17 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			This WAS your statement from the post - 
"no matter how many times we point out to you where you are completely wrong about something, you just pretend it never happened." This is the impression taken from what uou said.
		
Click to expand...

An impression that you seem to be determined to cling on to, no matter how many times I explain to you that it is incorrect.

Just because I had the temerity to disagree with you on how best to deal with anti-hunt posters in another thread, you leap in here determined to try to get retaliation in the mistaken belief that I was contradicting myself.

I have explained to you three times now what I was doing and why you have misinterpreted what I wrote, but still you seem determined to tell me that you know better than I do what I meant. Indeed, your constant contradiction of my explanations could be construed as tantamount to accusing me of lying about it.

What extraordinary behaviour 

However, I do not consider the attempt to get you to understand your error to be futile, nor am I exasperated, so I shall carry on reiterating the point until I can find a phraseology that gets through the comprehension barrier. 





			You have used this process yourself - check your own posts.  Look it up - it is standard practice. I posted the parts that I commented on.  Those that were not commented on, I left out.  End of story.  Dont make a big issue of it.
		
Click to expand...

And I merely pointed out the fact that you had to edit the message very selectively to try to make it fit your little point better. Exposing selective editing when it occurs is also "standard practice" - I am surprised that you seem to feel that you are entitled to some sort of immunity.


----------



## JanetGeorge (18 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Herne - I will repeat that there is no reason to be devisive. Maybe we will have to agree to have different opinions on how to handle this type of online behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

Fiagai - I would suggest you follow your own advice!


----------



## Fiagai (18 March 2011)

Herne said:



			An impression that you seem to be determined to cling on to, no matter how many times I explain to you that it is incorrect.
Just because I had the temerity to disagree with you on how best to deal with anti-hunt posters in another thread, you leap in here determined to try to get retaliation in the mistaken belief that I was contradicting myself.
		
Click to expand...

Dear Herne I already stated that we will have to agree to have different opinions on how to handle this type of online behaviour.  You have ignored this fact and so obviously do not share this sentiment on respecting opinion.  That is a sad thing indeed.  My thanks to JG for allowing me to reiterate this point.




			I have explained to you three times now what I was doing and why you have misinterpreted what I wrote, but still you seem determined to tell me that you know better than I do what I meant. Indeed, your constant contradiction of my explanations could be construed as tantamount to accusing me of lying about it. What extraordinary behaviour&#8230; 
However, I do not consider the attempt to get you to understand your error to be futile, nor am I exasperated, so I shall carry on reiterating the point until I can find a phraseology that gets through the comprehension barrier.
		
Click to expand...

You are of course free to argue whatever you wish - but I choose to restate my understanding and the impression of your post.  Denying this to make some vague point does not serve to further the discussion.




			And I merely pointed out the fact that you had to edit the message very selectively to try to make it fit your little point better. Exposing selective editing when it occurs is also "standard practice" - I am surprised that you seem to feel that you are entitled to some sort of immunity.
		
Click to expand...

By standard practice I have meant that it is used professionally.  I have already explained that I excluded those parts I did not comment on.  Ignoring this and taking the stance that you are always right does not give you the moral high ground.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (18 March 2011)

127 posts,are you all any nearer to any form of agreement,amazing as you are all pro hunting proper bar 1, very sad really?


----------



## Binkle&Flip (18 March 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			127 posts,are you all any nearer to any form of agreement,amazing as you are all pro hunting proper bar 1, very sad really?
		
Click to expand...

Morning rosiefronfelen. Can I just correct you as we are all pro hunting on this thread, all pro pest control myself included. The only reason you or anybody else suggest I am not is due to our support for different methods of culling. It is dishonest of you to suggest I am in some way anti hunting.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (18 March 2011)

did i NAME you, dont get above yourself, and i do believe i wrote hunting proper which you dont believe in, so dont say i am dishonest.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (18 March 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			did i NAME you, dont get above yourself, and i do believe i wrote hunting proper which you dont believe in, so dont say i am dishonest.
		
Click to expand...

Then you did attempt to NAME/separate me by using the strange term 'proper hunting', so I am not getting above myself obviously.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (18 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			Then you did attempt to NAME/separate me by using the strange term 'proper hunting', so I am not getting above myself obviously.
		
Click to expand...

my dear girl, there is nothing obvious with you-hunting proper is nothing strange to hunters, it refers to hunting before the ban when foxes could be culled in the proper manner, so with that i wish to have no more correspondence from you and wish to be left alone, if you do the reply will not be forthcoming.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (18 March 2011)

Sorry, I now understand that you meant what is now known as illegal hunting.


----------



## Fiagai (18 March 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			127 posts,are you all any nearer to any form of agreement,amazing as you are all pro hunting proper bar 1, very sad really?
		
Click to expand...

Ahhhh - proper hunting.  When hunting made sense! 
Rf -  I'm afraid there will always be those who will never know what this is because they have never experienced proper hunting first hand.  I pity them tbh.


----------



## Herne (19 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Ignoring this and taking the stance that you are always right does not give you the moral high ground.
		
Click to expand...

The irony of this coming from some one who has now tried on four occasions to claim that he knows better than I what I meant when I wrote something despite having it explained to him at length does not escape me




			By standard practice I have meant that it is used professionally.  I have already explained that I excluded those parts I did not comment on.
		
Click to expand...

If you were a hound, you would be what is referred to a babbler. To be blunt, you are simply talking nonsense.

If you knew anything about editing, which is looking less and less likely, you would be aware that *content* is only half of the equation. The other half is *context*  and both can be adversely affected by careless (or mischievous) editing.

If you were arguing about a point of fact, then simply editing the content to show the relevant section(s) (as you describe) would probably be appropriate.

However, you are not. You are arguing about the meaning and intent behind a whole message, by referring to, and inferring from, certain parts of that message. In such a case context is equally as important as content. 

How do the words quoted relate to the words not quoted; how were they spaced; what proportion of the whole did they form? All of these are relevant in deciphering intent.

If you are going to try to claim that context has no relevance to editing protocols, then frankly you are just being silly.


So let us review your contribution here so far:
First you hijack this thread in order to continue an argument going on in another thread (when you could perfectly easily have cut and pasted the relevant message into that thread, where it would have been more relevant); 

then you refuse on four occasions to accept a perfectly reasonable explanation from the author of a message of what he was trying to express when he wrote a message  claiming that you know better. What are you claiming to be? Psychic?

 then you make ridiculously grandiose statements about something that you actually seem to know little about. I mean, trying to compare doing a little bit of cutting and pasting on a chat board with the rigorous editing protocols required in the fields of Research or Professional Editing? Honestly! Currently your editorial expertise is looking about on a par with Binkle & Flips culling expertise.

In fact, all in all, you seem to be behaving very much like the Troll that you constantly make so much fuss about. Theres a certain amount of irony in there, too


It does make me wonder, however, what with the delusions of grandeur (The poster has been labelled a troll by myself); the constant invitations for people to look things up on Google (_Are you so stupid you dont even know that  well, its too trivial for me to bother to explain..._  thus avoiding the embarrassment of actually having to try to explain); the repetitions of little jokes ad tedium; the obsession with defining people as trolls etc, etc, etc  just as a matter of interest, how old are you?


----------



## Fiagai (19 March 2011)

Herne.  You have used insult, misdirection and crass bluntness to try and win what you see obviously as an argument and not a discussion. I already explained where and why I replied to you, accept it or dont it makes no matter.  If you know nothing about quoting and the use of punctuation in quoting relevant content then please dont lecture me about this, this methodology is used widely.  

If readers are not to infer a meaning from what is written, then what is the point of writting anything, if we first must apply to the writer always for confirmation?  

You have repeatedly had goes at me for using the term "troll" in relation to one poster while throwing it around yourself.  Yes I have used the term troll and I believe rightly so considering what was posted.  If you wish to run a campaign of talking nicely to these individual in some hope of bringing them to understanding, thats fine but dont bash others into beliving that this is the only way.

Please note the use of such terms as "silly" "babbler" "Psyshic" "delusions of grandeur" "how old are you" etc makes a mockery of any serious reply.

I have set out my impressions honestly and at lenght previously and if you cant accept that then I will disist in any further discussion with you as you refuse to accept any discourse on these misappropriated points.

Goodnight.

_____________________________________________________________



Herne said:



			The irony of this coming from some one who has now tried on four occasions to claim that he knows better than I what I meant when I wrote something despite having it explained to him at length does not escape me
If you were a hound, you would be what is referred to a babbler. To be blunt, you are simply talking nonsense.
If you knew anything about editing, which is looking less and less likely, you would be aware that *content* is only half of the equation. The other half is *context*  and both can be adversely affected by careless (or mischievous) editing.
If you were arguing about a point of fact, then simply editing the content to show the relevant section(s) (as you describe) would probably be appropriate.
However, you are not. You are arguing about the meaning and intent behind a whole message, by referring to, and inferring from, certain parts of that message. In such a case context is equally as important as content. 
How do the words quoted relate to the words not quoted; how were they spaced; what proportion of the whole did they form? All of these are relevant in deciphering intent.
If you are going to try to claim that context has no relevance to editing protocols, then frankly you are just being silly
So let us review your contribution here so far:
First you hijack this thread in order to continue an argument going on in another thread (when you could perfectly easily have cut and pasted the relevant message into that thread, where it would have been more relevant); 
then you refuse on four occasions to accept a perfectly reasonable explanation from the author of a message of what he was trying to express when he wrote a message  claiming that you know better. What are you claiming to be? Psychic?

 then you make ridiculously grandiose statements about something that you actually seem to know little about. I mean, trying to compare doing a little bit of cutting and pasting on a chat board with the rigorous editing protocols required in the fields of Research or Professional Editing? Honestly! Currently your editorial expertise is looking about on a par with Binkle & Flips culling expertise.
In fact, all in all, you seem to be behaving very much like the Troll that you constantly make so much fuss about. Theres a certain amount of irony in there, too
It does make me wonder, however, what with the delusions of grandeur (The poster has been labelled a troll by myself); the constant invitations for people to look things up on Google (_Are you so stupid you dont even know that  well, its too trivial for me to bother to explain..._  thus avoiding the embarrassment of actually having to try to explain); the repetitions of little jokes ad tedium; the obsession with defining people as trolls etc, etc, etc  just as a matter of interest, how old are you?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Fiagai (20 March 2011)

I hope TFC wont mind me referencing their post from another thread in relation in how to use abbreviated Quoting....



Tiny Fluffy Coblet said:



			Binkle&Flip

Please note that when quoting someone one can delete parts of a long post to the specific bits one wishes to reply to, 

E.g. The field are not "customers" because Hunts are not "businesses"..... Buying a day's hunting is not the same thing as buying a cinema ticket...... members of the field are not paying a full, commerical price that entitles them to "customer service" - they are enjoying the privilege of being able to do something because a lot of other people have put in the work to enable them to take advantage of it.


My response to Herne would be to agree and comment that Hunts are clubs not businesses.

Had I copied in the entire preceeding post then it would have taken up unnecessary space especialy for a one line response and would have confused exactly which part of the post i was responding to - the technique is particuarly useful when replying to questions...
		
Click to expand...

Thanks


----------



## Herne (20 March 2011)

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Ok, reductio ad absurdam



Fiagai said:



			Herne.  You win  I  know nothing about quoting and the use of punctuation in quoting relevant content  You have repeatedly had goes at me for using the term "troll"   and I believe rightly so considering what was posted.
		
Click to expand...

As you see, dear heart, context is all.

Good morning.


----------



## EAST KENT (20 March 2011)

And all because the delicious Daily Mail was a tad inaccurate!!!


----------



## Fiagai (20 March 2011)

Lol  EK - inaccuracies are dangerous things!
I think somebody obviously missed this.....



Fiagai said:



			I hope TFC wont mind me referencing their post from another thread in relation in how to use abbreviated Quoting....

Quote:



			Originally Posted by Tiny Fluffy Coblet  
Binkle&Flip

*Please note that when quoting someone one can delete parts of a long post to the specific bits one wishes to reply to*, 

E.g. The field are not "customers" because Hunts are not "businesses"..... Buying a day's hunting is not the same thing as buying a cinema ticket...... members of the field are not paying a full, commerical price that entitles them to "customer service" - they are enjoying the privilege of being able to do something because a lot of other people have put in the work to enable them to take advantage of it.


My response to Herne would be to agree and comment that Hunts are clubs not businesses.

*Had I copied in the entire preceeding post then it would have taken up unnecessary space especialy for a one line response and would have confused exactly which part of the post i was responding to *- the technique is particuarly useful when replying to questions...
		
Click to expand...

Thanks
		
Click to expand...

crbb anymore.....


----------



## Herne (20 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Lol  EK - inaccuracies are dangerous things!
I think somebody obviously missed this.....
		
Click to expand...

Didn't miss it. It just didn't add anything new to the conversation. You have already said all of that umpteen times, and I haven't disputed any of it.

Our disagreement has been about how abbreviated quoting can be *mis-used* as well as used - and my example above demosntrates that little point quite conclusively.




			crbb anymore.....
		
Click to expand...

What a surprise. How convenient for you...


----------



## Fiagai (20 March 2011)

*yawns*........


----------



## Herne (20 March 2011)

So, now that the irrelevancy has been put to bed, Binkle & Flip: back atcha...



Herne said:






			Originally Posted by Binkle&Flip  
I really have tried to support it oakash. I have good friends who support it and know my stance. We have worked together, hunted together and talked often about it (without all of the internet bile). I simply cannot accept that killing with a pack of hounds is humane.
		
Click to expand...

I find that statement very hard to beleive.

If you had really "tried" to understand the pro-hunting argument, if you had really talked it over rationally with pro-hunting friends, then you would be able to have a sensible discussion about the relative adverse welfare implications of snaring versus hunting with me rather than ducking the issue.

The question is not whether hunting with hounds in isolation is humane. 

If you accept the need to control foxes, as you say you do, the question is which methods of fox control are better to use under which circumstances - and in order to make that call, you need to understand the pros and cons of both - which is something that you have not demonstrated that you do.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Fiagai (20 March 2011)

Herne quoting Herne quoting BIF - how apt  ....

Anyone seen heard from Raynard recently? - theres a number waiting for some answers you know.



Raynard said:



			.....Just took a peek to see how things are going in here. Still don't really have the time right now to chat with you folks, but rest assured, you will all be answered in good time.
		
Click to expand...

still waiting....


----------



## VoR (21 March 2011)

As far as Raynard is concerned don't really care whether he appears again or not given that, unlike some, he will not even accept that his anti-hunt friends ever cause a modicum of the problems that he then provides links to.
It's all a bit media-like, edit a bit of video, an interview or newspaper text and hey presto, you 'facts' are supported by 'hard-evidence'...........never mind about the truth!
Lots are guilty of this and until we accept our faults as well as our strengths we will forever go round in circles.


----------



## Fiagai (21 March 2011)

VoR said:



			As far as Raynard is concerned don't really care whether he appears again or not given that, unlike some, he will not even accept that his anti-hunt friends ever cause a modicum of the problems that he then provides links to...
		
Click to expand...

Still Raynards (sic) original post requires at least some explanation as to why
(s)he persumed to make these comments here just because the Daily mail were no longer accepting comments?  




			Originally Posted by Raynard 
This column in the DM was brought to my attention today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml  As the DM is no longer accepting comments on this page, I thought Id respond to it here.
		
Click to expand...

It would appear Raynard and others have gone to ground or perhaps just resting up before another little foray...


----------



## Aesculus (21 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			It would appear Raynard and others have gone to ground or perhaps just resting up before another little foray...
		
Click to expand...

Or is that with the arrests in Glos over the weekend reported here http://bailyshuntingdirectory.com/story-498_More-Hunting-Act-Cases-Dropped that Raynard is preoccupied?


----------

