# Meynell Hunt prosecuted



## Boxers (9 August 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-19187798


Just caught a news item and I think they said the two have today been prosecuted for hunting with dogs.  The link I have given just says that they are going to Court and doesn't give the outcome, but I'm sure that's what I heard on the news.


----------



## happyhunter123 (9 August 2012)

Have they been prosecuted? Do we know for sure yet? I do hope not . Haven't heard much about this case, only found out about it the other day.


----------



## Judgemental (10 August 2012)

From the link:

_Two hunt monitors filmed members of the Meynell and South Staffordshire Hunt at Sutton on the Hill, Derbyshire, last October.

Fox expert Professor Stephen Harris told the court that, on the video, the excited squeals of fox hounds could be heard inside the wood.

He said: "That sound is, they've found a fox, it's fresh, they're on top of it."_

To suggest a noise in a covert by a hound or hounds - any noise is evidence of hounds hunting a live fox is about as thin as it gets.

Hounds make all sorts of noises for all sorts of reasons.

A fox or indeed anything could have passed through the covert crossing the trail just before the trail was laid through the wood. 

Similarly hounds would speak to the trail in the covert would they not

Where is the evidence as to exactly what the hounds were speaking to?

How this Professor can say: _"they've found a fox, it's fresh, they're on top of it"_ when clearly he was not there and is merely an expert witness, it the most remarkable evidential feature I have seen or heard of since the Hunting Act 2004.

How does this Professor know hounds were on top of a fox, they could have encountered anything.

Clearly the Professor is making an assumption and is being paid to make that assumption.


----------



## Judgemental (10 August 2012)

*A DAYS FOXHUNTING BY ALASTAIR JACKSON*

For a considerable number of years I have had on my office shelf, two tapes entitled A Days Foxhunting by Alastair Jackson.

The tape is fairly long and has on one side what is the most  excellent recording of hounds speaking, indeed I believe it is a recording of the Cattistock in 1984.

I can guarantee that that tape if played on say a vehicle cassette player in any covert, would 'fool' any hunt monitor and so called expert witness.

The tapes were produced under Copyright of by K.G. Engineering Ltd, of Newton Abbot, Devon.

Whether they still exist, I don't know.

Nevertheless I bet Alastair Jackson can still supply the tapes. 

Every hunt in every part of the country should have a supply of the tapes and carry them in appropriate 4 x 4s to be played in covert's and where ever suitable when so called 'Hunt Monitors' are present.

I will guarantee that no expert witness will be able to distinguish between hounds speaking to a trail, a live fox or the recording.  

Indeed a great deal of amusement can be gained from 'hunt monitor'  confusion.

I once played the tape over a loudspeaker and a considerable number of horses, became shall we say, very excited. The sound could be heard at a distance of two miles.   

From my experience this could become a very effective 'hunt monitor' deterrent and means of leading them up the 'garden path'.

*Of course there is no reason why the tape or original could not be digitally remastered for DVDs and modern in-car facilities.*


----------



## Boxers (10 August 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-19198527

They have been found guilty


----------



## WestCoast (10 August 2012)

Perhaps it might occur to them in future that the laws of the land apply to all of us. 

Judgmental - what you are suggesting is aiding and abetting a crime. If the law is obeyed by drag huting this would not be necessary. 

Forum moderator - why has this post suggesting this not been removed immediately.


----------



## Judgemental (10 August 2012)

Paulag said:



			Perhaps it might occur to them in future that the laws of the land apply to all of us. 

Judgmental - what you are suggesting is aiding and abetting a crime. If the law is obeyed by drag huting this would not be necessary. 

Forum moderator - why has this post suggesting this not been removed immediately.
		
Click to expand...

*LOL* So playing a 1984 recording of hounds hunting in a covert is aiding and abetting a crime, when the real hounds are miles away hunting a trail.

Me thinks I have touched upon an interesting ruse because it sounds Paulag if you are against hunting and you recognise, how you and your compatriots will be fooled by such tactics.     

I have not for one moment suggested any pack of hounds would be hunting illegally, perish the very thought.

I also get the impression you are familiar with the tape and know how effective it is, otherwise you would not want the post which is full of innocent suggestions removed?


----------



## combat_claire (10 August 2012)

Of course it was okay for the antis to play recordings of the Fitzwilliam Huntsman to attempt to wrest control of the pack from him, with no thought as to the welfare of the hounds. The first ever injunction against a group rather than a named individual was granted to the Fitzwilliam Hunt using an obscure tort of 'Trespass of Goods'.


----------



## Judgemental (10 August 2012)

Hello Combat, looks as if we have opened the season on this forum with an outing of an anti - Paulag

The more I hear, the more I realise just how potent such recordings are, in order to give so called Hunt Monitors the maximum 'run around'.


----------



## combat_claire (10 August 2012)

TALLY HO OVER!!! 

(Can we still holloa antis!?)


----------



## WestCoast (10 August 2012)

Judgemental said:



			Hello Combat, looks as if we have opened the season on this forum with an outing of an anti - Paulag

The more I hear, the more I realise just how potent such recordings are, in order to give so called Hunt Monitors the maximum 'run around'.

Click to expand...

Nope not a hunt monitor, but was emotionally mature enough to drag hunt rather than need to torture the wildlife for my own entertainment 30 years ago when we didn't need tapes because we weren't breaking the law. You are a complete disgrace to all horse people, giving us a bad name by thinking you are above the laws of the land. And terminally up yourself to think anyone who disagrees with you must belong to a campaigning organisation - I was simply browsing and accidentally clicked on the wrong link. Remember that those guys that suggested a riot and didn't attend got jail sentences before you suggest law breaking again.  Someone else might report you to the police rather than just report your post. 

Paula


----------



## combat_claire (10 August 2012)

In my favourite book Atticus Finch tells his children that 'You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view-until you climb into his skin and walk around in it'. 

This is something that those who fall on the anti-hunting side of the debate would do well to think about before criticising Judgemental for a flippant comment. 

I am an amateur member of hunt staff, I also regular follow with other packs - some who have been constantly targeted by self-styled hunt monitors and others who have been relatively left alone. 

The pressure that we are under to obey the auspices of this crazy law; which has serious welfare implications that the antis prefer to ignore whilst facing spurious prosecutions from so-called charities is immense. Everybody now seems to have a camera or a video recorder on their phone and legal trail hunting to the uninitiated can look very much like illegal pre-ban hunting (this is after all what we are trying to replicate). 

A favoured tactic of the monitors is to leave prosecutions until just before the time expires to bring a prosecution. Can you remember exactly what you were doing 6 months ago? I can barely say what I was doing 6 weeks ago. This makes it nigh on impossible to properly defend a case. 

Finally how Stephen Harris can claim to be able to tell the difference between hounds hunting a pre-laid trail and hounds hunting quarry is ridiculous and I hope that the Meynell will appeal.


----------



## happyhunter123 (10 August 2012)

Am I right in thinking that this is the sixth successful prosecution against a hunt (correct me if I am wrong)? I can list : Minehead Harriers, Quantock Staghounds (x2), Fernie, Crawley & Horsham, Meynell & South Staffs. Six (against five different hunts) isn't disastrous, we just don't want it growing much bigger really. After all five hunts represent just 1.8 (about) % of all packs of hounds in Britian.  Does anyone know which other hunts (excluding the Heythrop) are facing potential prosecution at the moment?


----------



## happyhunter123 (10 August 2012)

Paulag said:



			Perhaps it might occur to them in future that the laws of the land apply to all of us. 

Judgmental - what you are suggesting is aiding and abetting a crime. If the law is obeyed by drag huting this would not be necessary. 

Forum moderator - why has this post suggesting this not been removed immediately.
		
Click to expand...

The laws of the land do, of course apply to all of us. I would not suggest breaking the Hunting Act, but only because of the damage it does to the image of hunting, which therefore lessens our chances of repeal. The question is-is it ever OK to break the law? The answer is yes, sometimes, if you believe that the law is unjust. Many people believe that the Hunting Act is an unjust law. If there was a law that prevented you from doing something you loved that you believe is harmless, and you felt that the law only came about because of prejudice and ignorance, and lies being spread about it, maybe you would believe that it was morally acceptable to break it. You may not agree that the law is unjust,  but can you see it from a hunting person's point of view?


----------



## combat_claire (10 August 2012)

Very roughly there are 300 packs of hounds in the UK. If on average they go out 72 times a season (for an average 2 day a week pack) that equates to 21,600 hunting days per year. Multiply that by 7 years of the Hunting Ban equals 151,200 hunting days taken. 

6 prosecutions out of that = 0.003% of hunts found guilty breaking the law. So hysterical cries of widespread law breaking look even more stupid than they did before...


----------



## Judgemental (10 August 2012)

Paulag said:



			Nope not a hunt monitor, but was emotionally mature enough to drag hunt rather than need to torture the wildlife for my own entertainment 30 years ago when we didn't need tapes because we weren't breaking the law. You are a complete disgrace to all horse people, giving us a bad name by thinking you are above the laws of the land. And terminally up yourself to think anyone who disagrees with you must belong to a campaigning organisation - I was simply browsing and accidentally clicked on the wrong link. Remember that those guys that suggested a riot and didn't attend got jail sentences before you suggest law breaking again.  Someone else might report you to the police rather than just report your post. 

Paula
		
Click to expand...

I have never read such drivel.

So what's illegal about leading 'Hunt Monitors' a merry dance and what's illegal about sitting in one's 4 x 4 with the doors open and a tape or DVD blaring forth with a 1984 recording of a pack of hounds in full cry? Indeed from a distance it's very convincing that it might just be a real pack! Are they on a trail LOL
It could of course be used to train young entry, now there's a thought.

Upon reflection I think it is an excellent idea to mislead hunt monitors as  much as possible.


----------



## Judgemental (10 August 2012)

combat_claire said:



			Finally how Stephen Harris can claim to be able to tell the difference between hounds hunting a pre-laid trail and hounds hunting quarry is ridiculous and I hope that the Meynell will appeal.
		
Click to expand...

Or the 1984 tape of the Cattistock hounds being played in some spinny or covert by such as myself, with a flask of coffee a sandwich or two, innocently looking at the wildlife through the glasses.

Can you imagine, a bunch of hunt monitors rocking up with the local constabulary, "look officer he's sitting in his vehicle playing a tape of a live pack of hounds hunting a fox, arrest him, he has mislead us" LOL


----------



## combat_claire (10 August 2012)

Judgemental said:



			Or the 1984 tape of the Cattistock hounds being played in some spinny or covert by such as myself, with a flask of coffee a sandwich or two, looking at the wildlife through the glasses.

Click to expand...

Presumably the only discernible difference will be the cursing from you as you rewind the cassette with a pencil to save draining your battery!


----------



## happyhunter123 (10 August 2012)

combat_claire said:



			Very roughly there are 300 packs of hounds in the UK. If on average they go out 72 times a season (for an average 2 day a week pack) that equates to 21,600 hunting days per year. Multiply that by 7 years of the Hunting Ban equals 151,200 hunting days taken. 

6 prosecutions out of that = 0.003% of hunts found guilty breaking the law. So hysterical cries of widespread law breaking look even more stupid than they did before...
		
Click to expand...


Sorry I don't understand your maths here . 0.003% of hunts would equal 0.84 hunts prosecuted successfully. And it is 6. Anyway the point is, the numbers of hunts successfully prosecuted for hunting wild mammals with hounds is low compared to number of hunts. My worry is that there are more prosecutions to come, especially as the League have hired all these new 'monitors' for this coming season. It's a worry.


----------



## happyhunter123 (10 August 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUX3uaD-uUw

Here is the video they used to gain this conviction. I haven't had time to watch any of it, its rather long


----------



## Boxers (10 August 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUX3uaD-uUw

Here is the video they used to gain this conviction. I haven't had time to watch any of it, its rather long
		
Click to expand...

At about 15.20 is where a fox break out and they shout it back in.  The camamn got a bit excited and his camera wobbled like mad so goodness knows how he got the footage!

Didn't watch whole vid so there may be more.


----------



## PaulT (10 August 2012)

The pressure that we are under to obey the auspices of this crazy law; which has serious welfare implications that the antis prefer to ignore whilst facing spurious prosecutions from so-called charities is immense.
		
Click to expand...

Oh Claire, don't. You'll have me welling up if you carry on. 

Seriously, you really should get help for that victim mentality. No one forces you to devise whacky ways to try and circumvent the law. On the one hand you openly delight in playing games with the police and the courts, and on the other whinge about the difficulties of obeying the law. 

Before the Hunting Act was passed your friends were queuing up to sign a declaration that they would break any legislation which interfered with their 'right' to hunt. Since 2005 they have consistently stuck two fingers up at the law. There is a big difference between not happening to like a particular law and actively seeking ways to circumvent it (at best) or break it (at worst). The way they have gone about their activities attracts suspicion, and you really have no grounds to play the victim. *Take responsibility for, and live with the consequences of, your collective actions*.




			A favoured tactic of the monitors is to leave prosecutions until just before the time expires to bring a prosecution.
		
Click to expand...

So its the fault of monitors? Incredible, see what I mean!


----------



## combat_claire (10 August 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			Sorry I don't understand your maths here . 0.003% of hunts would equal 0.84 hunts prosecuted successfully. And it is 6. Anyway the point is, the numbers of hunts successfully prosecuted for hunting wild mammals with hounds is low compared to number of hunts. My worry is that there are more prosecutions to come, especially as the League have hired all these new 'monitors' for this coming season. It's a worry. 

Click to expand...

Sorry I meant 0.003% of hunting days have ended in prosecution. Long day and maths was never my forte...


----------



## MerrySherryRider (10 August 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-19198527

Oh dear, another hunt guilty of breaking the law. They are embarrassing, its a shame.


----------



## combat_claire (10 August 2012)

PaulT said:



			Oh Claire, don't. You'll have me welling up if you carry on. 

Seriously, you really should get help for that victim mentality. No one forces you to devise whacky ways to try and circumvent the law. On the one hand you openly delight in playing games with the police and the courts, and on the other whinge about the difficulties of obeying the law. 

Before the Hunting Act was passed your friends were queuing up to sign a declaration that they would break any legislation which interfered with their 'right' to hunt. Since 2005 they have consistently stuck two fingers up at the law. There is a big difference between not happening to like a particular law and actively seeking ways to circumvent it (at best) or break it (at worst). The way they have gone about their activities attracts suspicion, and you really have no grounds to play the victim. *Take responsibility for, and live with the consequences of, your collective actions*.



So its the fault of monitors? Incredible, see what I mean! 

Click to expand...

Not at all about circumventing the law, but obeying the law as it is written. It must have been very disappointing for the antis to wake up on the 19th February 2005 and find that contrary to expectations - not only had the hunts not disbanded en masse but were as strong, if not stronger than ever before. 

My issue is with the spurious prosecutions that are brought by the anti-hunting brigade, who hide under the mantra of a charitable status and when the prosecution is dropped expect the taxpayer to foot the bill. 

You continue to claim that there is mass law breaking, yet just 0.003% hunting days and 6 registered packs of hounds have been found guilty of any offence. Despite a vast sum of money invested in monitors. The League/RSPCA/IFAW have been forced to bolster the stats with poaching offences so it doesn't look like such a ridiculous waste of their patrons' money. 

I wish to see this law that has had no positive benefit for animal welfare and creates a great deal of pressure and stress on law abiding citizens removed from the statute book once and for all. 

One only has to look at the footage that regularly comes out of Baronsdown to realise that the anti-hunting brigade haven't got the first clue about animal welfare or wildlife management.


----------



## Boxers (10 August 2012)

horserider said:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-19198527

Oh dear, another hunt guilty of breaking the law. They are embarrassing, its a shame.
		
Click to expand...

Erm, this is the same article I already posted in here.


----------



## happyhunter123 (10 August 2012)

combat_claire said:



			Not at all about circumventing the law, but obeying the law as it is written. It must have been very disappointing for the antis to wake up on the 19th February 2005 and find that contrary to expectations - not only had the hunts not disbanded en masse but were as strong, if not stronger than ever before. 

My issue is with the spurious prosecutions that are brought by the anti-hunting brigade, who hide under the mantra of a charitable status and when the prosecution is dropped expect the taxpayer to foot the bill. 

You continue to claim that there is mass law breaking, yet just 0.003% hunting days and 6 registered packs of hounds have been found guilty of any offence. Despite a vast sum of money invested in monitors. The League/RSPCA/IFAW have been forced to bolster the stats with poaching offences so it doesn't look like such a ridiculous waste of their patrons' money. 

I wish to see this law that has had no positive benefit for animal welfare and creates a great deal of pressure and stress on law abiding citizens removed from the statute book once and for all. 

One only has to look at the footage that regularly comes out of Baronsdown to realise that the anti-hunting brigade haven't got the first clue about animal welfare or wildlife management.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly right! Not that LACS will ever tell you that just six have been prosecuted-they quote 185 or something. Then they claim that offences were committed, if not by hunts by 'people connected with hunting'. Utter nonsense,  a desperate attempt to make the Act seem like a success.  But then then League were never very good at telling the public the truth. They contradict themselves really-they accuse nearly every hunt of breaking the law, while claiming the Act is successful. Can't have it both ways, sorry.


----------



## oakash (10 August 2012)

Coming across this thread, I find the most appalling thing about it is the acceptance by the court of Prof Stephen Harriss' 'evidence'. The man is widely known to be a virulent anti-hunting spokesman - I honestly do not believe he could bring an unbiased mind to this case.
As has rightly been pointed out, people with any real concern for conservation and wildlife would HAVE to be on our side, and the attempt to repeal the Hunting Act which has been so damaging for animal welfare. Any anti-hunter with a vestige of morals should be out there campaigning alongside pro - hunters for the repeal of a wicked law.


----------



## M_G (11 August 2012)

My thoughts for what its worth: 

Any hunt caught DELIBERATLY breaking the law should be prosecuted however it should be proven without a shadow of a doubt that they SET OUT with the INTENTION of breaking the law rather than just having a nauty hound or two who go deaf once in a while. 

I am sure we all know how hard it can be to call off 1 domestic dog when they get an idea to go chase for instance a cat or squirrel, it (I imagine) will be slightly harder to successfully call back a full pack who have been bred over many hundreds of years to hunt and as animals do have minds of their own..


----------



## combat_claire (11 August 2012)

Well said MG


----------



## sonicgold (11 August 2012)

Agree with MG


----------



## Alec Swan (12 August 2012)

Boxers said:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-19198527

They have been found guilty
		
Click to expand...

Just why Greenall elected to not speak in his own defence,  is a mystery,  at the very least.  If by offering no defence,  he was found guilty,  then it would seem unlikely that an appeal will be forthcoming.

How any of the evidence offered could have been accepted,  by a Court,  is a mystery.  The rabid Harris,  a self styled expert,  offered opinions which couldn't have come from a stable or balanced mind,  and video footage where no one could be recognised,  were offered and accepted by a court.  

How anyone could have been found guilty with such a lack of sustainable evidence,  is beyond me.

Alec.


----------



## oakash (12 August 2012)

Yes: One other thing that disturbs me is that in the early part of the video, a hunt supporter at the covert- side turns and waves at the antis' camera. So the hunt KNEW the antis were skulking in the wood. And yet we are asked to believe that they then went ahead and broke the law??!! Hmm..

I have to say that I don't know enough about this particular case, but it does seem mighty strange.

Another point about the morality of law-breaking - IF it happened in this particular case, is that, as Tony Benn once pointed out, " ...all human  progress is made by people breaking absurd laws..". Food for thought indeed..or don't antis think at all?


----------



## M_G (13 August 2012)

oakash said:



			Another point about the morality of law-breaking - IF it happened in this particular case, is that, as Tony Benn once pointed out, " ...all human  progress is made by people breaking absurd laws..". Food for thought indeed..or don't antis think at all?
		
Click to expand...

and if I find it absurd to travel at 30mph through a village does this mean its fine for me to break that law?

sorry the law is the law. Hunts lost the right to hunt the old way and all the hunts I know go out of their way to make sure they are hunting WITHIN the law.

If you cant do the time dont do the crime


----------



## happyhunter123 (13 August 2012)

M_G said:



			and if I find it absurd to travel at 30mph through a village does this mean its fine for me to break that law?

sorry the law is the law. Hunts lost the right to hunt the old way and all the hunts I know go out of their way to make sure they are hunting WITHIN the law.

If you cant do the time dont do the crime
		
Click to expand...

30mph speed limits are there to prevent the deaths of pedestrians in villages! In no way could that be considered absurd or unjust. Like I said, you shouldn't break the Hunting Act (unless you really have to) because it damages the image of hunting, and, I think, the more prosecutions the less easy it is to demonstrate how awful the law is. This would lessen our chance of repeal. But there is nothing, in my view _morally_ wrong about breaking an unjust law. If following a certain religion was outlawed by a country,and people broke it and were punished because they believed that that law was unfair, and based on bigotry and prejudice, who's side would you be on? No reasonable person would be saying 'the law applies to everyone', 'these people think they're above the law' etc. Now of course, restricting religious beliefs is a *lot* more serious than restricting the method in which you kill a fox, but many still believe that it would be acceptable to break the law, not only because it is absurd (making illegal a humane method of killing the quarry species) but more importantly because it is unjust, in that the law came in to being because of prejudice, ignorance of the facts and hatred of the people who practiced it.


----------



## Starbucks (13 August 2012)

Interesting.  I hunt with these guys, I've hunted all my life (only recently with the Meynell) and it very much feels like they've layed a trail, rather than proper hunting, all the days I've been out. I'm more of a hedge hopper than a hound wacther though.

I'm in Thailand at the moment, on a little Island with lots of poorly stray dogs.  Why can't these people come and do some good here? Or even better go somewhere less fun to help the thousands of suffering animals in the rest of the world instead of picking on us!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!  It makes me very sad.


----------



## ester (13 August 2012)

M_G said:



			My thoughts for what its worth: 

Any hunt caught DELIBERATLY breaking the law should be prosecuted however it should be proven without a shadow of a doubt that they SET OUT with the INTENTION of breaking the law rather than just having a nauty hound or two who go deaf once in a while. 

I am sure we all know how hard it can be to call off 1 domestic dog when they get an idea to go chase for instance a cat or squirrel, it (I imagine) will be slightly harder to successfully call back a full pack who have been bred over many hundreds of years to hunt and as animals do have minds of their own..
		
Click to expand...

absolutely but this is certainly not the case of a hound going deaf or huntsman struggling to call hounds off

I think its certainly an interesting video to use for a conviction as it does very much relies upon the supposition of hunting (ie no hounds and fox seen in the same frame so it cannot be viewed actually taking place) 

I'm not actually sure what they could use as defence in this instance tbh.. and perhaps why they didn't.. If they weren't hunting fox why would a guy on foot be chasing one back into cover? It would rather be expected he would know the difference between fox and hound.


----------



## soggy (14 August 2012)

Judgemental said:



			I have never read such drivel.
		
Click to expand...




Judgemental said:



			Upon reflection I think it is an excellent idea to mislead hunt monitors as  much as possible.
		
Click to expand...

Judge

With you 100% on both points.
I have never heard an anti spout anything but drivel. I think its all part of their warped view of reality.

I'm all for leading HM up the proverbial garden path. The further the better IMO


----------



## Alec Swan (14 August 2012)

M_G said:



			and if I find it absurd to travel at 30mph through a village does this mean its fine for me to break that law?

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

There's a world of difference between a law which protects the lives of other humans,  and a law which attempts to steer our perceived morality,  and one which would have one section of society follow the conditions which you,  and those of your ilk would dictate.



happyhunter123 said:



			30mph speed limits are there to prevent the deaths of pedestrians in villages! In no way could that be considered absurd or unjust. Like I said, you shouldn't break the Hunting Act (unless you really have to) because it damages the image of hunting, and, I think, the more prosecutions the less easy it is to demonstrate how awful the law is. This would lessen our chance of repeal. But there is nothing, in my view _morally_ wrong about breaking an unjust law. If following a certain religion was outlawed by a country,and people broke it and were punished because they believed that that law was unfair, and based on bigotry and prejudice, who's side would you be on? No reasonable person would be saying 'the law applies to everyone', 'these people think they're above the law' etc. Now of course, restricting religious beliefs is a *lot* more serious than restricting the method in which you kill a fox, but many still believe that it would be acceptable to break the law, not only because it is absurd (making illegal a humane method of killing the quarry species) but more importantly because it is unjust, in that the law came in to being because of prejudice, ignorance of the facts and hatred of the people who practiced it.
		
Click to expand...

Good points,  and well made too.  For as long as we accept injustice,  then that injustice will continue.  Does anyone remember the fuss over "The Sunday Trading laws"?  When it became obvious that they weren't working,  then many of the larger department stores decided to get their heads together,  and as they described it,  "Test the Law".  I'd suggest that the time has come when the Hunting Law has been suitably "Tested" and found to be ineffectual and pointless.  Time for repeal.

Alec.


----------



## lagartijamick (14 August 2012)

Only a 3k fine? Hardly seems worth all the effort.

As for the footage, looks pretty clear to me what was going on.

If people break the law then they should be punished. 

Whether the law is right or wrong is another question entirely.


----------



## combat_claire (14 August 2012)

lagartijamick said:



			If people break the law then they should be punished.
		
Click to expand...

On that note I'm off to report my neighbour's grandson - he is over 14 and repeatedly fails to practise his longbow skills at weekends...


----------



## lagartijamick (14 August 2012)

combat_claire said:



			On that note I'm off to report my neighbour's grandson - he is over 14 and repeatedly fails to practise his longbow skills at weekends...
		
Click to expand...


Maybe he couldn't find a willing clergyman to supervise him.


----------



## M_G (14 August 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			30mph speed limits are there to prevent the deaths of pedestrians in villages! In no way could that be considered absurd or unjust. Like I said, you shouldn't break the Hunting Act (unless you really have to) because it damages the image of hunting, and, I think, the more prosecutions the less easy it is to demonstrate how awful the law is. This would lessen our chance of repeal. But there is nothing, in my view _morally_ wrong about breaking an unjust law. If following a certain religion was outlawed by a country,and people broke it and were punished because they believed that that law was unfair, and based on bigotry and prejudice, who's side would you be on? No reasonable person would be saying 'the law applies to everyone', 'these people think they're above the law' etc. Now of course, restricting religious beliefs is a *lot* more serious than restricting the method in which you kill a fox, but many still believe that it would be acceptable to break the law, not only because it is absurd (making illegal a humane method of killing the quarry species) but more importantly because it is unjust, in that the law came in to being because of prejudice, ignorance of the facts and hatred of the people who practiced it.
		
Click to expand...

But a law is still a law and if each of us chose to break what we considered to be unjust or absurd laws then it would be total caos.

I really couldnt care less if hunters kill foxes or not however if they go out with intent to hunt a fox with hounds they are breaking the law and should not expect sympathy when caught and punished


----------



## Dogfox04 (14 August 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			30mph speed limits are there to prevent the deaths of pedestrians in villages! In no way could that be considered absurd or unjust. Like I said, you shouldn't break the Hunting Act (unless you really have to) because it damages the image of hunting, and, I think, the more prosecutions the less easy it is to demonstrate how awful the law is. This would lessen our chance of repeal. But there is nothing, in my view _morally_ wrong about breaking an unjust law. If following a certain religion was outlawed by a country,and people broke it and were punished because they believed that that law was unfair, and based on bigotry and prejudice, who's side would you be on? No reasonable person would be saying 'the law applies to everyone', 'these people think they're above the law' etc. Now of course, restricting religious beliefs is a *lot* more serious than restricting the method in which you kill a fox, but many still believe that it would be acceptable to break the law, not only because it is absurd (making illegal a humane method of killing the quarry species) but more importantly because it is unjust, in that the law came in to being because of prejudice, ignorance of the facts and hatred of the people who practiced it.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure most people believe some law or another to be wrong or injust in some way, and consider it their right in a democratic society to protest against it, or even break it. Isn't this what hunt sabs were doing pre-ban?


----------



## combat_claire (14 August 2012)

lagartijamick said:



			Maybe he couldn't find a willing clergyman to supervise him.

Click to expand...

Our local priest is still serving time for eating a mince pie on Christmas Day...


----------



## Alec Swan (14 August 2012)

Dogfox04 said:



			I'm sure most people believe some law or another to be wrong or injust in some way, and consider it their right in a democratic society to protest against it, or even break it. Isn't this what hunt sabs were doing pre-ban?
		
Click to expand...

No,  not really.  Pre ban the Sabs and Monitors (or what ever daft names have been given them) infringed upon the rights of others,  trespassed and caused untold damage and inconvenience,  on one memorable and to be regretted occasion,  caused the death of a Hunt Supporter,  and continue to break the laws of our land,  whenever the mood seems to take them,  and apparently,  it's all in the name of justice.

As a matter of interest,  and considering that you're _apparently_ new to this forum,  are you,  or were you a Hunt Saboteur? 

Alec.


----------



## happyhunter123 (14 August 2012)

M_G said:



			But a law is still a law and if each of us chose to break what we considered to be unjust or absurd laws then it would be total caos.

I really couldnt care less if hunters kill foxes or not however if they go out with intent to hunt a fox with hounds they are breaking the law and should not expect sympathy when caught and punished
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but thankfully we don't have that many absurd or unjust laws in this country so there probably wouldn't be complete chaos. And of course they should expect sympathy-they are the victims of this terrible piece of legislation. 

I can see why some packs may have to revert to conventional style hunting to keep going, in areas where trail hunting isn't welcomed, that being said I wouldn't advise it.


----------



## lagartijamick (14 August 2012)

combat_claire said:



			Our local priest is still serving time for eating a mince pie on Christmas Day...
		
Click to expand...

lol. 

Do the crime, serve the time.


----------

