# The repeal



## Judgemental (17 March 2011)

It is my understanding that most Chief Constables consider their resources much better deployed, than worrying about what a few decent, law abiding folk, in many instances pillars of the community, who make a contribution to public office and society and what they are doing when taking the air in the countryside. 

Of course the French have things in the right order.

Not only do they bless their hounds and huntsmen in the nearest church to the meet, but the local Gendarme is; a) likely to be a member of the hunt and b) knows that it is in his or her interests to be seen to support the hunt who are a source of invaluable information, otherwise, he or she would simply be unable to do their job.

That said, I am aware that should any Frenchman or indeed other nationality be unwise enough to dissent (polite word for Anti or Sab - they don't really exist in France - at least not for very long) then they are left in no doubt what their fortune will be, should they fail to remove themselves from any hunt.

Perhaps we should adopt that particular position with robust resolve.   

It is absurd how a section of British society has been criminalized and marginalized by, in particular Tony Blair and his dishonest government. 

I use the word dishonest in the financial sense.

I have lost track of how many former Labour MPs are in prison or facing a prison sentence for fiddling their expenses. 

Then there all those who did not get caught and are currently sitting in Parliament.

Hunting people make a huge contribution to the economy of this country, the rural economic infrastructure and the social cohesion, or kindred spirit that binds the countryside and country people together.


----------



## Giles (17 March 2011)

The conviction rate for MPs is certainly massively higher than for thise who go hunting!


----------



## Judgemental (17 March 2011)

Giles said:



			The conviction rate for MPs is certainly massively higher than for thise who go hunting!
		
Click to expand...

Giles that is the most excellent and erudite comment.

Perhaps it should become a slogan for car stickers and the like.

Definitely a fact that should be trailed by all who hunt and I hope the editor of Horse and Hound picks that fact up.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			It is my understanding that most Chief Constables consider their resources much better deployed, than worrying about what a few decent, law abiding folk, in many instances pillars of the community, who make a contribution to public office and society and what they are doing when taking the air in the countryside. QUOTE]

It is my understanding that the police were "steered away", from enforcing the ban by Hazel Blears on the orders of Tony Blair. Many of those actually taken to court have indeed been found guilty and not therefore law abiding.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

Of course the French have things in the right order.

Not only do they bless their hounds and huntsmen in the nearest church to the meet, but the local Gendarme is; a) likely to be a member of the hunt and b) knows that it is in his or her interests to be seen to support the hunt who are a source of invaluable information, otherwise, he or she would simply be unable to do their job.

That said, I am aware that should any Frenchman or indeed other nationality be unwise enough to dissent (polite word for Anti or Sab - they don't really exist in France - at least not for very long) then they are left in no doubt what their fortune will be, should they fail to remove themselves from any hunt.




			Thankfully our police do not need to collaborate with certain groups to buy their support. Should a huntsperson become the victim of a crime it would be franky stupid for the hunt community not offer support to the police ivestigating due to the officers interest or lack of it in hunting.
France and the French people/police are a very confused lot when it comes to dissent as shown by the French strikes. The police turning a 'blind eye', whilst costing OUR economy millions at times. Not a great example the French.
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...


----------



## rosie fronfelen (17 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:





Judgemental said:



			It is my understanding that most Chief Constables consider their resources much better deployed, than worrying about what a few decent, law abiding folk, in many instances pillars of the community, who make a contribution to public office and society and what they are doing when taking the air in the countryside. QUOTE]

It is my understanding that the police were "steered away", from enforcing the ban by Hazel Blears on the orders of Tony Blair. Many of those actually taken to court have indeed been found guilty and not therefore law abiding.
		
Click to expand...

Tony Blair is quoted to have said:One of the domestic legislative measures i most regret.quoted in 2010.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

[QUOTEPerhaps we should adopt that particular position with robust resolve.   

It is absurd how a section of British society has been criminalized and marginalized by, in particular Tony Blair and his dishonest government.




			Perhaps it is better to leave law enforcement to the police not balaclava clad stewarding. 
What is absurd in my opinion is suggesting a section of British Society has been criminalized. A law has been brought in for people to abide by like all other laws. You only become a criminal by breaking a law.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:





Binkle&Flip said:



			Tony Blair is quoted to have said:One of the domestic legislative measures i most regret.quoted in 2010.
		
Click to expand...

That is his right and doesnt make any difference to what I posted. I have started to notice you never address the valid points I make, in this instance the direction given by the then Home Secretary regarding proper policing or lack of it.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## rosie fronfelen (17 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:





rosiefronfelen said:



			That is his right and doesnt make any difference to what I posted. I have started to notice you never address the valid points I make, in this instance the direction given by the then Home Secretary regarding proper policing or lack of it.
		
Click to expand...

-----because i ignore you, i thought that might be obvious now.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

[QUOTEHunting people make a huge contribution to the economy of this country, the rural economic infrastructure and the social cohesion, or kindred spirit that binds the countryside and country people together.[/QUOTE]

On a thread I shall not be posting on due to it being directed at an individual which I find rather childish, Fiagai posted this.........."Swap the Reich / Nazis with LACS and their ilk and their fequent misreporting of hunting activities etc and you get the same general level of garbage been directed through online media."

I wonder what the Reich/Nazis would have had to say about about a group/small community that spends/makes much of its money within its very own economic infrastructure. Social cohersion and kindred spirit only toward those behind its self made walls with distrust and dislike of those not from within.
Hunting and killing with dogs does not bind the countryside and country people together it creates a negative divide or would if legalised at a time when the countryside needs community more than ever.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:





Binkle&Flip said:



			-----because i ignore you, i thought that might be obvious now.
		
Click to expand...

Yes rosiefronfelen you ignore me as your last two posts show.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## rosie fronfelen (17 March 2011)

your point being?


----------



## Herne (17 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			... a group/small community that spends/makes much of its money within its very own economic infrastructure...
		
Click to expand...

A simple perusal of the evidence submitted to the Burn's Inquiry demonstrates that this is not the case.

The sumission of the British Equestrian Trade Association is particularly interesting, with regard to the impact of Hunting related spending on the wider equestrian industry as a whole.





			Social cohersion and kindred spirit only toward those behind its self made walls with distrust and dislike of those not from within.
Hunting and killing with dogs does not bind the countryside and country people together it creates a negative divide or would if legalised at a time when the countryside needs community more than ever.
		
Click to expand...

Easy to say, extremely hard to demosntrate.

Evidence of the sense of community created by Hunts, on the other hand, is legion - not least in that if hunts alienated as little as 10 or 20 percent of the farming community, hunting would immediately become impossible to organise. 

Likewise, the hundreds of thousands of people who attend Hunt Meets on Boxing Day, Christmas Eve and New Year's Day, compared to the handfull of anti-hunt campaigners defintely indicate that the cohesive effect of hunts is infinitely more positive than negative.


----------



## combat_claire (17 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			Perhaps it is better to leave law enforcement to the police not balaclava clad stewarding. 
What is absurd in my opinion is suggesting a section of British Society has been criminalized. A law has been brought in for people to abide by like all other laws. You only become a criminal by breaking a law.
		
Click to expand...

The Hunt Monitors have however shown a huge enthusiasm for bringing spurious private prosecutions against individuals, who with a few exceptions have been largely found not guilty. The law is complex and despite abiding by the provisions contained therein this does not make you immune from the risk of private prosecution at the hands of these self-styled monitors. 

The judges in the lower courts have consistently shown that even they do not truly understand the hunting act and criminalise people who have been doing their utmost to stay within the law. Tony Wright is a prime example whose case was later overturned on appeal. 

Living in the West Country I am sure you are also familiar with the case of Maurice Scott who attended the police station to sort out a traffic incident involving a member of his pack and was arrested, held in the cells and eventually charged with illegal hunting alongside his huntsman and his whipper-in during 2006. The charges were eventually dropped in 2009 and I can only begin to imagine the stress that these people were under during this lengthy period. 

Dragging these people through the judicial process has a huge effect on the individual and their families as the case makes its way through the legal system. This process necessarily takes time and after verdicts in the lower courts websites such as the delightful 'hunt scum gallery' takes great delight in speedily slapping 'guilty' banners over faces of hunt staff on the world wide web or uploading pictures of people whose only crime is to be following the hunt on the day a monitor attended. They aren't quite so efficient at removing these banners once the appeal verdict has found them not guilty.  

I can only ask you to think how you would feel if having gone out one day and believed yourself to be acting within the current laws you were then subjected to a false allegation, plastered across the press and facing years of court cases to clear your name.


----------



## combat_claire (17 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			a group/small community that spends/makes much of its money within its very own economic infrastructure. Social cohersion and kindred spirit only toward those behind its self made walls with distrust and dislike of those not from within.
Hunting and killing with dogs does not bind the countryside and country people together it creates a negative divide or would if legalised at a time when the countryside needs community more than ever.
		
Click to expand...

I think you may have a crumb stuck under your 'square brackets' key as something is going horribly wrong with your quoting ;-)

I can see that you live in the West Country so let us use an example of one village that I have become very familiar with over the past few years. Exford is a small, fairly typical village on Exmoor. It is a rural community who are bound together by their love of the countryside. Where the village deviates from the norm is that it supports two hotel/pubs, one bed and breakfast, one livery yard, several holiday cottages, one campsite, one village shop, one tea room and a garage. 

During the summer months they enjoy excellent trade being close to some of the major tourism hot spots such as Dunkery, Horner, Dulverton and the like. This trade is heavily supplemented by country sports tourists who visit and spend a good deal of cash during the off-season months when traditional tourists are rare. These people book accommodation; they buy meals and drinks in the local pub; they pay for hirelings and shoot days and while visiting the area will also call in at other places of interest. A recent study has found that the value of shooting to the west country economy was a massive £32 million per annum. While the Exmoor National Park Authority makes reference to the important economic contribution that hunting makes to the area.

It is my hypothesis which is backed up by several academic studies including the PACEC report which is freely available online that country sports contribute uniquely to the rural economy during a period when traditional tourists are not visiting and this is something that should be considered in the arguments for repeal.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			your point being?
		
Click to expand...

Proven.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

To be fair Herne I didnt say all of its money and you are absolutely correct about the benefit to wider equestrian industry. It should be noted also though that the money generated was not affected by the ban (regardless of the scare stories),nor would be by repeal.

 "Evidence of the sense of community created by Hunts, on the other hand, is legion - not least in that if hunts alienated as little as 10 or 20 percent of the farming community, hunting would immediately become impossible to organise. 

Likewise, the hundreds of thousands of people who attend Hunt Meets on Boxing Day, Christmas Eve and New Year's Day, compared to the handfull of anti-hunt campaigners defintely indicate that the cohesive effect of hunts is infinitely more positive than negative."

I am sure some in the farming community fully support the hunts. Similarly there are those who feel they should support or must support for various reasons.
The fact so few obvious anti's attend the Hunt Meets on those occasions is not hard to understand. However I know many, many friends and family's who attend those meets for the gathering/trip out and not because they support what the hunts pre ban used to do. When younger we used to go for a few drinks and a laugh. Now to meet up with those we dont see through the year. I dont disagree that many go to support the hunt but many do not and go for the hounds and the spectacle.


----------



## Fiagai (17 March 2011)

Aaaargghhhh...

Use of Quotes.....

I really cannot follow this thread!

Ok as everyone knows to quote something on a post, you hit the Quote button!

If you are editing that quote please remember that you must have the follwing characters to make the quote highlighting work

To start Quote  - Please note 2 square brackets front and back 
To end Quote - Please note 2 square brackets front and back with the use of a forward slash to indicate end of quote.


----------



## combat_claire (17 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			The fact so few obvious anti's attend the Hunt Meets on those occasions is not hard to understand. However I know many, many friends and family's who attend those meets for the gathering/trip out and not because they support what the hunts pre ban used to do. When younger we used to go for a few drinks and a laugh. Now to meet up with those we dont see through the year. I dont disagree that many go to support the hunt but many do not and go for the hounds and the spectacle.
		
Click to expand...

I find that a very hard argument to swallow. 

If you go to see the 'spectacle' then you will be fully aware of what that spectacle involves past and present. You will hardly be able to miss the speeches that have been made by hunt masters across the length and breadth of the country who exhort their followers to work hard to gain repeal and leave the assembled crowds in no doubt that the ban is very much temporary. The cheers that result from these speeches and the clapping as the hounds move off are not the cheers of people who are there to see a spectacle and don't really agree with the principles. 

I am not claiming that every person stood on the street will hunt regularly or even come to another hunt meet during the season aside from the high days and holidays but I would hazard a guess that they turn out to support because they understand the importance of hunting and wish it to continue. 

I would suggest that there are plenty of other places that you could visit and get a drink and catch up with friends without having to pick the exact village where the hunt are meeting. 

Your friends going along to the meet but not agreeing with what the hunt stands for would be akin to me attending an English Defence League march just to see the 'spectacle' of them marching about with their banners but claiming not to support what they are calling for.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

Slow down please combat_claire, you type far quicker than I do 

Any accusations made are of course investigated. It is as we know a very defensive CPS who decide if they will or will not risk going to court regardless of the crime. If people end up in court these days I do most of the time think there is a real possibility they have broken the law. If they are found not guilty then the law has still absolutely done its job.
I definately feel sorry for people wrongly accused for no reason other than spite. The effect on all concerned, family, reputation etc is cruel. Should anybody making false accusations suffer the consequences, 100%. But, that is due to the actions of the accuser, not the Hunting Act.
There are those that have been found guilty, then that conviction overturned on appeal. It does often happen with courts. That is not the fault of the Hunting Ban.
The judicial process is there for a reason and we all hope that any innocents are cleared as soon as possible well before court. Those that have been convicted do often end up in the public arena and I agree that must feel awful if eventually cleared. If I am to agree those that revel in such posting of pictures etc are out of order I happily agree but without getting into an argument hunts people are putting up names and pictures all over the internet of monitors who havent even been in a court of law. As bad if not worse and a very dangerous situation.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

combat_claire said:



			I find that a very hard argument to swallow. 

If you go to see the 'spectacle' then you will be fully aware of what that spectacle involves past and present. You will hardly be able to miss the speeches that have been made by hunt masters across the length and breadth of the country who exhort their followers to work hard to gain repeal and leave the assembled crowds in no doubt that the ban is very much temporary. The cheers that result from these speeches and the clapping as the hounds move off are not the cheers of people who are there to see a spectacle and don't really agree with the principles. 

I am not claiming that every person stood on the street will hunt regularly or even come to another hunt meet during the season aside from the high days and holidays but I would hazard a guess that they turn out to support because they understand the importance of hunting and wish it to continue. 

I would suggest that there are plenty of other places that you could visit and get a drink and catch up with friends without having to pick the exact village where the hunt are meeting. 

Your friends going along to the meet but not agreeing with what the hunt stands for would be akin to me attending an English Defence League march just to see the 'spectacle' of them marching about with their banners but claiming not to support what they are calling for.
		
Click to expand...

A quick reply to this post. When we attend the meet it is in our village/town on special days in our own village life and the hunt is a small part only of that day traditionally. That has nothing to do with the killing of a fox or the way in which it is killed for many, many people. It is not about picking a place to meet where the hunt will be.


----------



## VoR (17 March 2011)

Pardon me for doing such a thing, but, to go back to the original thread starter, Judgemental does make a very sensible point within what (I'm sure) is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the French way of life (I can't help thinking of the pub landlord and 'where would we be if there weren't any rules...').

The reference I relate to in particular is Chief Constables and the (potentially shrinking) resources they have available. Given that the Hunting Act has been deemed unworkable, even by it's chief architect Tony Blair, perhaps a vote on repeal should be brought forward to remove the need for police to throw any more resource in this direction and concentrate on far more serious issues which confront them?


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

I am sorry combat_claire I have read your post number 15 with interest but have no time to reply. Back to work but will reply later.


----------



## combat_claire (17 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			A quick reply to this post. When we attend the meet it is in our village/town on special days in our own village life and the hunt is a small part only of that day traditionally. That has nothing to do with the killing of a fox or the way in which it is killed for many, many people. It is not about picking a place to meet where the hunt will be.
		
Click to expand...

In that case why not go straight to the village pub or have drinks at home. Nobody is forcing you to stand out in the cold and watch the hunt meet. I just find it very strange that knowing full well what the hunt stands for you would still offer what amounts to tacit approval and be counted in the numbers of people supporting hunting that are later mentioned in the press coverage. If you really feel that strongly against hunting then why not take an anti-hunting banner with you and launch a peaceful protest!?

I look forward to your response to my earlier post and a mature debate.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

combat_claire said:



			I think you may have a crumb stuck under your 'square brackets' key as something is going horribly wrong with your quoting ;-)

French stick combined with being a bit of a computer novice  And I do rather like the smilie faces but keep getting told off for using them.

Firstly perhaps I should make clear when posting on this thread I have been doing so directly regarding the opening post therefore pre ban hunting and the possible reasons for repeal.
I fully understand your description of Exford and it sounds lovely. I agree country sports tourists are of great value to many counties and their villages but that doesnt mean it is the 'hunts', who are binding the countrysuide together. That being the point raised I disagreed with. Perhaps I am wrong but I dont suspect Exford has been affected adversly by the Hunting Act. Indeed the scaremongering from the CA regarding loss of jobs, cost to rural economies if the ban came in etc have turned out to not be true.
The hunts have continued to hunt hopefully within the law and hopefully the only threat to the hunts economy is the national economy itself which we are all facing.
As long as other forms of hunting continue, I dont understand how a positive proof that the Hunting Act didnt effect villages like Exford, can in any way be used as a suggestion repeal is needed or warranted.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Giles (17 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:





combat_claire said:



			I think you may have a crumb stuck under your 'square brackets' key as something is going horribly wrong with your quoting ;-)

French stick combined with being a bit of a computer novice  And I do rather like the smilie faces but keep getting told off for using them.

Firstly perhaps I should make clear when posting on this thread I have been doing so directly regarding the opening post therefore pre ban hunting and the possible reasons for repeal.
I fully understand your description of Exford and it sounds lovely. I agree country sports tourists are of great value to many counties and their villages but that doesnt mean it is the 'hunts', who are binding the countrysuide together. That being the point raised I disagreed with. Perhaps I am wrong but I dont suspect Exford has been affected adversly by the Hunting Act. Indeed the scaremongering from the CA regarding loss of jobs, cost to rural economies if the ban came in etc have turned out to not be true.
The hunts have continued to hunt hopefully within the law and hopefully the only threat to the hunts economy is the national economy itself which we are all facing.
As long as other forms of hunting continue, I dont understand how a positive proof that the Hunting Act didnt effect villages like Exford, can in any way be used as a suggestion repeal is needed or warranted.
		
Click to expand...

One of the problems is that LACS use the fact that hunts are acting in as near a way as possible to how they used to to create the impression that they are breaking the law.  It's important to remember that the Hunting Act does not actually prevent the hounds from hunting.  This of course does not sit well with those who think that animals being hunted by dogs is cruel.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

combat_claire said:



			In that case why not go straight to the village pub or have drinks at home. Nobody is forcing you to stand out in the cold and watch the hunt meet. I just find it very strange that knowing full well what the hunt stands for you would still offer what amounts to tacit approval and be counted in the numbers of people supporting hunting that are later mentioned in the press coverage. If you really feel that strongly against hunting then why not take an anti-hunting banner with you and launch a peaceful protest!?

I look forward to your response to my earlier post and a mature debate.
		
Click to expand...

Going straight to the pub would mean missing those friends and family that dont drink. As I have said before I am far from anti hunting. In fact I am an avid supporter now that the killing methods have been changed. Being counted in the numbers for press coverage doesnt worry me and why should it. I support hunting. Until my uncles recent retirement my family ran for many generations the local undertakers and were obviously very much part of the community. Whether or not people like myself supported killing foxes with dogs did not and should not matter. It is always great to see the hounds, the smartly dressed hunters on their so very well turned out horses. It is a great occasion. As a child I loved it as my children do now and I see no reason why we should be excluded or exclude ourselves simply because I dont want foxes killed by a pack of dogs.
When hubby was called to work in London recently I took the opportunity to take the children for a visit. One of theirs and my favourites sights were the Guardsmen changing the guard at Buckingham Palace. So smart in their scarlet tunics marching in time with the band playing. Strangely I enjoyed it even though I hate the thought of war and the killing the soldiers may have been involved in. Perhaps I should have taken an anti war banner to hold as we enjoyed the spectacle  lol


----------



## JenHunt (17 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			It is my understanding that the police were "steered away", from enforcing the ban by Hazel Blears on the orders of Tony Blair. Many of those actually taken to court have indeed been found guilty and not therefore law abiding.
		
Click to expand...


perhaps binkle, they were "steered away" from enforcing the ban as Hazel Blears realised, wisely, that the police have much much better things to be doing than traipsing over the countryside after law abiding folk who are quietly going about their traditions.


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

Giles said:





Binkle&Flip said:



			One of the problems is that LACS use the fact that hunts are acting in as near a way as possible to how they used to to create the impression that they are breaking the law.  It's important to remember that the Hunting Act does not actually prevent the hounds from hunting.  This of course does not sit well with those who think that animals being hunted by dogs is cruel.
		
Click to expand...

I fully agree with you Giles about LACS but anybody who knows about this law should understand that it was brought in to control the dispatch method of foxes, not ban hunting with hounds. In all honesty the hunts who are now trail hunting should switch to drag hunting to prevent accidents and give the antis nothing to complain about or report. As for cubbing   Sorry, Autumn Hunting 

Click to expand...


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

JenHunt said:



			perhaps binkle, they were "steered away" from enforcing the ban as Hazel Blears realised, wisely, that the police have much much better things to be doing than traipsing over the countryside after law abiding folk who are quietly going about their traditions.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps she thought such law abiding folk if such, would abide by the law. Oh and "tradition"? Please dont go down that horrifying road to our countries shamefull past.


----------



## Fiagai (17 March 2011)

...those darn pesky Quote things still somehow seem to have a mind of their own!
Half Quotes, Own Quotes and Quotes that just dont make any sense....how difficult can it be 

(hint - use the edit button to fix if you dont quite get it right!)


----------



## Fiagai (17 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			It is my understanding that most Chief Constables consider their resources much better deployed, than worrying about what a few decent, law abiding folk, in many instances pillars of the community, who make a contribution to public office and society and what they are doing when taking the air in the countryside.
		
Click to expand...

This is a lovely little piece from the LACS website...




			The League can report that during the 2009/2010 hunting season nine cases of suspected illegal hunting activity have been passed to police forces in England and Wales. In addition a further three cases are currently being prepared for presentation to the relevant police forces.
		
Click to expand...

A whole 9 + 3 cases - the majority of which do not related to actual Fox Hunting (see below*) 




			Organised Hunting
The figures from the Ministry of Justice are extremely encouraging and unequivocally demonstrate the effectiveness of the Hunting Act. It is also apparent that the figures serve to highlight the emergence of two distinct categories of hunting with dogs in England and Wales.  The first category consists of those individuals who continue with the practice of hare coursing, an activity prohibited by the Hunting Act, and the so called &#8216;lads with dogs&#8217;
who generally operate alone but still seek to hunt wild mammals with dogs in
contravention of the law. _*It has become clear that a higher proportion of this first category make up the majority of the total convictions secured under the Hunting Act since 2005._

The second distinct category consists of those individuals afffiliated with organised hunting activity such as the member hunts of the Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA). It is the League&#8217;s firm belief that this organised hunting activity deserves a similar degree of scrutiny by the police.
It is to this second category of organised hunting with dogs that the majority of the League&#8217;s intelligence on hunting relates.  The League is now able to report that it is in a position to share that intelligence with the police...
		
Click to expand...

So from their own argument that even though a higher proportion "lads with dogs" make up the majority of the total convictions secured under the Hunting Act they insist that mounted Fox Hunting "deserves a similar degree of scrutiny".  The question has to be asked Why?  And why are they concentrating on gathering inteligence from this group when they are not a significant problem?

What is obvious is that LACS are therefore wasting police time by having an agenda based on their own bias

Unfortunately this behaviour is replicated by other Anti-Hunt individuals and groups.

Surely there is case here for wasting police time.


----------



## Judgemental (17 March 2011)

Whilst I have been busy with 'affairs of state' this thread has generated a fair amount of excitement.

I don't think I can add any additional comments to my original post, save to say I saw that a poster had suggested I was tongue in cheek concerning the French. 

I believe in everything I said in that post.

What is most interesting is Binkle & Flip.

Clearly not exactly with us are they? But even more entertaining is that I know exactly who you are.

One has to be very careful with information on this forum even very slight information like, &#8220;Uncle was the undertaker in Exford&#8221;!

Don&#8217;t let me &#8216;stop&#8217; you, ma ders. LOL


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Whilst I have been busy with 'affairs of state' this thread has generated a fair amount of excitement.

I don't think I can add any additional comments to my original post, save to say I saw that a poster had suggested I was tongue in cheek concerning the French. 

I believe in everything I said in that post.

What is most interesting is Binkle & Flip.

Clearly not exactly with us are they? But even more entertaining is that I know exactly who you are.

One has to be very careful with information on this forum even very slight information like, Uncle was the undertaker in Exford!

Dont let me stop you, ma ders. LOL
		
Click to expand...

I am glad to hear that you believe you know who I am Judgemental. If only you hadnt skipped through the posts on this thread so quickly you would have realised the conversation had well moved on from Exford. I was talking about my own home village/town by the time I mentioned the undertakers you silly thing


----------



## Binkle&Flip (17 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			This is a lovely little piece from the LACS website...



A whole 9 + 3 cases - the majority of which do not related to actual Fox Hunting (see below*) 



So from their own argument that even though a higher proportion "lads with dogs" make up the majority of the total convictions secured under the Hunting Act they insist that mounted Fox Hunting "deserves a similar degree of scrutiny".  The question has to be asked Why?  And why are they concentrating on gathering inteligence from this group when they are not a significant problem?

What is obvious is that LACS are therefore wasting police time by having an agenda based on their own bias

Unfortunately this behaviour is replicated by other Anti-Hunt individuals and groups.

Surely there is case here for wasting police time.
		
Click to expand...

9+3 cases   My lord, the monitors are really snowing the police under mountains of work as claimed by those who want repeal with ALL those false reports. One case per month  However can the authorities cope


----------



## Fiagai (17 March 2011)

For those having less than a full amount of comprehension on what is going on....




			Quote:
The League can report that during the 2009/2010 hunting season nine cases of suspected illegal hunting activity have been passed to police forces in England and Wales. In addition a further three cases are currently being prepared for presentation to the relevant police forces.
		
Click to expand...





			Originally Posted by Fiagai... Unfortunately this behaviour is replicated by other Anti-Hunt individuals and groups.
		
Click to expand...

  I must start Using a larger font size lol!

The LACS statement of their activity above does not include all the other anti-hunt and hunt sabuteur organisations "helping" the police with false information....


----------



## Binkle&Flip (18 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			For those having less than a full amount of comprehension on what is going on....



  I must start Using a larger font size lol!

The LACS statement of their activity above does not include all the other anti-hunt and hunt sabuteur organisations "helping" the police with false information....
		
Click to expand...

No need for larger font Faigai. What sort of figures do you have regarding the other 'false', information/accusations for us to digest? Hundreds of reports? Thousands of reports? I take it you do have some figures to back up your statement?


----------



## combat_claire (18 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			French stick combined with being a bit of a computer novice  And I do rather like the smilie faces but keep getting told off for using them.
		
Click to expand...

A whole French stick under there, the mind boggles, no wonder the key wasn't working! I thought my keyboard was pretty filthy! The last time I gave it a good shake there was enough crumbs to constitute another roll! Eurgh



Binkle&Flip said:



			Indeed the scaremongering from the CA regarding loss of jobs, cost to rural economies if the ban came in etc have turned out to not be true.
		
Click to expand...

The predictions for economic upheaval in rural areas was made at a time before anyone knew the final form that the Hunting Act was going to take. If it had been banned outright with no forms of hound activity permitted to continue I would guess that the economic outlook for these rural villages without the additional economic support from shooting and hunting would have been a lot bleaker. The fact that exemptions were brought in at various stages during the readings of the bill in parliament meant the future was a lot brighter, although there are some traditionalists who ceased their regular visits to the West Country as they felt that hunting with two hounds could never be the same as the days when the whole pack would be laid on. I can't comment, I have only ever been stag hunting post-ban. 

Exford is a truly beautiful village, if you ever get a chance do visit. If you like real ale or real ciders as opposed to the gassy rubbish most bars have on tap then a visit to The Crown is highly recommended. It struck me that there was a real community spirit that was engendered by the shared love of hunting and deer amongst the village residents. My limited experience of the social life that is organised around hunts is some of the most inclusive and wide ranging I have ever come across. I tell ye, you haven't lived till you have danced the night away at a hunt ball....


----------



## Judgemental (18 March 2011)

I feel it is fair to say that the passion that exists to have The Repeal, is overwhelming and this forum is indicative of that passion.


----------



## Paddydou (18 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			I feel it is fair to say that the passion that exists to have The Repeal, is overwhelming and this forum is indicative of that passion.
		
Click to expand...

I think it is also fair to say that it acceptable to appaud the French for making a fuss so that their country is run in the way they want. Good one them for stomping their feet and making their country better for all living there! Ok so sometimes they goa little too far in their excitement but I have grown to respect their tenacity and determination. Wish the British would grow such balls - perhaps we wouldn't be facing many of todays problems if we had!


----------



## Simsar (18 March 2011)

Paddydou said:



			I think it is also fair to say that it acceptable to appaud the French for making a fuss so that their country is run in the way they want hear bl88dy hear. Good one them for stomping their feet and making their country better for all living there! Ok so sometimes they goa little too far in their excitement but I have grown to respect their tenacity and determination. Wish the British would grow such balls - perhaps we wouldn't be facing many of todays problems if we had!  Well said

Click to expand...

I think I should be PM what do you lot think?


----------



## Paddydou (18 March 2011)

Simsar said:



			I think I should be PM what do you lot think?
		
Click to expand...

But Darlings it would be like dealing with Jekell and Hyde considering as there are two of you! 

...Also you would have a tendancy to make more gaffs than Prince Phillip. 

What the heck - you have my vote! 

As long as we get EK in as deputy and Alec sorting out the budget so he has something to winge about...!


----------



## combat_claire (18 March 2011)

Simsar said:



			I think I should be PM what do you lot think?
		
Click to expand...

Definitely see you as prime minister, I have already bagged President of the World!


----------



## Fiagai (18 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			I feel it is fair to say that the passion that exists to have The Repeal, is overwhelming and this forum is indicative of that passion.
		
Click to expand...

Well said PD....Me I is very passionate!   Roll on repeal....:whohoo:


Btw - its great to see the Quote Machinery is actualy working again  I was getting lost back there


----------



## JanetGeorge (18 March 2011)

Giles said:



			The conviction rate for MPs is certainly massively higher than for those who go hunting!
		
Click to expand...

And Elliot Morley hasn't come to trial yet!!  I keep watching and waiting for the court date to be announced so I can organise a trip to London.  I DO so want to see that smug, sanctimonious moron in the dock!!


----------



## Judgemental (18 March 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			And Elliot Morley hasn't come to trial yet!!  I keep watching and waiting for the court date to be announced so I can organise a trip to London.  I DO so want to see that smug, sanctimonious moron in the dock!! 

Click to expand...

Without wishing to anticpate the bottom line, perhaps we should arrange a rota of Prison Visitors. 

As I have said in previous posts, those people who ban hunting all come to a sticky end.

Débridé passionné pour la chasse.


----------



## Giles (18 March 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			And Elliot Morley hasn't come to trial yet!!  I keep watching and waiting for the court date to be announced so I can organise a trip to London.  I DO so want to see that smug, sanctimonious moron in the dock!! 

Click to expand...

I remember Elliot coming to South Molton and  saying to a bunch of stag hunters that he would support it if they ate their prey lol


----------



## JanetGeorge (19 March 2011)

Binkle&Flip said:



			The fact so few obvious anti's attend the Hunt Meets on those occasions is not hard to understand. However I know many, many friends and family's who attend those meets for the gathering/trip out and not because they support what the hunts pre ban used to do. When younger we used to go for a few drinks and a laugh. Now to meet up with those we dont see through the year. I dont disagree that many go to support the hunt but many do not and go for the hounds and the spectacle.
		
Click to expand...

So - knowing that hunts were going out to kill foxes - you still went to the Meet for a few drinks and a laugh??  Obviously you lacked the courage of your convictions!

I have a VERY anti-hunting neighbour who 'likes the spectacle'.  However, she poisons her moles with strychnine because they make a mess of her lawn - so her views on animal welfare are pretty warped!


----------



## JanetGeorge (19 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			As I have said in previous posts, those people who ban hunting all come to a sticky end.
		
Click to expand...

The moral high ground is a slippery slope indeed!  I remember that ghastly Wiltshire councillor, David Glaholm, who led the fight to ban hunting on Wiltshire CC tenant farms - and then was arrested for hunting 'tail' in Swindon!


----------



## EAST KENT (19 March 2011)

Never mind Deputy PM..I want a) capital punishment back....and b) to be Chief executioner  ,like Pierrepoint! Also ,although being far too near France for comfort,I do love a real good noisy demo..so good on them,and can we join in please.
  We really do roll over and give in too easily. Way back I had someone looking at my hound puppies ,who went on to say that her son would be "picking up the dog " on his return from holiday(we boarded dogs) AND that he was a Sab who annoyed  the Surrey Union (my old hunt) on his winter weekends.Could I be sure he did`nt see the hounds as "it might upset him"
    I replied that as he was a sab he could experience being hunted by my Malinois ,and on a good day he`d get a twenty yard start.
    Yep..got my beadies on a few candidates already!


----------

