I've answered every question put to me.
Just because the police take no action doesn't mean no law has been broken. The DEFRA and police policy - and one I agree with - is that hunting has a low priority.
I think that's allowed under the Act under certain circumstances. As to whether it's cruel or not: depends on how long the hounds chase the fox. In the Wright case for example the judge, I believe, thought that the guns didn't shoot the fox as soon as they could. In these sort of circumstances...
"I've had a chat with some pals of mine about your assertion that more than two dogs can still legally be used to flush out wild mammals"
What I've said repeatedly is that if you're not hunting with dogs, you're not hunting with dogs. Therefore the Hunting Act 2004 - which prohibits hunting...
I think the DEFRA memo on this says "hunting with dogs" should be interpreted in its normal English sense, or something to that effect. I'd therefore define it as using dogs to hunt. In other words, it's common sense whether someone is hunting with dogs. In the scenario AA has described (oh so...