Blackmore and Sparkford Vale Hunt Point-to-Point

Christmas Crumpet

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 August 2007
Messages
4,036
Visit site
I would also like to point out that noone has mentioned the fact that the sabs blow the horn trying to lure hounds away. No wonder the huntsman was in a rush if there were people actively trying to disrupt proceedings.

The sabs were a) blowing a horn which they had no right to do b) were parked obstructing a gateway and c) the way I see it, Nid actually steps back/is pushed into the horse's path. This was clearly unintentional on her part but which had an unfortunate result.

It was nothing but an unfortunate accident. Perhaps they need to take more responsibility for their own actions (i.e blowing the horn) and realise that if they hadn't done that and weren't blocking the gateway this wouldn't have happened. It was a children's meet for goodness sake.
 

LittleRooketRider

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 March 2013
Messages
1,335
Location
Dorset
Visit site
I would also like to point out that noone has mentioned the fact that the sabs blow the horn trying to lure hounds away. No wonder the huntsman was in a rush if there were people actively trying to disrupt proceedings.

The sabs were a) blowing a horn which they had no right to do b) were parked obstructing a gateway and c) the way I see it, Nid actually steps back/is pushed into the horse's path. This was clearly unintentional on her part but which had an unfortunate result.

It was nothing but an unfortunate accident. Perhaps they need to take more responsibility for their own actions (i.e blowing the horn) and realise that if they hadn't done that and weren't blocking the gateway this wouldn't have happened. It was a children's meet for goodness sake.

They also fail to mention there use of 'pepper spray' on children and ponies, or a later incident at their 'mass sab' when they drove their truck into a pony, or their attempts to shine laser-lights in my mount's (and other's) eyes at another hunt!

Reading their blatant lies makes my stomach turn.
 

Tiddlypom

Carries on creakily
Joined
17 July 2013
Messages
24,074
Location
In between the Midlands and the North
Visit site
Reading their blatant lies makes my stomach turn.
I strongly suspect that there are confabulations, half truths, outright lies and also truthful reports on both sides of the hunting divide.

I have re watched the video, and believe that the huntsman must have known that he had knocked the protester down. His riding was pretty reckless simply by passing at such a pace so close to pedestrians. One would hope that he really needed to ride so quickly in order to regain control of hounds, rather than whizzing past them like that for the sake of it.

I still think it appalling that he didn't at least pause to shout back a 'sorry', before continuing on his way.
 

Cinnamontoast

Fais pas chier!
Joined
6 July 2010
Messages
36,428
Visit site
She clearly looks towards the approaching horse then steps back into its path. Why the heck does she do that?! Why was she in the path anyway? Had that been me, I would have moved away from the path to allow the horse room.

The photographer at Cheltenham was boffed by the horse's bum: he was up against the rail that the horses broke. Should he too demand justice?
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
……..

The photographer at Cheltenham was boffed by the horse's bum: he was up against the rail that the horses broke. Should he too demand justice?

Quite, and he wasn't immediately discharged from hospital either, he had broken bones. Come to think of it, neither of the riders stopped to see if he was OK, shall we castigate them also, perhaps even demand that they face prosecution? :D

It was an accident, nothing more or less. The allegedly injured lady, by attending a meeting where she had no business and with the probable intent of disruption, placed herself in the path of a travelling horse, which despite the fact that the animal attempted to avoid her, knocked her to the ground. Are those who attend Events not responsible for themselves?

Even had the CPS taken up the case, I wonder how the charge sheet would have read. :)

Alec.
 

Dunlin

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 January 2011
Messages
941
Location
Dorset
Visit site
Very good points Alec. I used to regularly attend Motorsport races and on every ticket there is a disclaimer saying "motorsports can be dangerous etc. etc. at your own risk blah blah blah". Well, horses can be dangerous. Trying to obstruct the hunt is 1 step further than dangerous, having witnessed what some sabs get up to I'd go as far as saying some of them have a death wish!

An even better point made over the poor photographer at Cheltenham, freak accident. It was not the jockeys fault, once a horse has decided it's going off somewhere there is very little a rider can do to stop it. Horses are spooky and flighty creatures by nature, even some hunt horses are, given the right/wrong situation. Blowing a hunting horn (badly) when you have a bunch of people stood around you and being stood in a gateway with your back to where the horses are is not the most sensible thing.
 

Judgemental

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2010
Messages
1,603
Location
The Internet makes one's location irrelevant
Visit site
This thread is generating the most interesting factors for arm chair theorists and analytical views.

Nobody has mentioned that in the Video from YouTube, link copied below that there is an audible holler:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI8MMMg1x5s

The Masters of Foxhounds Association rules of engagement expressly forbid any holler.

Therefore was the holler mischief making by the saboteurs, or perish the thought the hunt was actually hunting a fox.

That said there is no sound of hounds giving tongue, therefore one has to assume it was the saboteurs, although the hounds may not have hit the line. It is my understanding, if a fox is viewed a whistle should be blown once to warn the huntsman that a fox has gone away and twice that it has gone back in the covert.

Thus was the huntsman responding to the holler one way or the other. Of course I am sure either way hearing a holler he would be anxious and seriously responsible by immediately stopping hounds. I am sure the BV never knowingly contravene the Hunting Act 2004.

That said even in those circumstances, I am surprised he did not take a pull, because the lady was obviously hit very hard. I have been hit by a horse at that speed and it's extremely serious and painful. In all similar situations of which I am aware, the horse and rider have always come to a halt in order to help the party on the ground.

Of course if a fox was in play, was the huntsman anxious because of all the saboteurs.

The second issue is my surprise that this matter has dragged (no pun intended) on for such a long time.

Plainly the lady was hurt and judging by the fact she had her back to the rider and was clearly taken by surprise, was this then a genuine accident as stated by the Chairman of the BV, Mr Rupert Nuttal.

In which case, surely both the hunt and the huntsman, as a servant and agent of the hunt are covered by Public Liability Insurance.

Thus the procedure should be the hunt reports themselves and admits liability to their insurers, as with a car accidents. From that point the Insurance Underwriters take the conduct of the matter.

I would have thought a figure in low six figures should have ameliorated the lady.
 
Last edited:

LittleRooketRider

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 March 2013
Messages
1,335
Location
Dorset
Visit site
Very good points Judgemental..I think the issue is that the lady/sabs in question are trying to claim it was intentional/premeditated and won't be satisfied until he convicted of attempted murder or similar, if you look at their websites/fb pages they repeatedly claim this was a deliberate attempt on her life.
 

Tiddlypom

Carries on creakily
Joined
17 July 2013
Messages
24,074
Location
In between the Midlands and the North
Visit site
Very good post, Judgemental.

I wonder what the CPS will decide to do once they have reviewed the case (at the request of 'Nid').

She clearly looks towards the approaching horse then steps back into its path. Why the heck does she do that?! Why was she in the path anyway? Had that been me, I would have moved away from the path to allow the horse room.
I have been taken by surprise by a horse galloping past me at speed, where the Badminton winning rider suddenly pulled it to the wrong side of the finish flags at a ODE where I was part of the timekeeping team. I jumped the wrong way, and damn nearly got flattened.

The photographer at Cheltenham was boffed by the horse's bum: he was up against the rail that the horses broke. Should he too demand justice?

Quite, and he wasn't immediately discharged from hospital either, he had broken bones. Come to think of it, neither of the riders stopped to see if he was OK, shall we castigate them also, perhaps even demand that they face prosecution? :D
.
Ho ho. Hardly the same. Not least because the Cheltenham jockeys were desperately trying to straighten their mounts up. In the Mark Doggrell video clip, it is the horse who takes the evasive action, not the rider.
 

Christmas Crumpet

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 August 2007
Messages
4,036
Visit site
Ms Warren was campaigning with the Dorset Hunt Sabs group when she was struck.
She added: "We sounded a horn, hollered, and some hounds looked up and started to come our way.
"I think he [the hunt member] got angry at this. He came along a public road behind us at speed, he didn't issue a warning, he was completely silent, then he hit me and rode off.

I have just read this on a Facebook page. I am afraid that Nid has slightly shot herself in the foot with her admission that a) they holloaed b) blew the horn and c) that Doggrell came down the road. There is no way you cannot hear a horse galloping down a road. I imagine he didn't "issue a warning" as she says he didn't because he didn't see them standing in the way. It is their fault that he was going at such a speed because they had disrupted hounds and were causing confusion. If they hadn't done it then the accident wouldn't have happened. I suggest that Nid and her friends take responsibility for their actions which caused the accident and everyone just forgets about it. It was a very unfortunate situation but it could have been avoided had the sabs not been holloaing, blowing a horn, blocking a gateway with their vehicle and also standing in the gateway and stepping back into the huntsman's path.
 

Fellewell

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 June 2010
Messages
841
Visit site
Agree with the above post by carolineb except to say that it was not an unfortunate incident, it was a deliberately orchestrated incident.

A GALLOPING HORSE WITH A RIDER IS NEVER, EVER, SILENT.

The access was blocked by a vehicle and pedestrians in dark clothing who were trespassing. That staged scene was only going to go one way which is why they filmed it.

If the rider had been unseated and sustained serious injury the saboteurs would have considered it a victory. My sympathies are with Mr Doggrell who was surely in fear for his life given the countless proven instances of threatening behaviour by these people.
 

LittleRooketRider

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 March 2013
Messages
1,335
Location
Dorset
Visit site
From an interesting piece online.."on the tail of the hunting louts"...

"according to witnesses, the horse also wore blinkers, which would have prevented it from seeing its rider’s target."

Really?? Even in their little video you can see there is no such thing..besides blinkers would not have prevented the hore's vision in regards to the positioning of 'Nid'

and another thing...

"The video clearly shows that she did not move from where she stood"

Yes..perhaps like a rabbit in the headlights, but with an oncoming horse why didn't they move?? That doesn't prove it was intentional on his part.
 

Judgemental

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2010
Messages
1,603
Location
The Internet makes one's location irrelevant
Visit site
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the Saboteurs general conduct, all pedestrians under the law of England and Wales have right of way.

It does not matter whether or not the person is on a public road, highway, path, bridleway or indeed they are trespassing, they still have right of way overriding any vehicle, horse drawn carriage or mounted horse.

Therefore the person in the video should have come to a halt and asked the persons believed to be Saboteurs, to make way for his horse and or waited for them to make way of their own volition.
 

Lizzie66

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 July 2008
Messages
665
Visit site
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the Saboteurs general conduct, all pedestrians under the law of England and Wales have right of way.

It does not matter whether or not the person is on a public road, highway, path, bridleway or indeed they are trespassing, they still have right of way overriding any vehicle, horse drawn carriage or mounted horse.

True about a vehicle, horse drawn carriage and bicycle but can you point me to the rule regarding mounted horse as it doesn't mention this on any of the government websites that I have checked.
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
……..

It does not matter whether or not the person is on a public road, …….. they still have right of way overriding any vehicle.

Therefore the person in the video should have come to a halt and asked the persons believed to be Saboteurs, to make way for his horse and or waited for them to make way of their own volition.

Para 1. Wrong. The act of obstructing traffic, going about their lawful business, and on a Public Highway, is an offence. The offence is known as Jaywalking. You surprise me J_m.

Para 2. Are we to assume that you've never got out of Trot, on a horse? Stop the horse travelling at speed, and within those few strides? You surprise me, again! :D

Alec.
 

Juni141

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 April 2013
Messages
166
Visit site
She clearly looks towards the approaching horse then steps back into its path. Why the heck does she do that?! Why was she in the path anyway? Had that been me, I would have moved away from the path to allow the horse room.

The photographer at Cheltenham was boffed by the horse's bum: he was up against the rail that the horses broke. Should he too demand justice?

This is my take on the video. I have watched and rewatched and I am convinced it is an intentional act by the sabs. Reading some of the other extremes these groups, and in particular this one, will go to upset, disrupt, bully and intimidate hunting people it in no way surprises me either.

It also raises the question of why there has been no concern from the sabs regarding the horse?! I know as soon a horse person falls off/gets knocked over/is injured by a horse they first thing they ask is how the horse is!! I thought they were supposed to be animal lovers....
 
Last edited:

Juni141

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 April 2013
Messages
166
Visit site
Ho ho. Hardly the same. Not least because the Cheltenham jockeys were desperately trying to straighten their mounts up. In the Mark Doggrell video clip, it is the horse who takes the evasive action, not the rider.

Tiddlypom how on earth can you claim to know for a fact that it is the horse not the rider, or in fact both or neither, that takes evasive action?!! The horse is travelling away from the camera at speed, you would struggle to see any aids applied by the rider from behind at any pace.

This is the problem with all these videos that are taken as gospel. Videos, like photos, can a) be tampered with and altered and b) have to be taken in context. Just look at that video from Judy Hewitt and the poor gamekeeper in Wales. Edited to fit her story, luckily the police and CPS saw right through this and she was prosecuted.
 

ester

Not slacking multitasking
Joined
31 December 2008
Messages
61,703
Location
Cambridge
Visit site
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the Saboteurs general conduct, all pedestrians under the law of England and Wales have right of way.

It does not matter whether or not the person is on a public road, highway, path, bridleway or indeed they are trespassing, they still have right of way overriding any vehicle, horse drawn carriage or mounted horse.

Therefore the person in the video should have come to a halt and asked the persons believed to be Saboteurs, to make way for his horse and or waited for them to make way of their own volition.

But from my view of the video they weren't in the way, there was plenty of space to go around them, they moved into his path.
 

Tiddlypom

Carries on creakily
Joined
17 July 2013
Messages
24,074
Location
In between the Midlands and the North
Visit site
Tiddlypom how on earth can you claim to know for a fact that it is the horse not the rider, or in fact both or neither, that takes evasive action?!! The horse is travelling away from the camera at speed, you would struggle to see any aids applied by the rider from behind at any pace.
I stand by what I posted. In my opinion, the horse jinks left as the rider goes to pass the pedestrians at speed.

He must have known that he had collided with at least one of them. However, whether the pedestrian stepped deliberately into his path, or whether she stepped back accidentally, I cannot say.
 

Cinnamontoast

Fais pas chier!
Joined
6 July 2010
Messages
36,428
Visit site
That would be so..or a "public road" as Ms warren/Nid calls it.

And when I've not been able to see a horse but can hear it on a road, it's pretty loud, no? Shod hooves on tarmac?

Sabs know the dangers of being involved with hunts: when I had the accident, I was told it was tough, I knew the risks of handling big horses (friend of a friend, barrister who deals with equine accidents). I wonder what and Nid will be told.
 

TwinkleT

Active Member
Joined
20 February 2014
Messages
44
Visit site
On the topic of the point to point, I was there and I think it's safe to say that the hunt supporters behaviour was equally poor, if not worse than the sabs. They were looking for a fight the whole day. I am not a supporter of either group and I would be embarrassed to be associated either of them. I would suggest that some hunt supporters need to get off there high horse and have a good look at their own behaviour if they are to gain any support for their cause from the general public.
 

Christmas Crumpet

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 August 2007
Messages
4,036
Visit site
On the topic of the point to point, I was there and I think it's safe to say that the hunt supporters behaviour was equally poor, if not worse than the sabs. They were looking for a fight the whole day. I am not a supporter of either group and I would be embarrassed to be associated either of them. I would suggest that some hunt supporters need to get off there high horse and have a good look at their own behaviour if they are to gain any support for their cause from the general public.

I was there too and actually the sabs behaviour was far worse than the hunt supporters. No hunt supporter wanted a fight at the P2P (and there wasn't one). What they did want was a peaceful fun family day of racing - you don't EVER see hunt supporters turn up and try to disrupt the day's proceedings if the sabs have a function on. It is always the sabs trying to disrupt a day's hunting or a hunt ball or a P2P.

My 3 year old daughter was terrified as we drove in to have people dressed in black with balaclavas on shouting at her through the window and banging on the side of the car. Not to mention the exceptionally drunk woman who jumped in front of our car and had to be dragged away. She was later arrested. Totally unnecessary at a family day out.
 

Juni141

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 April 2013
Messages
166
Visit site
I stand by what I posted. In my opinion, the horse jinks left as the rider goes to pass the pedestrians at speed.

He must have known that he had collided with at least one of them. However, whether the pedestrian stepped deliberately into his path, or whether she stepped back accidentally, I cannot say.

Yes but you have absolutely NO way to verify if the horse jinxed of its own accord or because of the aids of the rider?!!? This is my point, everyone swears gospel on these hazy, badly shot and biasedly edited videos that have in no way been independently verified (this applies to anti and pro videos).

IMO, the only thing we know for gospel is that had the sabs not been trespassing on private land the accident would not have happened. In my eyes it is as simple as that, don't break the law then going run to the police when things don't go your way!!!
 

LittleRooketRider

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 March 2013
Messages
1,335
Location
Dorset
Visit site
Yes but you have absolutely NO way to verify if the horse jinxed of its own accord or because of the aids of the rider?!!? This is my point, everyone swears gospel on these hazy, badly shot and biasedly edited videos that have in no way been independently verified (this applies to anti and pro videos).

IMO, the only thing we know for gospel is that had the sabs not been trespassing on private land the accident would not have happened. In my eyes it is as simple as that, don't break the law then going run to the police when things don't go your way!!!

Very good point at the end.

It would be interesting to see a pro-hunting/ unedited version of the events...i have only seen the won the antis/sabs keep bandying about with heavy editing, slo mo and melodramatic captions.
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
On the topic of the point to point, I was there and I think it's safe to say that the hunt supporters behaviour was equally poor, if not worse than the sabs. They were looking for a fight the whole day. I am not a supporter of either group and I would be embarrassed to be associated either of them. I would suggest that some hunt supporters need to get off there high horse and have a good look at their own behaviour if they are to gain any support for their cause from the general public.

Tell me again, you don't support either faction? Really? So you consider that those who Hunt, should continue to accept the appalling behaviour of those who don't? Really? I'm sorry to have to advise you, but that's not the way that the real world works.

Alec.
 

TwinkleT

Active Member
Joined
20 February 2014
Messages
44
Visit site
Your statement right there is your biggest issue. "So you consider that those who Hunt, should accept the appalling behaviour of those who don't?" It's the assumption that so many hunt supporters have that if you don't support the hunt you're somehow a supporter of the sabs. There seems to be an assumption from some that if you don't hunt you are some kind of half wit who can't possibly understand and it's this attitude that prevents any kind of decent debate. Of course I don't support the sabs, their behavior is ridiculous and again completely undermines their argument.

The point i'm trying very poorly to make is that currently I have no allegiance either way. However, the behaviour I have seen from both sides has been equally bad at times and neither has given me a compelling reason to support them. The antis are often hysterical and the only real argument I have seen from hunt supporters on here is either you're a liar if you point out a failing or you are a dim witted townie who couldn't possibly understand the country ways. There are so many people like me who are neither for or against but your attitude towards them means you are unlikely to gain their support. The hunts will be responsible for their own downfall, they don't need any help from the sabs.
 

Lizzie66

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 July 2008
Messages
665
Visit site
On the topic of the point to point, I was there and I think it's safe to say that the hunt supporters behaviour was equally poor, if not worse than the sabs. They were looking for a fight the whole day. I am not a supporter of either group and I would be embarrassed to be associated either of them. I would suggest that some hunt supporters need to get off there high horse and have a good look at their own behaviour if they are to gain any support for their cause from the general public.

Can you give examples. The newspaper article certainly indicates to me that the people looking for a confrontation on the day were from the protestors. I would imagine that some people confronted with thugs looking for a fight might have reacted poorly and responded in kind, which, especially on a family day out, is not acceptable. However there is no guarantee that these people reacting badly were anything to do with the hunt.

I have used the term "thug" deliberately as these people can be seen to have gone dressed in a threatening way and trying to hinder the progress of lorries and cars and are not peacefully protesting but being deliberately intimidating.
 
Top