BUY, BUY, BUY from LUSH - see jrp204

[Brandysnap]

Well, it's all a bit lost on me.

Us lot where i live have never heard of LUSH, nor do we need to. Unless they have good wellies for less than a tenner? Now we're talking.

Does LUSH stand for Less Under Slung Heel, which seems to insitunate that our welly-bound socks will no longer work forwards? BS

 

[tinaarena]

i find it highly insulting but hilarious that you would compare people who work for an ethical fairtrade anti-animal testing company to nazi's.rethink your statement and all those who agree, how hurtfull is that for people with family history.
by your reactions- face book, comparisons, whipping sabs (ive seen it with my own eyes out on a walk not part of a sab) that you are doing something illegal. if you were not you would merely take the moral high ground but your not = guilty i think. 80% of the uk cant be wrong, your the brutes not us.thanks for your time.

 

[combat_claire]

Yes the Nazi comparison was a little silly, but the point the poster was trying to make was about following orders, not seriously suggesting that Lush are on a par with mass ethnic cleansing.

Let us not forget that the HSA, ALF and their ilk are no mean squeaky clean in this debate - there have been assaults on kennels, fire bombs, bomb threats, charges under public order legislation, saboteurs armed with pick axe handles.

I don't have a problem with monitors wasting their time filming my legal hunting, but I do have a problem with the intimidating tactics they employ.

 

[tinaarena]

well you must be in the minority, how many 'accidents' have happened, maybe you should youtube some things, their horrific. not saying its you personally but your brood arnt 'squeaky' clean either, brandising sticks is nothing compared to getting whipped across the head or trampled by a 16hh horse.its the hunts(sorry accidental mauling) that are illegal, sabbing isnt. and lets be honest worse things are happening in the streets however dog fights are pretty much the same caliber of cruelty inflicted upon the foxes.any 'christenings' lately?

 

[Natch]

Naturally (and everybody else),

I'd just like to point out that if you think I am seriously comparing Lush employees to the Nazis, you have probably misunderstood my post.

Just making sure, ta.

I was referring to Broken Arrow's comment, which did appear to be serious

Profile, hello and welcome to the forum. Your first post was made in reply to me and sounded as if you thought I was calling Lush's employees Nazis - No I wasn't, I was commenting on how ridiculous it was that people were/may have been making this assumption.

In reply to your second comment, a helpful tip. If one is trying to maintain a moral high ground, best not to stoop to your oponent's level. Two wrongs don't make a right. I still maintain that some activity from "Antis" toward those who are hunting legally has been violent, and that Antis have tried to/have succeeded in inflicting damage to adults, children and dogs. This is not what I believe an organisation trying to take the moral high ground should be up to.

Hope that clarifies things.

 

[combat_claire]

Would it be possible to at least run your posts through a spell check or use paragraphs they aren't easy to read at all.

The act of saboteuring a hunt might not be in itself illegal - but trespass onto private land where the majority of hunts take place is a civil offence. The Criminal Justice acts also cover the public disorder and several saboteurs have been charged under this law following verbal abuse of police officers and refusal to remove scarves and balaclavas covering their identities.

I would be interested to learn why someone who is trying to keep to the moral high ground feels the need to obscure their identity.

There are over 300 packs of hounds in the UK, who go out on average twice a week for 6 months of the year. Yet since February 2005 thee have been just two convictions for hunting, one of which was overturned on appeal. This evidence rather suggests to me that hunts are continuing to work within the law.

Yet even when conducting legal activities we are still subject to harrassment by self-appointed vigilantes. The tragic death of Trevor Morse was a case in point.

I'm a little confused by the childish argument that seems to be along the lines of 'yes we had sticks, but they had whips' - the fact remains that violence from either side is unacceptable. One whipper-in who was convicted of assault was fired by their hunt, yet we see the anti-hunting brigade continuing to welcome with open arms those charged and convicted of violent activity against hunt members.

The fact that you claim worse things are happening on the UK streets as justification for the behaviour of the hunt saboteurs is quite frankly laughable. This from the anti-hunting brigade who have laid siege to kennels, fire bombed premises, damaged vehicles and injured/stolen hounds and horses. Where exactly do you live? Down town Baghdad??

There is proven veterinary evidence that hunting causes considerably less suffering than other methods of fox control; the fact that you have to resort to comparisons with dog fighting just weakens your argument.

If by christening you meant blooding, then kindly get with the times. This practice fell by the wayside many years ago. Can't quite see people queuing up to have a chewed up sock doused in fox urine painted on their cheeks!

 

[tinaarena]

personally i just dont understand how people like yourself are able to go out and hunt these poor creatures, do we not all have the right to a life?who decides who lives and who dies.i believe if there is a valid arguement for controlling fox numbers surely theres a more civilised way of doing it other than tormenting an animal for hours then being torn apart.the big question is do you or do you not break the law by hunting foxes, especially in areas where foxes are known?
theres only been two convictions because of the good ol' 'accident' excuse?!
it just baffles me the cruelty involved.

 

[combat_claire]

Yet by that very argument you decide that the fox/mink has more right to life than a pheasant, chicken, lamb or duckling. Who are you to make that decision, while telling me I haven't got the right to protect my livestock because everything deserves the right to life.

This is the problem, the whole Hunting Act (and yes I have read it from cover to cover) is very clear on what is prohibited and what is allowed, but is deathly silence on how the countryside should be managed when a management tool is removed. The problem is your side haven't been able to come up with a better solution than hunting - which allows management by natural selection, without the possibility of wounding and is quick.

I categorically state that I work within the Hunting Act 2004 and to my knowledge have not broken the law.

If you are going to come in here and only post on one thread rather than being an active member of the whole forum then at least do me the courtesy of a, answering the questions I pose you; rather than ignoring the difficult and uncomfortable ones and by at least getting a grasp of the basic facts of the argument.

The convictions under the Hunting Act were the Exmoor Foxhounds - the appeal later found that Tony Wright's intention had been to flush with two hounds, he believed he was within the law and the Judge decided in favour of the defendant on the basis that you cannot be hunting by accident, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and clearly defines hunting as pursuing with dogs.

Of the three convictions that remain in place the Minehead Harriers chased a fox with mange, the kindest thing to do would have been to end its misery but that is not permitted under the act.

The Quantock Staghounds case found that the defendants did not set out to break the law, but that their belief the hunting was exempt was on dodgy ground. The judgement also offered further advice as to how the flushing exemption should be carried out.

The Flint & Denbigh which is the only other conviction of traditional hunting still standing was based on whether the terrierman was digging to prevent damage to gamebirds (an anomaly of the Act which doesn't allow terrier work to protect livestock)

The Heythrop, The Isle of Wight, The Percy & The Ullswater have all had cases dropped following a complete lack of evidence.

 

[tinaarena]

check out the hunt sabs on youtube, this is what happens, maybe not on your hunts but then again theres good and bad in everyone and yes i am in here purely to discuss this topic which is very close to my heart and obviously yours too looking at your profile.according to Lush stores which was the beginning of this discussion they've had brilliant feedback and everyones backing the cause apart from a few hicks.

 

[suzysparkle]

As a lush customer for many years, and one who understands both sides of the hunting debate think about this - it is only the proceeds from ONE lush product that is being used to fund this campaign!! Personally I won't be buying this product but will continue to shop in lush and certainly won't be harassing the staff. I get hassle most days where I work (not lush may I add) and accused of things that could not be further than the truth. I've also said this before but....I bet we all buy things from companies that if we knew everything they did may reconsider. A good example is supermarkets who still sell cheap meat and battery eggs. I do as well but I buy the free range stuff thus funding the products I believe in. At least Lush are telling buyers what they are supporting, and making products specific to those campaigns.
Hassling the front line, low paid staff is just thoughtless and pointless. They don't make the decisions but they do have to have a job!!!
I am disappointed that Lush are supporting this though. I live next to a farm and have witnessed the destruction caused by Foxes (and Badgers!) many a time. One lambs head was eaten as it was being born!! The alternative ways of controlling foxes are far more horrific. That said the one time I did encounter a hunt meet (I was in a car and waited over 5 mins to allow a man with a rearing Horse to gain control - once gained I crawled past at a snails pace) all I got was snooty and nasty looks. Hence I say I can see both sides but still disagree with this one from Lush.
Finally - much as I like most lush products...one with Citronella in it?? Can't see it being popular!!!

 

[Natch]

Profile, it seems that you aren't really answering combat claire's questions put to you. That's a shame, as it discredits your posts. I see you also haven't answered my last post to you.

FWIW I am neither pro nor anti fox hunting; I sit on the fence, because I have never been totally persuaded by one side or the other.

What I DO object to, and is people who claim to be taking the moral high ground, deliberately being violent towards adults, children, horses and dogs who are acting WITHIN THE LAW. Be that on either the hunting or anti hunting sides. I would really appreciate it if you could confirm you don't support this either.

 

[HeWasGeeBee]

sabbing isnt.

Criminal Justice and Public Act 1994

Section 68 - this limits the right to protest by creating a new offence of aggravated trespass. This makes it an offence to trespass o­n land where a lawful activity is taking place where a person does anything which is intended to disrupt, obstruct or intimidate people so as to deter them from engaging in that activity. The offence carries a maximum penalty of three months in prison or a fine up to ú2,500

However don't panic folks the Sabs have declared the act a failure and openly break it.

Ring a bell anyone?

 

[combat_claire]

It is easy to claim brilliant feedback when any post to their Wordpress blog that disagrees or criticises their decision is never published.

When will you be answering some of the questions I posed to you in earlier postings?

 

[tinaarena]

hi claire, im having difficulty figuring out which are actual questions and which are just statements (retorical questions)?!the only questions i could make out, ? a usual give away seen, as my posts arnt in essay form, were 'where do i live' and 'downtown bagdahd' so i will answer those questions, the highlands and no. are they good enough for you or do you want a 1000 words?

 

[tinaarena]

the violence is on both sides. i agree with lush highlighting that hunting is still active and that 'accidents' do happen and that the police arnt doing anything to help enforce this law. damage has been done to the sabs too remember. and in my opinion hunts shouldnt be happening in the first place, go out for a gallop on horses-been there done that, but why bring hounds that are bred for catching foxes and expect them not to do their job?!ive got deer hounds and i dont take them to places i know have deer-animals that shes programmed through generations to kill-to me that'd be stupid?
oh and its prolife not profile thanks

 

[oofadoofa]

oh and its prolife not profile thanks

Shouldn't that be lowlife? :grin:

 

[combat_claire]

Here are the questions I want answering from my earlier posts:

Why do saboteurs feel the need to obscure their identity if they are 'keeping the moral high ground'

Why does a fox/mink have more right to life than a lamb/pheasant/duckling

 

[rosie fronfelen]

having led an obviously sheltered life as until now have never heard of this company, i don't think i've missed out on anything- if this is the way they want to promote their goods then its very biased and unprofessional. no need for any lush pressies for xmas then!!

 

[combat_claire]

I admit that some hunting people have been provoked into retaliating against saboteurs - I don't condone this, I feel it is counter-productive. But hunting is making it clear that this behaviour is unacceptable. Christopher Marles was removed from his position as whipper-in after a conviction for assault. How many saboteurs have been thrown out for violent offences or threatening behaviour?

There is absolutely no legal evidence for your assertion that accidents are happening. Hunts are doing their utmost to uphold the law. I'm not going t type out the list of unsuccessful prosecutions again, the details are all there in black and white.

Your anti-hunting side has confidently asserted that all hounds could convert to drag hunting, therefore no hounds need to be put down; now you state that we shouldn't take hounds out at all. Please make your mind up.

The horse riding element is only a small part of hunting. I don't own my horse, have never been hunting mounted and going for a gallop without hounds really has no attraction to me riding my humble two wheeled steed! Our hunt master has estimated that for every person on 4 legs, there are at least another 10 on their feet, in cars and on bikes or quads.

I don't envy your deer hounds then, the way the deer population is spreading throughout the UK there won't be many places for walkies that meet your strict criteria.

 

[ester]

CC I mentioned this on one of the other threads and you might know!, the sabateur side of things seem to have a plethora of unpleasant videos out there from pre and post ban which make for uncomfortable viewing for someone who is pro hunt but never really had the opportunity to go (hopefully soon!). Though I can understand how hunt staff become riled. Do hunt supporters have the same footage to support their argument as opposed to just stories/word of mouth.

 

[will04]

The number you need to complain to about all this is 02074343948.
This is the number for Sean Gifford who is head of ethics for the company and the main man behind this campaign.
Lets get as many people we can to bombard this man with phone calls! spread the word!

 

[combat_claire]

We don't tend to post the footage taken on Youtube but here is one video that shows saboteurs armed with bits of fence and chunky sticks which are by no stretch of the imagination for aiding walking:

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

Here are just some of the recent arrests and convictions of saboteurs who claim to be upholding the law:

Tiff Clelland and David Marriot were charged with public order offences, they were asked to remove the clothing covering their faces and refused becoming verbally abusive to the police who had made the request. Hardly the upstanding pillars of community that you seem to be claiming the HSA are.

As for evidence of violent disorder from the hunt saboteurs - injunctions for the Fitzwilliam and Portman would hardly have been granted if there was a lack of evidence of intimidation. Here is just a small selection of the violent intimidation that hunt supporters have been subject to pre and post ban.

January 1993 - 5 police officers injured and 25 arrests of hunt saboteurs in Essex

March 1994 - Saboteurs armed with fencing stakes hospitalise four members of the Four Burrow hunt

November 1994 - Saboteurs charged with aggravated trespass following at incident at the Woodland Pytchley Hunt

December 1996 - saboteur arrested after causing a horse to fall onto the master, Whipper in also arrested after hitting saboteur trying to force his horse onto barbed wire

June 2002 - saboteurs carrying hammers and pick axe handles attack the Three Counties Hunt - http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competit ... 36173.html

September 2004 - Old Surrey Hunt Kennels held under siege by violent saboteurs who threw stones at humans and hounds. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... sters.html

October 2004 - Suzanne Amos found guilty of ABH following incident at Quorn Hunt
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/58511.html

December 2006 - Saboteur arrested for carrying an offensive weapon at a meet of the Essex & Suffolk

March 2009 - Bryan Griffiths charged with mansluaghter following death of hunt supporter at the Warwickshire Hunt

 

[ester]

Thank you,

I think it helps to have it written down like that for people who aren't really directly involved and haven't come across it themselves.

 

[Cavblacks]

It is sickening to see it all written down like that, surely pro or anti hunting any logical person can see this is not right?

 

[oofadoofa]

A link to another article from December 2008 here
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=31370

 

[tinaarena]

thats clever!!

 

[ester]

oofa is very clever

thanks oofa

 

[rosie fronfelen]

why do sabs usually have "no fixed abode!!" speaks for itself really- lol!!

 

[Onyxia]

its the same mentality - that the little person should be absolved of all responsibility because they are merely 'doing their job' - regardless of what that might be.

The employees of Lush are presumably supporting the HSA by remaining employed at Lush.

Hardly.
Given the ways things are,someone working at Lush is very unlikely to find another job if they leave because of the company supporting the HSA.
Practical comes before principle,and most of the general public simply dont care about hunts,sabs or blood sports.

 

[oofadoofa]

I'm loving the CA's quotes of the week this week

"This is a very strange commercial decision. Hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated their support for hunting and the rural way of life and many of them would previously have been Lush customers. On the other hand the number of people supporting an organisation like the HSA is tiny and, let's be honest, hunt sabs are not the biggest consumers of soap."
Countryside Alliance Head of Media Tim Bonner on High Street toiletries company Lush donating money to the Hunt Saboteurs Association