BUY, BUY, BUY from LUSH - see jrp204

[ester]

I liked that too, whilst horse people aware that they probably spend too much time smelly are probably quite big customers.

Though not me, can barely walk past the place, have been in once , set allergicy friend out in hives so we had to leave :grin:

 

[glamourpuss]

combat_claire thank you very, very much for that post.

I sit very firmly on the fence regarding hunting. I will no longer buy from Lush because of their support of the HSA.
I have stated several times that if Lush had chosen to support the League against cruel sports, although I wouldn't buy the product I would admire their stance. The difference?
From my research the LACS actually work within the law to monitor hunts and ensure their practises aren't illegal. They are always easily identifiable when they attend a hunt, which leads me to believe they have nothing to hide. They do not appear to condone violence and disruptive behaviour but seem to attempt to bring people who they believe to have broken the hunting law to justice. They are also campaining to end other 'cruel' sports such as bullfighting and snaring.

IMO they want the same thing as what the HSA propoganda is stating they just seem to be more sensible and less spiteful about it.

I'm still shaking my head in disbelief though that a company such as Lush feels the need to support such a thing as an antifoxhunting group at all when there are so many deserving causes out there which would have everyone rushing to buy their product to support.
When EVERY SINGLE DAY 17 babies are still born or die shortly after birth in the UK http://www.why17.org/
When their are children living with domestic violence http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Children/children.htmhttp://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Children/children.htm
When good elderly people who have worked hard all their life are being abused and neglected http://helpguide.org/mental/elder_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm

....are these children and people less important and have the right to less help than the little fluffy foxes? Or is it just that by supporting one of these causes they wouldn't get to think of a lovely 'cuddly' bath bomb name and get their staff to wear cute outfits

 

[combat_claire]

Excellent post KW33. As you rightly point out there are other anti-hunting groups they could have chosen to support who don't indulge in violent tactics. I would have been disappointed if they chose to fund the LACS who I disagree with for obvious reasons, but although their deer management is rather lacking they do not deliberately pick fights with those lawfully partaking in country sports, rather being on hand to video proceedings from a distance.

Totally agree with you there are so many better projects that they could have supported, which wouldn't have alienated any of their customer base.

 

[tinaarena]

are you trying to say something about the travelling community now?

 

[tinaarena]

that was in responce to the 'lowlife' instead of 'prolife' comment!

 

[GPWool]

Don't you think accusing the HSA of violence and then setting your dogs off to rip apart a fox isn't just a bit hypocritical?

I know people who work for Lush and they are ardently non-violent.

Did you know that by boycotting Lush and slandering their good name you may be denying funds for orphaned children in Gambia?
see: http://lushcharitypot.co.uk/

 

[combat_claire]

You really haven't got a clue have you. Instead of making things up and throwing wild accusations perhaps you ought to equip yourself with some of the basic facts.

Pre-ban hounds would kill foxes with a quick nip to the back of the neck, the breaking up of the carcass would take place post-mortem. Makes for good emotional propaganda though.

We have never suggested that the people who work for Lush are violent, we are objecting to their support for the violent tactics employed by the Hunt Saboteurs Association. Lush also have a history of supporting other groups and their extreme tactics such as Sea Shepherd. There are ways and means of achieving your aims and violence is never one of them.

 

[GPWool]

"Pre-ban hounds would kill foxes with a quick nip to the back of the neck"
ahhh, makes them sound so cute, I'm starting to wonder how much you are aware of!

OK, so what have I made up and where are the wild accusations?

 

[combat_claire]

Hounds ripping apart the fox for one. If you can't get the basic facts right then I'm hardly going to be able to attach any credibility to your statements on other threads.

I have seen pre-ban kills and I wrote the above post on the basis of what I have seen and judged for myself, not on some propaganda leaflet peddled by the Hunt Saboteurs Association.

 

[GPWool]

how about the HSA videos? are these made up?

 

[combat_claire]

I don't know, I haven't seen them so I can't comment.

 

[GPWool]

I have just watched the video from the link you posted and cannot believe you maintain that it's the sabs who are violent!

It clearly shows them being assaulted by hunt followers and looks like one needed an ambulance.

I would say the sticks were carried for self defense - definetly, they were being chased after all.

After all you've said about the sabs being violent and that you would not support any hunt that condoned violence, surely this is evidence that it's the hunts and hunt followers that are the instigators or are you not seeing the picture here?

If Lush can be condemned for supporting an organisation that on hearsay evidence is accused of violence, then you should be condemned for supporting organsations on which there is video evidence of violence.

 

[GPWool]

"combat_claire" (what inspired you to call yourself that?)
I'm really annoyed about all your anti-violent preaching, saying you've not seen the videos then in another thread I find you've posted this link;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLczxUkqtEE

 

[combat_claire]

Your question was would you support a specific hunt where there was proof of violent behaviour. I explained what I knew of the packs I support and believe that our peaceful approach is one I can continue to support. If you look on other hunting forums you will see I have always been vocal in speaking up against moronic and violent tactics, whether that was sending heavy items to LACS freepost address, beating up saboteurs or smearing kebabs on Lush windows

You have as yet failed to condemn the violent actions of the HSA, claiming now that they carry sticks and fence posts for self-defence. I see it more as unneccessary provocation. If I walked round London with a knife claiming it was self-defence I wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and saboteurs claiming it is for defence doesn't wash either.

 

[combat_claire]

I used to be in the Territorial Army hence the Combat_Claire. So trying to infer that because of the nickname I have violent feelings towards saboteurs won't work.

I have not seen the HSA video in which you claim that foxes are torn to pieces. I clearly didn't state that I haven't seen footage of anti-hunting activists.

Am I missing something? Is it me featured in that footage? I think not, then I can hardly be condemned for the actions of others.

 

[GPWool]

Of course I condemn violence by any and all.

On this forum I see lots of accusations of violence by sabs, but when I try to find video evidence - by following your suggested viewing on another thread - I find it's the hunt followers who are clearly the aggressors, finally satisfying their bloodlust by injuring one of the saboteurs.

I'm sorry but if you preach non-violence then you cannot throw your lot in with these despicable, pro-hunting morons.

I've just done a google search of "hunt saboteurs convicted of assault" and just got page after page of;

MAURICE BELL, master of the Wensleydale FH convicted of Assault and Actual Bodily Harm on two ...

CA Supporter Assaulted Hunt Saboteur. Wayne Spencer attending court A Countryside Alliance supporter has been convicted of attacking a hunt ...

The huntsman was also convicted for head-butting a disabled magistrate during a fracas ... He assaulted a hunt saboteur and signed a formal police caution ...

"The HSA knows of no saboteurs convicted of violence in the last 12 .... for ABH or common assault

Atherstone Foxhounds supporter convicted of assault and fined £200

Convicted Hunt Supporters Allan Summersgill. Edward Vickery of The Quantock Staghounds, convicted of assault after riding down and attacking a saboteur. ...

3 Jan 2005 ... Two hunt masters were subsequently convicted, but later acquitted

A hunt supporter has been convicted of attacking a saboteur in clashes on the last day before hunting with dogs was ...

It's clear to me from which side the violence comes.
If you condemn violence but continue to support hunts behaviour then you either you don't know whats going on (I think unlikely) or you're a hypocrite.

 

[combat_claire]

To be honest we have more important things to do with our time then set up websites of people who have been persecuted by anti-hunting activists. You obviously haven't been trying hard enough to find cases where hunt supporters have been violently treated:

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 murder following death of hunt supporter at the Warwickshire Hunt, later reduced to manslaughter.

The fact that we do not publish our video footage on Youtube does not make it any less true.

You specifically asked me would I end association with a hunt that employed violent tactics. I said yes, yet you cannot find any evidence where packs I support and follow were involved with violence. You cannot debate by moving the goal posts and bleating that I should stop hunting because some packs of which I have never hunted with and probably never will have a history of clashes with saboteurs.

Out of interest did you used to post on Hounds as Fluffydoe?

 

[combat_claire]

On the flip side hunt saboteurs in Cheshire targeted supporters of the beagle pack in a campaign of intimidation: This paragraph is copied from the Burns Report:

'They have blown hunting horns and tried to draw hounds on to roads; they have sprayed hounds with aerosols and unpleasant substances. At times they have attacked followers, hit horses, smashed vehicles and slashed tyres. In the early 1990s the Hunt had to employ guards to protect vehicles whilst the Hunt was out. One year when a hunting person was at the TarporIey Hunt Club dinner red paint was thrown all over his house and windows and the vehicles outside badly damaged.'

In Sussex the hunt saboteurs were eventually curtailed by a court case to prevent them trespassing on private land, while in London Heather Nicholson, Natasha Avery and Daniel Wadham took umbrage at a hunting sticker and abused the family in the car, shouting that they were scum and banging on the car.

The Fitzwilliam & Portman hunts were both awarded injunctions against top hunt saboteurs to prevent disruption of legal activities in 1993. This followed years of violent disruption from activists trying to bring control of the pack away from the huntsman and dragging young followers from their ponies.

 

[GPWool]

no I have never posted on this forum other than as GPWool.

We are kind of wasting our time batting this back and forth so I propose to end this with some sort of agreement to disagree but there a few points before I go.

1) Do we know that the sabs you refer to are part of HSA? I have no idea but if I was in charge of the association, I would chuck them out if proved guilty of violence.

2) on a scale of things I would put blowing horns quite low, moving up through shouting abuse, onto damaging property and then ending with physically attacking people or animals.
Of the cases we both refer to, the instances of the latter seem more prevalent and more common with the pro-hunting bunch.
As I said, I did a quick google search and by far the majority were detailing accounts of violence by hunts or their supporters, some of these reports were by independent news organisations.
I am not dismissing or defending the cases you mention of sabs going armed, being abusive or even attacking, but I am trying to highlight which side of the fence the majority of cases fall.
As for 'Aggrevated Trespass' well that just means stopping someone from going about their lawful (pre-ban) activity, aggrevated trespass usually has nothing to do with aggression.

3) from the video you pointed out, the sticks, bits of branch and half rotten fenceposts are just the kind of things to be picked up for self defense if being chased by people on quad bike armed with the same. Lets not forget who was doing the chasing here.

4) I am not looking to find cases where the hunts you ride with have been the cause of trouble, I'm referring to your general support of fox hunting.

I can understand how feelings would run high in such confrontational circumstances, one side seeing people taking pleasure from cruelty and the other side having strangers coming onto their land to interfere with something they can see no harm in.
Either way, there is no place for violence and no need to break laws.
And that includes the 2004 Hunting Act.