Change to hunting forum description

H

HHO admin

Administrator
Joined
7 December 2009
Messages
14
Visit site
This forum has been renamed and has a new description on the main index page. While we are happy for debate about hunting to continue in this forum, we also wish to encourage users to talk about their hunting experiences and for hunting newbies to ask questions that more experienced hunters may be able to answer. Please respect individuals who are new to this board and do not subject them to behaviour that contravenes the forum terms and conditions. Personal attacks on fellow users and abusive language will not be tolerated.

HHO Admin
 
No seriously, Labour provided us with so many loopholes that we needn't break the law! The smirk is simply my character...I apologise!
 
Dont apologise for having a sunny disposition and a good sense of humour !

But..... the problem is that the work 'hunting' has been de facto redefined..... and some take it to mean 'traditional' (illegal) hunting, others take it to mean hunting within the law, and others take the p*ss and break the law anyway. So maybe I'd be a bit happier if HHO Admin had said 'Hunting Legally' or 'Hunting within the law' at the top of this thread, just to be clear about where things stood.....

:)


RS
 
Whenever there is a law you will always get people who break it. Hunting people who do so are no worse than somebody not wearing a seatbelt when driving.

We will always call it hunting, so the forum may aswell still be called hunting discussions. You can't say that every member of the hunting forum is hunting legally can you?
 
"We will always call it hunting, so the forum may aswell still be called hunting discussions." " You can't say that every member of the hunting forum is hunting legally can you? "

I well know that *some* people are hunting illegally.... hence using the word 'hunting' makes it hard to know if someone is legal or if they are trumpeting the fact that they are delibleratly illegal.

However.... and more to my point.... I'm sure the nice people who own/run the magazine and the web site dont want to be seen as supporting / encouraging people who do something illegal.

RS
 
I'm nice, yet I would support people who hunt illegally because I believe so strongly that it shouldn't of been banned!

That surely doesn't make me a bad person...does it?
 
Depends on what form that support takes.

I support your right to support pros if that consists of campaiging / protesting against the law (whilst complying with it).

However, if you actually aid or assist someone in breaking the law, or break the law itself, then you become a criminal, and I could not support that.

Notwithstanding, my main point was in respect of the company behind the website and magazine, and I would assume that their corporate lawyers would not want to appear to suppoer illegality.

RS
 
Thing is RS, there is little point in us proclaiming to be hunting illegally on here - cos all it would take is one anti to phone the police to say that the HHO forum is a hotbed of illegal activity, and to let LACS or the RSPCA know, and they'd track every pro admitting it down by IP and track each hunt doing it, using the statements of this website as evidence.

Just think, wouldn't it make us look evil if, what, 5 hunts were prosecuted for hunting based on a website where the evil pros boasted about flaunting the law and continuing to cause animal suffering for their own pleasure..... etc etc etc...

I will say that it's an idiot who believes hunts have stopped, who knows what the huntsman and his hounds get up to in the middle of no where. But I won't stand and say that I have seen my huntsman hunting foxes, or I know of X who's been hunting foxes.

So my hunting experiences may be, somewhat, limited...

I'll let you all know about sabs tho... didn't you know Cheshire is the home of the only two hunts where sabs have died? And coming from surrey, where there was a shockingly close attempt at a third...

*sigh*
 
"Thing is RS, there is little point in us proclaiming to be hunting illegally on here - cos all it would take is one anti to phone the police to say that the HHO forum is a hotbed of illegal activity, and to let LACS or the RSPCA know, and they'd track every pro admitting it down by IP and track each hunt doing it, using the statements of this website as evidence.

Just think, wouldn't it make us look evil if, what, 5 hunts were prosecuted for hunting based on a website where the evil pros boasted about flaunting the law and continuing to cause animal suffering for their own pleasure..... etc etc etc..."

A) The police wouldn't do anything from just reading accusations on a website. Too much hassle and paperwork for them.

B) The hunts wouldn't get prosecuted just because Mrs A says huntsman B is hunting illegally, hear'say is not solid proof. If they did prosecute using this method can you imagine the antis, they'd be registering as Hunt_Supporter and saying every hunt in the country were illegally killing foxes.

As it happens, every hunt in the country are legally killing foxes....
 
I believe somebody was prosecuted for drugs offenses based on a Friends Reunited submission...

And as Admin have threatened legal action if I continue to condone war and atrocities commited towards people Admin reguard as Terrorists, thus making me a terrorist sympathiser, I take what I post on here very seriously...
 
"Thing is RS, there is little point in us proclaiming to be hunting illegally on here "

The thing is, I have the impression that some people already have.... at least hinted, if not proclaimed....

RS
 
"The police wouldn't do anything from just reading accusations on a website. Too much hassle and paperwork for them."

Absolutely, actually I've checked with them and pretty much however I break the ban they won't do anything. Probably the lack of a red coat and a suitably far back accent.

I've been flushing deer this morning.

Ooooops.
 
"However, if you actually aid or assist someone in breaking the law, or break the law itself, then you become a criminal, and I could not support that."

Really? Could you not conceive of a situation where a law is so unjust that you would support it being broken.

Would you comply with any law no matter how evil?
 
the law is set for reason and should be adheard too ! unbelievable you boast to flushing out deer :( the welfare of the animal needs to be taken into account this not a sport :mad:
 
fair enough
i'm sure if people weren't so unpleasant on this forum more users would want to contribute. at the moment, with a small number of pros being consistently personal and vitriolic in their attacks i'm not surprised most people are put off.
 
Fair enough...but we do need to acknowledge that the arrogance and prejudice of antis can cause intense anger in reasonable people. Difference of opinion is one thing, but when antis start criticizing hunting from a position of blind prejudice and ignorance, then reasonable people lose patience,
 
"the welfare of the animal needs to be taken into account"
Exactly, that's why I'm so against shooting the deer.

Troble is if I did adhere to the law I'd have to shoot them.

Better just to let them run off.
 
"The police wouldn't do anything from just reading accusations on a website. Too much hassle and paperwork for them."

Absolutely, actually I've checked with them and pretty much however I break the ban they won't do anything.
Ooooops.
Click to expand...

Wrong sadly, if a crime is reported the Police are duty bound to investigate it, Home Office rules require it. That does not mean of course, that a prosecution will follow
 
Well, yes technically they do have to investigate it. Where it's someone confessing to a crime the investigation goes pretty quickly. Something like 'oh look, there's a crime being committed!'

They then decide whether to prosecute.

In my case, because I'm not a member of a hunt, ie the minority selected for persecution, they don't prosecute me for breaking the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top