Crawley and Horsham Hunt. More monitors needed perhaps?

meesha said:
OOOhhhhhhh - you were the one wanting to point out you had a company !

Just trying to lighten the mood...... will go and play with my lego then !

btw I didnt use the search facility... and before you ask ... yes I do hunt !
Click to expand...

I do believe I responded to a question and did not want to point out anything to be fair! I was not going to ask you if you hunted nor do I care but anything else you need me to know I will be here about's when you are bored of your Lego meesha.
 
Are you a hunt monitor? And if so what is it that makes you want to be one. What factual evidence do you have that alows you to build such a strong adversion to Hunting?
 
Alec Swan said:
Thanks for the heads-up!! I've found their web page, and the contact details, and just as soon as they reply, to confirm that what you say is the truth, then I shall be as generous as I'm able, with a donation, and I'd encourage you all to follow my example.

Alec.
Click to expand...

DawnRay said:
You support criminals :eek:
Click to expand...

If there's a choice between supporting those who break the law, and supporting an unjust, ill thought out, and corrupt law, which has done our countryside no service at all, then just as the large department stores, a few years ago, "tested" the Sunday trading laws, then I'll support those who "test" our current hunting restrictions.

Alec.
 
wizzlewoo said:
Are you a hunt monitor? And if so what is it that makes you want to be one. What factual evidence do you have that alows you to build such a strong adversion to Hunting?
Click to expand...

Gosh it is like question time. No I am not a hunt monitor. Hence nothing makes me want to be that which I am not. The thread is unfortunately not about me it is about the conviction of Crawley and Horsham Hunt members who got caught by monitors hunting foxes illegally whilst pretending to be trail hunting. Do you have an opinion on the use of more monitors to deal with such lawlessness?
 
Alec Swan said:
If there's a choice between supporting those who break the law, and supporting an unjust, ill thought out, and corrupt law, which has done our countryside no service at all, then just as the large department stores, a few years ago, "tested" the Sunday trading laws, then I'll support those who "test" our current hunting restrictions.

Alec.
Click to expand...

At least you admit they were breaking the law but don't send all your money just now. There may be many more cases to come.
 
DawnRay said:
At least you admit they were breaking the law but don't send all your money just now. There may be many more cases to come.
Click to expand...

They were found guilty of breaking the law, just as some of your oddball animal rights, rabble have been found wanting. Whether in fact they were guilty, is an entirely different matter.

Those from Crawley and Horsham, for instance, didn't knowingly call hounds across a traffic filled road, in the near certain knowledge that hounds would be killed. They haven't illegally trapped wild deer and kept them in a compound without proper care, and managed to fool too many that they speak with authority, whilst by wilful neglect, allowed their charges to live and then die and endure such miserable existences.

Those from Crawley and Horsham aren't responsible for, or been charged with criminal damage, or put the lives of their fellow humans at risk.

Were I in your shoes, I'd consider your connections, before you sit in judgement of others. ;)

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
They were found guilty of breaking the law, just as some of your oddball animal rights, rabble have been found wanting. Whether in fact they were guilty, is an entirely different matter.

Those from Crawley and Horsham, for instance, didn't knowingly call hounds across a traffic filled road, in the near certain knowledge that hounds would be killed. They haven't illegally trapped wild deer and kept them in a compound without proper care, and managed to fool too many that they speak with authority, whilst by wilful neglect, allowed their charges to live and then die and endure such miserable existences.

Those from Crawley and Horsham aren't responsible for, or been charged with criminal damage, or put the lives of their fellow humans at risk.

Were I in your shoes, I'd consider your connections, before you sit in judgement of others. ;)

Alec.
Click to expand...

All nothing to do with me thankfully so I am happy and free to sit in judgement of those who break the law regardless of how much you may huff and puff :)
 
DawnRay said:
All nothing to do with me thankfully so I am happy and free to sit in judgement of those who break the law regardless of how much you may huff and puff :)
Click to expand...

That's an interesting change of face!! So are we to assume that you are in agreement with me, that the points I made, regarding the illegal activities of your cohorts, are just that, illegal, and something with which you would distance yourself? They will of course see you as a Judas, but as you would defend law and order, that shouldn't matter to you too much! ;)

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
They were found guilty of breaking the law, just as some of your oddball animal rights, rabble have been found wanting. Whether in fact they were guilty, is an entirely different matter.

Those from Crawley and Horsham, for instance, didn't knowingly call hounds across a traffic filled road, in the near certain knowledge that hounds would be killed. They haven't illegally trapped wild deer and kept them in a compound without proper care, and managed to fool too many that they speak with authority, whilst by wilful neglect, allowed their charges to live and then die and endure such miserable existences.

Those from Crawley and Horsham aren't responsible for, or been charged with criminal damage, or put the lives of their fellow humans at risk.

Were I in your shoes, I'd consider your connections, before you sit in judgement of others. ;)

Alec.
Click to expand...

Very well put.

I don't hunt, and nor am I a supporter or anti of it. In the world of hunting, I am Switzerland.

From what I have read about on here and in the general press about hunt 'monitors', they have caused a lot of damage to certain hunts. Endangering lives of both humans and animals is beyond unacceptable. :(

May I also point out the join date of DawnRay is May 2012, and considering the nature of the topic being posted on no other than HORSE AND HOUND, dare I add this...?

trolls.gif
 
Dawn ray is 100% a troll. Looking at the stirring it has done. I am disappointed it doesnt have a popcorn company. As I am disappointed it hasnt been very good it stirring. Alas I fear it is a rather immature troll. Dont worry, practice more and you will improve.
 
guido16 said:
Dawn ray is 100% a troll. Looking at the stirring it has done. I am disappointed it doesnt have a popcorn company. As I am disappointed it hasnt been very good it stirring. Alas I fear it is a rather immature troll. Dont worry, practice more and you will improve.
Click to expand...

Of course, the troll accusations when faced with the truth if it differs from your own opinion.
 
Alec Swan said:
Those from Crawley and Horsham, for instance, didn't knowingly call hounds across a traffic filled road, in the near certain knowledge that hounds would be killed.
Click to expand...

This is what I don't understand, the attitude of 'I don't like you killing animals, so I'm going to kill your animals in protest' :confused: Not the best way to get animal lovers on your side, really, is it?

RiderLizzie said:
I don't hunt, and nor am I a supporter or anti of it. In the world of hunting, I am Switzerland.
Click to expand...

LOL!
 
DawnRay said:
Gosh it is like question time. No I am not a hunt monitor. Hence nothing makes me want to be that which I am not. The thread is unfortunately not about me it is about the conviction of Crawley and Horsham Hunt members who got caught by monitors hunting foxes illegally whilst pretending to be trail hunting. Do you have an opinion on the use of more monitors to deal with such lawlessness?
Click to expand...


I am confused as to the purpose of your thread. When you complained because you felt there were no constructive comments I genuinely thought you might have been up for a good debate which is why I asked questions to get a bit of background knowledge. As it turns out I think you are nothing but a bored troll who can think of nothing more imaginative than hunting to start a controversial thread. But in answer to your question 'Do I have an opinion on monitors?', yes I do, I think they are mindless thugs who have no real interest in the safety and welfare of animals as they are happy to hurt, scare, intimidate, confuse and endanger any animal or human associated with the hunt, all in the name of a fox that does not exist?!
 
ThreeTB's said:
This is what I don't understand, the attitude of 'I don't like you killing animals, so I'm going to kill your animals in protest' :confused: Not the best way to get animal lovers on your side, really, is it?



LOL!
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is the determination by some on here to turn something that is very obviously bad about some huntsmen into an anti/pro debate, returning to now nonsense like the above?!
 
wizzlewoo said:
And whilst the goverment are implimenting a tighter monitoring system of the supposed 'non legal' hunting, (presumably in the form of personel from the poice force being brought in due to the increased risk of protestors) the NHS, police force, fire service, ambulance service and education system can hang on for a minute and hold out for there budgets because currently the budget is being spent on making sure 1 less fox possibly, accidently doesn't get chased whilst the hunt is out hunting well within the hunting guidelines also outlined with the use of goverment and tax payers funds.
Click to expand...

Pre-bloomin-cisely!!!!
 
wizzlewoo said:
I am confused as to the purpose of your thread. When you complained because you felt there were no constructive comments I genuinely thought you might have been up for a good debate which is why I asked questions to get a bit of background knowledge. As it turns out I think you are nothing but a bored troll who can think of nothing more imaginative than hunting to start a controversial thread. But in answer to your question 'Do I have an opinion on monitors?', yes I do, I think they are mindless thugs who have no real interest in the safety and welfare of animals as they are happy to hurt, scare, intimidate, confuse and endanger any animal or human associated with the hunt, all in the name of a fox that does not exist?!
Click to expand...

You are confused??? The magazine who's forum you are on have written a story about three senior members of a very well known hunt being found guilty of illegal hunting. Whilst claiming to be trail hunting, described by the judge as a "charade", they were instead hunting foxes. Now, all claims that hunts are trail hunting will be viewed with much more scepticism!
The old argument that actual hunts have not been prosecuted since the ban has now flown out of the window. Now if you don't think that is worthy news to discuss then carry on shouting troll at the top of your voice! For anyone actually concerned about this issue let the daft people confuse sabs/monitors purposely to stifle discussion as they choose. The motivation the anti's will get from this verdict is huge. If anybody thinks illegal hunting will not have an effect on how the supposed, decent 'trail hunting', hunts are viewed in the future then they are blinkered!
 
DawnRay said:
Ignoring the fact that it is the actions of three senior members of the Crawley and Horsham hunt who have caused this by breaking the law :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

To be honest, I couldn't actually give a flying fig.

I'd like my tax payers money to go on something that matters. Like, health, education, police, community, economy.......
 
OK so yes you do make a valid point in your last post about the anti's being motivated by this verdict. But I will also point out that you are very unclear as to your actual point in this thread as you change your angle of approach on each post.

That aside, relating to your first initial post, yes we, the Pro Hunting contingent, will have been effected dramatically by this verdict and it will make our argument more difficult. But equally more monitors will not help the situation but simply aggravate it further and induce a greater level of safety issues for horse, rider, hound and follower (be them anti or pro).
You said that I confuse monitors with anti's, I have yet to find a monitor that is not an anti and this is the problem. If monitors were genuinely non bias people then it would be a fair ruling should an issue be raised. There would also be no determination to 'catch out' a hunt nor would there be a threat to safety. But this will never be achieved and we do not live in such an idealistic world. Your views on this please.
 
wizzlewoo I am not changing my angle we are merely whilst discussing adding to the debate tbh. I accept the monitors are of course anti hunting but stressed the difference between those monitoring legally and sabs who are a completely different kettle of fish. The thread was to talk about the effectiveness now proven in court of the monitors so any talk of legal/illegal sab activity has no place here surely.
 
amymay said:
To be honest, I couldn't actually give a flying fig.

I'd like my tax payers money to go on something that matters. Like, health, education, police, community, economy.......
Click to expand...

As is your right to hope for that. Lets remember though amymay, this isnt a few poachers or lads from down the pub. Three senior hunt staff have been convicted of illegal hunting and waving a duster around on a riding crop for the camera's has merely compounded the ludicrous pretence of them trail hunting.
If as no doubt it will this has possibly large ramifications then there is only one place to lay the blame and that is the Crawley&Horsham Hunt. We might not like certain laws but breaking them is not the answer regardless of what certain people may think.
 
DawnRay said:
......... I accept the monitors are of course anti hunting but stressed the difference between those monitoring legally and sabs who are a completely different kettle of fish. .........
Click to expand...

So are we to conclude from your shift of stance, that whether Monitor or Sab, you would insist that all should operate within the law?

Alec.
 
I didn't realise hunting with a duster was illegal, but it's right got up Dawn's nose that they did that!

Is there a C&H hunt fund yet, Alec? I've seen the monitors dirty work round here, I believe they threw a fox to the hounds then got the huntsman arrested for hunting it with one local pack... So I very much doubt with the sort of witches who "monitor" the C&H that they're guilty of anything!
 
wizzlewoo said:
If monitors were genuinely non bias people then it would be a fair ruling should an issue be raised.
Click to expand...

Exactly, no one would have a problem with moniters if they were completely neutral, the reality is these self-appointed 'moniters' are sabs under a different name. Round here, these 'monitors' block the route of the hunt and shout abuse them film the reaction in the hope of getting something they can pass onto the police. This includes shouting abuse at minors, my OH's 13yo god daughter was called a slut!

This story appaered in the local paper:-

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...le-hunt-land/story-15677525-detail/story.html

But what the old hag failed to mention was that the ruck only started after her son attacted someone with a housebrick! It also turned out that these 'animal lovers' who feel the need to feed wild foxes couldn't be bothered to feed and look after their own pony who's care was taken over by someone who lived near by.

Lets face it, the majority couldn't give a stuff if people hunt or not, just like they don't give a stuff if people drive a few MPH over the speed limit, do a few jobs for cash in hand and not declare it, do a bit of shoplifting, smoke pot, I could go on...
 
DawnRay said:
As is your right to hope for that. Lets remember though amymay, this isn't a few poachers or lads from down the pub. Three senior hunt staff have been convicted of illegal hunting and waving a duster around on a riding crop for the camera's has merely compounded the ludicrous pretence of them trail hunting.
Click to expand...

It's a riding whip. A crop is something you find in a field.

As for the seniority of the staff - who else do you think is going to be prosecuted?:confused:

If, as no doubt it will, this has possibly large ramifications then there is only one place to lay the blame and that is the Crawley&Horsham Hunt.
Click to expand...

I can't see what larger ramifications there will be. And who else would be to blame, other than the perpetrators of the 'crime', i.e the Crawley & Horsham hunt?

We might not like certain laws but breaking them is not the answer regardless of what certain people may think.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but when nurses, doctors, policemen, teachers and firefighters are being made redundant because the Government can't afford to pay for them I object most strongly to frivolous expenditure of money on issues like this.
 
DawnRay said:
........ Lets remember though amymay, this isnt a few poachers or lads from down the pub. Three senior hunt staff have been convicted of illegal hunting .......
Click to expand...

I'd take it from that comment, that you are suggesting that the local poachers or the lads from the pub, have somehow committed a lesser crime than "Three senior hunt staff". You've offered a distinction between the two social classes (sic), and it's becoming ever more obvious that you have a rather tilted view of justice.

It may well be that I'm wrong, in that I've misunderstood your words, and have taken you to mean what you say.

Alec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top