Crawley and Horsham Hunt. More monitors needed perhaps?

marmalade76 said:
I am quite surprised to read that, especially as the crimes listed are most likely not the worst things they do to animals.
Click to expand...

Yes unfortunately many of these prosecutions go unnoticed by the press - but believe me there are members of those particular communities who are successfully prosecuted and treated like any other member of society. The problem comes in identifying when an offence has taken place, because by the sheer culture of that community things are kept well hidden and not spoken about.
 
I don t see what all the fuss is about . They acted illegally they broke the laws of our land and now they have or will be sentanced and have a criminal record.
In my eyes its the same as the 70mph motorway speed limit. I don t agree with it but i can t complain if i get caught doing 80.
 
No, if you're a hunt member you can break the hunting laws, tresspass and kill people's pets, be accused of rape and still have a queue of people waiting to pay your legal fees. Its almost as good being a foreign ambassador.

Of course, it may just be that laws are only to be obeyed if you agree with them.
 
luckyoldme said:
I don t see what all the fuss is about . They acted illegally they broke the laws of our land and now they have or will be sentanced and have a criminal record.
In my eyes its the same as the 70mph motorway speed limit. I don t agree with it but i can t complain if i get caught doing 80.
Click to expand...

I believe any fuss now concerns the fact that people disregard the rule of law in our country so much they are willing to offer financial reward to those convicted of crimes.
 
horserider said:
No, if you're a hunt member you can break the hunting laws, tresspass and kill people's pets, be accused of rape and still have a queue of people waiting to pay your legal fees. Its almost as good being a foreign ambassador.

Of course, it may just be that laws are only to be obeyed if you agree with them.
Click to expand...

Or believe/expect you will not be convicted for various reasons perhaps.
 
Re: More monitors needed?
Click to expand...

DawnRay said:
... One wonder's how many other hunts are breaking the law under the same guise and getting away with it.
Click to expand...

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...

DawnRay said:
... Now these 'buggers', from the hunt were breaking the law, got caught, convicted and now are criminals...
Click to expand...

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

No there will never be a place for so called 'monitoring' unless you are a supporter of vigilantism. You can 'wonder' all you like however in a democracy, it is not joe publics role to take on police duties no matter how ardently 'joe' believes he is right.

Ok worked example: How about we set up monitors in shopping centres to detect possible theft, at traffic lights to detect possible red light runners. They can harass individuals they believe might break the law by following them around the shopping centres or on the roadway, pestering and videoing them and then bring private prosecutions!

You can 'wonder' all you like about who might be breaking the law but it does not change that infringing others rights remains illegal. whether that is through surveilance, harassment or physical assault (as has been the case in previous convictions of anti-hunt individuals / groups) As you claim to be free to sit in judgement of those that break the law, I take it that you are showing bias for antis and sabs that also break the law in the mistaken belief that what they do is right and that you are in fact supporting criminal activity as long as it suits your interests?

Well done you.....
 
Last edited:
Fiagai said:
No there will never be a place for so called 'monitoring' unless you are a supporter of vigilantism. You can 'wonder' all you like however in a democracy, it is not joe publics role to take on police duties no matter how ardently 'joe' believes he is right.

Ok worked example: How about we set up monitors in shopping centres to detect possible theft, at traffic lights to detect possible red light runners. They can harass individuals they believe might break the law by following them around the shopping centres or on the roadway, pestering and videoing them and then bring private prosecutions!

You can 'wonder' all you like about who might be breaking the law but it does not change that infringing others rights remains illegal. whether that is through surveilance, harassment or physical assault (as has been the case in previous convictions of anti-hunt individuals / groups) As you claim to be free to sit in judgement of those that break the law, I take it that you are showing bias for antis and sabs that also break the law in the mistaken belief that what they do is right and that you are in fact supporting criminal activity as long as it suits your interests?

Well done you.....
Click to expand...

What utter nonsense. Vigilantism??? Neighbourhood watch now run by grannies with attitude or providing a community service freeing up police time?! Your worked example? All covered by camera's and cctv are the law abiding up in arms?!
Monitoring of hunts is absolutely legal and video evidence used to gather suitable proof of illegal activity to bring a case to court then successfully convict. All done for free by willing citizens allowing police to use their precious time on other important issues.
Free, legal and successful. YOU just don't like it nor do those breaking the law no doubt!
 
Last edited:
Wizzlewoo - that is really worrying - hope the fox is tracked down and dealt with appropriately, if it breeds we could have a whole new "giant" fox problem on our hands !!

ps do you think we can persuade them to let us hunt it on horseback !
 
DawnRay said:
What utter nonsense. Vigilantism??? Neighborhood watch now run by grannies with attitude or providing a community service freeing up police time?! Your worked example? All covered by camera's and CCTV are the law abiding up in arms?!
Monitoring of hunts is absolutely legal and video evidence used to gather suitable proof of illegal activity to bring a case to court then successfully convict. All done for free by willing citizens allowing police to use their precious time on other important issues.
Free, legal and successful. YOU just don't like it nor do those breaking the law no doubt!
Click to expand...

No DR I don't like vigilantism in any guise and I don't like people taking the law into their own hands. And Vigilantism is what you are advocating

Let me give you the definition of a vigilante

1.One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.2. A member of a vigilance committee.
Click to expand...

Monitoring as advocated by you appears to imply that legal hunts should be followed around, harassed and filmed in the 'hope' that they are 'caught' and for the monitors or other anti organistations to then bring private prosecutions in other words taking the law into their own hands.

'Free willing citizens' are not necessarily best suited to law enforcement (think mob mentality). I prefer to defer to the instruments of the law as they are, for the detection of criminal activity and not random groups and individuals with obvious leanings and connections with some of the most nasty right wing animal extremist lobby.

By the way CCTV coverage is run by real security companies and or the police who operate within the guidelines of the law and are answerable for their actions. Something that is completely missing in the world of Anti style 'monitoring' activity

Why are you against 'monitoring' all possible criminal activity and select only that you perceive to be of interest to your ideas of right and wrong?

Why should all potential criminal activity not be so monitored if it 'helps' the police and frees up their valuable time as you claim? In fact using this logic why not let us all follow each other around with video cameras so that we can catch each other out. I am sure such a society would be delightful with individuals being terrorised by each other.

Why do you choose to advocate the harassment of only certain individuals, follow them around and film them in the hope that you will catch them out?

So 'they' help the police? Who are 'they' answerable to then when people get hurt and anti individuals take the law into their own hands and for example
commit assault. This is what vigilantism is; Free, willing harassment and thuggery of others.

I have no wish to live in a vigilante state where the police are 'helped' by such individuals without direction or control. The activities of such groups are not state sanctioned and will never be though I do believe that it is only a matter of time until such activity will be fully outlawed in order to protect the rights of individuals against such vigilantism.

You would appear to be still adamant in supporting criminal activity as long as it suits your interests....

Really well done you.....
 
Last edited:
horserider said:
No, if you're a hunt member you can break the hunting laws, tresspass and kill people's pets, be accused of rape and still have a queue of people waiting to pay your legal fees. Its almost as good being a foreign ambassador.

Of course, it may just be that laws are only to be obeyed if you agree with them.
Click to expand...


Whoa ... Too much of a sweeping statement. Rape?

Well I do support hunting albeit on foot for a while as not had a horse who would hunt for a while. Having read through this thread....well all you have persuaded me is to join Alec in looking for the link to help pay the fines.
 
Fiagai said:
No DR I don't like vigilantism in any guise and I don't like people taking the law into their own hands. And Vigilantism is what you are advocating

Let me give you the definition of a vigilante



Monitoring as advocated by you appears to imply that legal hunts should be followed around, harassed and filmed in the 'hope' that they are 'caught' and for the monitors or other anti organistations to then bring private prosecutions in other words taking the law into their own hands.

'Free willing citizens' are not necessarily best suited to law enforcement (think mob mentality). I prefer to defer to the instruments of the law as they are, for the detection of criminal activity and not random groups and individuals with obvious leanings and connections with some of the most nasty right wing animal extremist lobby.

By the way CCTV coverage is run by real security companies and or the police who operate within the guidelines of the law and are answerable for their actions. Something that is completely missing in the world of Anti style 'monitoring' activity

Why are you against 'monitoring' all possible criminal activity and select only that you perceive to be of interest to your ideas of right and wrong?

Why should all potential criminal activity not be so monitored if it 'helps' the police and frees up their valuable time as you claim? In fact using this logic why not let us all follow each other around with video cameras so that we can catch each other out. I am sure such a society would be delightful with individuals being terrorised by each other.

Why do you choose to advocate the harassment of only certain individuals, follow them around and film them in the hope that you will catch them out?

So 'they' help the police? Who are 'they' answerable to then when people get hurt and anti individuals take the law into their own hands and for example
commit assault. This is what vigilantism is; Free, willing harassment and thuggery of others.

I have no wish to live in a vigilante state where the police are 'helped' by such individuals without direction or control. The activities of such groups are not state sanctioned and will never be though I do believe that it is only a matter of time until such activity will be fully outlawed in order to protect the rights of individuals against such vigilantism.

You would appear to be still adamant in supporting criminal activity as long as it suits your interests....

Really well done you.....
Click to expand...

However much nonsense you spout the courts, cps and police were grateful to the monitors who legally filmed huntsmen breaking the law. It is legal, will continue to be legal and the legal work carried out by hunt monitors should be applauded. If YOU do not like it fiagai so blooming what?!
 
Isn't filming minors without parental permission illegal. If so every time a minor appears on film a criminal act has been committed. Could be wrong.
 
DawnRay said:
However much nonsense you spout the courts, cps and police were grateful to the monitors who legally filmed huntsmen breaking the law. It is legal, will continue to be legal and the legal work carried out by hunt monitors should be applauded. If YOU do not like it fiagai so blooming what?!
Click to expand...

Fiagai, I suspect that the police and the courts, actually and more correctly, The Crown Prosecution Service, are aware that illegally obtained footage is not permissible as evidence in Court. You and I will know that, but probably not the village idiot!!

Whilst there is no law of trespass per se, in England, once a person has been ejected from private land, I would be most surprised to hear that filmed footage made by those who are in effect trespassing, would be accepted as evidence.

I suspect that the reality is that those who hunt, or support those that do, will be able, legally, to monitor the activities of the Antis, filming their behaviour, by way of a counter claim, and encourage those who live with the fairies, to join the real world. ;)

Fiagai, the simple fact is that the Courts and the Police are hard pressed enough to deal with genuine crime, than to go to the trouble of dealing with those involved in what in effect is little more than civil disobedience! ;)

Alec.
 
DawnRay said:
However much nonsense you spout the courts, cps and police were grateful to the monitors who legally filmed huntsmen breaking the law. It is legal, will continue to be legal and the legal work carried out by hunt monitors should be applauded. If YOU do not like it fiagai so blooming what?!
Click to expand...

Oh dear my BS monitor is on overload and is emitting large amounts of smoke ...

This from the Hunt Sab Assoc

The Hunting Act has muddied the water. Are we now hunt saboteurs,
simply disrupting the hunt as before, or are we hunt monitors, collecting
evidence of illegal hunting? I’m sure all groups have wrestled with this
question...There is, however, another way in which the Hunting Act has confused
things, and that is in terms of the relationship between hunt saboteurs
and the police. Prior to the Act, our relationship was antagonistic, but
simple. We all knew the police were not (and are not) impartial, or
simply “stuck in the middle” between hunters and hunt sabs. We all
knew where their sympathies lay. It was best to keep away from the
police at all times. Any interaction with the police was not likely to be
beneficial to hunt sabs, and was likely to be detrimental to the practice
of hunt sabotage. We knew exactly where we stood. Now, however, we
are in uncharted territory. Just as sab groups struggled with their identity
after the Act came into force, so we struggled, and still do struggle, to
define our relationship with the police. On the one hand, we want to
maintain some sort of constructive relationship with the police because
they are, in principle at least, potentially on our side.Initial optimism in the early days of the Hunting Act led to
many sabs thinking we could discard the hunting horn, whip and spray
in favour of the video camera. There was even talk of changing the
name of the Hunt Saboteurs’ Association to the Hunt Monitors’
Association. However, following the very small number of prosecutions
of organised hunting, the lack of interest shown by the police in
enforcing the Hunting Act, and the business-as-normal attitude of most
hunts, that optimism has all but died out. Recognising that the Hunting
Act does not do what it says on the tin, most groups now take a more
realistic view of their role, and a consensus seems to have emerged that
we are still, and always will be, hunt saboteurs.
Click to expand...

Do go away and try your twisted approach somewhere else...Just in case you havn't noticed, it's not working...
 
Alec Swan said:
Fiagai, I suspect that the police and the courts, actually and more correctly, The Crown Prosecution Service, are aware that illegally obtained footage is not permissible as evidence in Court. You and I will know that, but probably not the village idiot!!

Whilst there is no law of trespass per se, in England, once a person has been ejected from private land, I would be most surprised to hear that filmed footage made by those who are in effect trespassing, would be accepted as evidence.

I suspect that the reality is that those who hunt, or support those that do, will be able, legally, to monitor the activities of the Antis, filming their behaviour, by way of a counter claim, and encourage those who live with the fairies, to join the real world. ;)

Fiagai, the simple fact is that the Courts and the Police are hard pressed enough to deal with genuine crime, than to go to the trouble of dealing with those involved in what in effect is little more than civil disobedience! ;)

Alec.
Click to expand...

Ah thanks for that Alec - very interesting indeed. Certainly it would make for very interesting fictional 'documentaries' :D. something for the long winter nights after hunting perhaps...
 
Last edited:
Alec Swan said:
Fiagai, I suspect that the police and the courts, actually and more correctly, The Crown Prosecution Service, are aware that illegally obtained footage is not permissible as evidence in Court. You and I will know that, but probably not the village idiot!!

Whilst there is no law of trespass per se, in England, once a person has been ejected from private land, I would be most surprised to hear that filmed footage made by those who are in effect trespassing, would be accepted as evidence.

I suspect that the reality is that those who hunt, or support those that do, will be able, legally, to monitor the activities of the Antis, filming their behaviour, by way of a counter claim, and encourage those who live with the fairies, to join the real world. ;)

Fiagai, the simple fact is that the Courts and the Police are hard pressed enough to deal with genuine crime, than to go to the trouble of dealing with those involved in what in effect is little more than civil disobedience! ;)

Alec.
Click to expand...

You can get as hissy as you want Mr Swan, call me an idiot or suggest I am away with the fairies but the fact remains the topic is the legal monitoring of hunts which led to this successful conviction. Unless you are suggesting the evidence gathered was not legal in which case please enlighten us and make your accusations?
 
Fiagai said:
Oh dear my BS monitor is on overload and is emitting large amounts of smoke ...

This from the Hunt Sab Assoc



Do go away and try your twisted approach somewhere else...Just in case you havn't noticed, it's not working...
Click to expand...

Do keep to topic or you will send me to sleep again. Any old nonsense you care to post about hunt sabs has no relation to the topic of legal monitoring leading to successful prosecution of now criminals. Is that really too difficult to understand or are you being purposely dim fiagai?
 
Oh btw DR I forgot this from the same source - the Hunt Sab Assoc

and I quote for your benefit

Before the Hunting Act came into force, everything was very simple. The
hunt was there to hunt, the sabs were there to disrupt the hunt, and the
police were there to protect the hunt and stop (or, if possible, arrest) the
sabs. Disrupting the hunt sometimes (though by no means always)
involved committing minor criminal offences, especially aggravated
trespass. The police tried to arrest us whether or not we had broken the
law, the hunt tried to get away from us, or failing that, beat us up, and
we tried to keep away from the police and keep up with the hunt (or
keep away from them as well if they were trying to beat us up). This
was not a pleasant state of affairs, but it was at least straightforward
and everyone knew where they stood.
Click to expand...

Lovely!

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

Looks like you support criminals as well. tut tut....

Right on topic btw
 
Fiagai said:
Oh btw DR I forgot this from the same source - the Hunt Sab Assoc

and I quote for your benefit



Lovely!



Looks like you support criminals as well. tut tut....

Right on topic btw
Click to expand...

Looks like you are still being dim fiagai. I have never mentioned the HSA as well you know so I do not support criminals. And to think you accuse others of being liars!
 
DawnRay said:
Looks like you are still being dim fiagai. I have never mentioned the HSA as well you know so I do not support criminals. And to think you accuse others of being liars!
Click to expand...

You really do not read or maybe understand what has been posted do you DR?

So I will quote again for your benefit

...There was even talk of changing the
name of the Hunt Saboteurs’ Association to the Hunt Monitors’
Association...
Click to expand...


One and the same as far as I can see - sabs / monitors all criminals once they engage in criminal activities such as aggravated trespass etc

So yes you are supporting criminals no matter how much you say otherwise...now go away
 
Last edited:
Fiagai said:
You really do not read or maybe understand what has been posted do you DR?

So I will quote again for your benefit




One and the same as far as I can see - sabs / monitors all criminals once they engage in criminal activities such as aggravated trespass etc

So yes you are supporting criminals no matter how much you say otherwise...now go away
Click to expand...

Go away? I think you will find you are on a thread started by me not vice versa and it is in fact you who keeps posting to me.
 
What I can't understand, DawnRay, is why you have wound yourself up into such a state about an ill-conceived law (which is the opposite of beneficial to the fox) being broken?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top