Crawley and Horsham Hunt. More monitors needed perhaps?

[Alec Swan]

...... and it is in fact you who keeps posting to me.

...... and how easy, boys and girls, would this be to remedy? Were we to leave our recently, and committed member to their own distress, without any offers of assistance, then that I would suggest will remedy a situation which holds little future, despite our valid points.

Alec.

 

[DawnRay]

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?

That is an interesting take on things. I am calm as you like and happy with the law/convictions. It would appear it is those against the law who are upset, name calling and stereotyping with vigour.

 

[DawnRay]

...... and how easy, boys and girls, would this be to remedy? Were we to leave our recently, and committed member to their own distress, without any offers of assistance, then that I would suggest will remedy a situation which holds little future, despite our valid points.

Alec.

I thought you were going to do that a long time ago when you dishonestly claimed you were or do you bend the rules to suit yourself!

 

[Fiagai]

...... and how easy, boys and girls, would this be to remedy? Were we to leave our recently, and committed member to their own distress, without any offers of assistance, then that I would suggest will remedy a situation which holds little future, despite our valid points.

Alec.

Alec once again you are the bearer of truth...something that our little friend appears to have huge problems with. I of course concur with your sentiments and will now take myself out the back to give myself a good talking too

 

[Mrs B]

That is an interesting take on things. I am calm as you like and happy with the law/convictions. It would appear it is those against the law who are upset, name calling and stereotyping with vigour.

Merely an observation. And what did you think the reaction to your original post on HHO would be? Heaven forbid that you did it deliberately to provoke a reaction, then kept posting for more such reactions, in order for you to then complain that folk were being rude...

Or could it be that stirring things was your intention? An odd thing to do if you are "calm as you like and happy with the law/convictions".

 

[DawnRay]

Merely an observation. And what did you think the reaction to your original post on the HHO hunting board would be? Heaven forbid that you did it deliberately to provoke a reaction, then kept posting for more such reactions, in order for you to then complain that folk were being rude...

Or could it be that stirring things was your intention? An odd thing to do if you are "calm as you like and happy with the law/convictions".

I posted the original post in the latest news section following reading the story written by H&H. I do not wish to be flippant but are we only to discuss hunt censored news and if so who is to be doing the censoring?

 

[Mrs B]

I posted the original post in the latest news section following reading the story written by H&H. I do not wish to be flippant but are we only to discuss hunt censored news and if so who is to be doing the censoring?

You can discuss whatever you like here, as long as it's within the T&Cs.

 

[luckyoldme]

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.

Alec i like a lot of what you say but i don t agree with you on this one. Its a genuine law and it is a genuine crime.
You can t just choose which laws you should abide by and which ones you don t.
A few years back i chose to break a law i did nt agree with. I got caught and i got community service. I did nt hurt anyone i didn t steal anything and my actions had no effect on anyone at all. that said i broke the law and i had to pay the price. It really is that simple. I did the crime and i did the time . simples.

 

[DawnRay]

Thank you

 

[DawnRay]

If I am correct was it not the Crawley and Horsham hunt who tried desperately through a failed court case to keep themselves from prying eyes? I guess they didn't want to get caught illegally hunting foxes.

 

[Mrs B]

If I am correct was it not the Crawley and Horsham hunt who tried desperately through a failed court case to keep themselves from prying eyes? I guess they didn't want to get caught illegally hunting foxes.

.... but you see, your posts don't really come under the heading of 'discussion' do they? Either here or on the other thread. More like accusatory and blinkered.

Just a word to the wise: the more you continue in the same vein, the less seriously you will be taken. But maybe the urge to promote whatever anti-hunting agenda you have blinds you that fact.

 

[Fiagai]

Alec i like a lot of what you say but i don t agree with you on this one. Its a genuine law and it is a genuine crime.
You can t just choose which laws you should abide by and which ones you don t.
A few years back i chose to break a law i did nt agree with. I got caught and i got community service. I did nt hurt anyone i didn t steal anything and my actions had no effect on anyone at all. that said i broke the law and i had to pay the price. It really is that simple. I did the crime and i did the time . simples.

I may be wrong but I think the main point Alec is making was that the monitoring where it takes place may be as much criminal activity as what the 'monitors' are hoping to catch on film. Often their activities involves aggrevated trespass and or other forms of illegal activity. The presumption of criminal activity does not allow others to commit other forms of illegal activity so that they may prove that something might be going on. Enforcement and detection remain the reserve of the law in this country as far as I am aware.

 

[igglepop]

The three members of the hunt convicted were not minors.

I wasn't refering to the court case just a general point of video on youtube, showing minors whilst out hunting.

 

[DawnRay]

I may be wrong but I think the main point Alec is making was that the monitoring where it takes place may be as much criminal activity as what the 'monitors' are hoping to catch on film. Often their activities involves aggrevated trespass and or other forms of illegal activity. The presumption of criminal activity does not allow others to commit other forms of illegal activity so that they may prove that something might be going on. Enforcement and detection remain the reserve of the law in this country as far as I am aware.

If that was the case why in a court of law was such 'illegally', obtained evidence accepted. In a working scenario fiagai? rolleyes

 

[DawnRay]

I wasn't refering to the court case just a general point of video on youtube, showing minors whilst out hunting.

Very legal. Do I think it is right NO, I find it rather uncomfortable and wouldn't like it if it was my children igglepop.

 

[Fiagai]

I may be wrong but I think the main point Alec is making was that the monitoring where it takes place may be as much criminal activity as what the 'monitors' are hoping to catch on film. Often their activities involves aggrevated trespass and or other forms of illegal activity. The presumption of criminal activity does not allow others to commit other forms of illegal activity so that they may prove that something might be going on. Enforcement and detection remain the reserve of the law in this country as far as I am aware.

Meant to add that the very best evidence of illegal activity is from the horses mouth so to speak, so whilst I am again reluctantly obliged to quote words from the mouth of hunt sabs oops I meant monitors or was that sabs (It's so easy to get confused)

From the Hunt Sab Assoc

Disrupting the hunt sometimes...involved committing minor criminal offences, especially aggravated trespass.

So in effect many sabs/monitors engage in illegal activity such as aggravated trespass to achieve their ends including hopes of disruption, obtaining video footage etc etc.

The image potrayed by such groups that they are whiter than white is simply a front to beguile others into believing they are somehow above or beside the law in relation to their own activities.

 

[DawnRay]

Meant to add that the very best evidence of illegal activity is from the horses mouth so to speak, so whilst I am again reluctantly obliged to quote words from the mouth of hunt sabs oops I meant monitors or was that sabs (It's so easy to get confused)

From the Hunt Sab Assoc


So in effect many sabs/monitors engage in illegal activity such as aggravated trespass to achieve their ends including hopes of disruption, obtaining video footage etc etc.

The image potrayed by such groups that they are whiter than white is simply a front to beguile others into believing they are somehow above or beside the law in relation to their own activities.

Are you suggesting the footage used in this court case to convict these huntsmen was gained through illegal activity fiagai? It would appear you are suggesting it was.

 

[Fiagai]

Are you suggesting the footage used in this court case to convict these huntsmen was gained through illegal activity fiagai? It would appear you are suggesting it was.

If you really wish to enter into a discussion concerning the merits or otherwise of the issues brought up in this thread HOW about actually answering some of the questions that have been already been put to YOU and which you have failed to answer. I include them here again for you attention:

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.

...

and btw throwing insults or one liners instead of entering into discussion (as was pointed out by another-see below) user will not help you to be taken seriously. You have already shown yourself as being less than truthful so either fess up or try at least to cop on.

Quote from Ms B:
but you see, your posts don't really come under the heading of 'discussion' do they? Either here or on the other thread. More like accusatory and blinkered.
Just a word to the wise: the more you continue in the same vein, the less seriously you will be taken. But maybe the urge to promote whatever anti-hunting agenda you have blinds you that fact.

 

[DawnRay]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiagai
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.





I have not answered the questions fiagai because they in no way relate to me or any opinion I have posted. However strange it is then that you address me with them let me take time to answer for you.

1) Where possible if not probable criminal activity will occur then monitoring either to prevent a crime or capture one on film is a great idea if people are prepared to do so. I am not selective about the type of activity in any way.

2) I have not ever suggested all potential criminal activity should not be monitored if people are prepared to do so.

3) I do not choose to advocate the harassment of only certain individuals. Firstly it is not harassment. Secondly I have now clearly stated that this should be used in other cases and I have certainly never suggested it should only be used for hunting with hounds.

Your last question refers to 'they'. They as we all do answer fully to the police enforcing the law of this land and rightly so. The very same as the more prolifically reported with evidence huntsmen taking the law into their own hands.

 

[Fiagai]

Quote:
I have not answered the questions fiagai because they in no way relate to me or any opinion I have posted. However strange it is then that you address me with them let me take time to answer for you.

Again I can only wonder at your complete lack of understanding or perhaps your refusal to acknowledge genuine discussion - Remember that YOU posted the thread title and I quote:

Crawley and Horsham Hunt. More monitors needed perhaps?

In reply I gave an answer that stated no they were not needed and explained why Monitors are NOT a good idea.

In return (and do remember this is a discussion based Forum) I asked you to explain why you thought more monitors might be needed considering that our current police force are fully entrusted with detection and law enforcement without bias.

This is why these questions were put to you, so yes they do 'relate' to you and what you have posted and no it is not strange that I then 'address you'

Quote:
1) Where possible if not probable criminal activity will occur then monitoring either to prevent a crime or capture one on film is a great idea if people are prepared to do so. I am not selective about the type of activity in any way.

The grammar used in this sentence makes it very difficult to read, but I believe you are saying something like that we should all follow each other around with video cameras, on the off chance that someone, someplace will commit a crime that can be reported. Personally I believe our police and current CCTV camera system do a more than adequate job in this regard. Both public surveillance and police forces are answerable for their actions as part of the public service under democratic government structures, something 'willing' individuals are not. Having vigilantes do-gooders take up this role does no-one any favours. I do not support such activity and I believe such activity remains an infringement of an individuals democratic rights.

Quote:
2) I have not ever suggested all potential criminal activity should not be monitored if people are prepared to do so.

There is a double negative in this sentence, so I am afraid you have lost me. Could you rephrase this please?

Quote:
3) I do not choose to advocate the harassment of only certain individuals. Firstly it is not harassment. Secondly I have now clearly stated that this should be used in other cases and I have certainly never suggested it should only be used for hunting with hounds.

Well indeed in your first post you posed the question / statement, should more monitors be needed for existing hunt activity (following the recent court case). By the way 'Harass' in this context (with reference to the OED) means to trouble individuals or a group persistently or incessantly and that is what 'monitoring' as you describe it. I remain amazed you advocate that we should become a vigilante state with everyone watching each other and reporting a la the style of George Orwell's novel 1984 - a truly horrible dystopian vision of the world which we may well encounter in the future if this type of behaviour continues to be encouraged.

Quote:
Your last question refers to 'they'. They as we all do answer fully to the police enforcing the law of this land and rightly so. The very same as the more prolifically reported with evidence huntsmen taking the law into their own hands.

Again the grammar here is rather peculiar but I will attempt to guess that you mean that those who choose to take on detection and law enforcement duties from those legally employed to do so would somehow become deputised to undetake such activity. I must ask in response how would this self elected group of individuals gain rights over above and above the fellow citizens? I don't see how this can work in any democratic state and I really don't understand 'how' huntsman are 'taking the law into their own hands'? Would you explain this?

 

[DawnRay]

Only now that I have answered the questions you have asked does my grammar become such a great issue that you are unable to understand what I have posted?

NO fiagai I will not be changing my style of writing or rephrasing my words for you!

The only point I will address is your ludicrous notion that I am suggesting those who monitor should in some way be deputised??? How on earth you can come to that conclusion from my posting that "They as we all do answer fully to the police enforcing the law of this land and rightly so", suggests you choose to twist my words to suit a particular agenda.

 

[Fiagai]

Only now that I have answered the questions you have asked does my grammar become such a great issue that you are unable to understand what I have posted?

Well it is because you have managed to ignore several of the rules of basic grammar, including a nearly complete absence of comas and the inclusion of at least one double set of negatives in your reply, rendering some of your sentences apparently meaningless.

Do remember that just because you answer someone elses question does not mean that the answers are going to be automatically understandable by anyone else especially where grammatical usage is a bit dodgy. I did however attempt to gauge your implied meanings and stated this when possible, as for the rest I asked for you to rephrase or elaborate so that the meaning was clearer - simples!

NO fiagai I will not be changing my style of writing or rephrasing my words for you!

Well if we are to gain a modicum of understanding then some attempt by your good self would be benefical for the purposes of discussion, would it not?

The only point I will address is your ludicrous notion that I am suggesting those who monitor should in some way be deputised??? How on earth you can come to that conclusion from my posting that "They as we all do answer fully to the police enforcing the law of this land and rightly so", suggests you choose to twist my words to suit a particular agenda.

Why a response to only the one point DR? what about the others? I replied as best I could, so I would at least expect a certain level of comment regarding what was written, I believe this is common curtesy!

That said, I will gather what crumbs that are available and reply that in relation to that one point that you did refer to; that I was indicating that any individual or group who undertake detection and law enforcement at their own volition are in effect taking on the roles and responsibilities of the instruments of the law, police included.

And it would appear that these individuals or groups are taking on such roles and responsibilities through deputising themselves to do so! Nobody has employed them to do this, there is no legislative background to validate their self-adopted roles or behaviour and no one (and remember this is important in a democratic state) has elected them to that office. It is true that you and I as disinterested individuals are answerable to the rule of the land. However if some benighted group of individuals with an agenda get together and decide to take on police responsibilities and then use these against me, then they have usurped my rights because they have selected to sit in a position of judgement over me - hardly fair or equitable is it? So you see I have not twisted your words, I have simply extrapolated this from the point that you yourself put forward.