Daily Mail inaccuracies

[Raynard]

This column in the DM was brought to my attention today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-ready-The-FOs-march.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

As the DM is no longer accepting comments on this page, I thought I’d respond to it here.

For quite some time, I’ve been aware of the fact that the DM has a skewed perspective of Britain and the British. Now I know for a FACT that they publish falsehoods and fallacy. Mr Letts, not only are you woefully ill-informed, you also seem to think that the obligation of the press to verify facts before publication, do not apply to you.

Regarding the last piece in Mr Letts’ column; the hunt saboteurs, whose attentions were focused on the South Herefordshire hunt on the 15th January, were NOT using red diesel, nor were their vehicles taxed inappropriately, nor were those vehicles seized by the police.

What DID happen is this:

A member of the hunt called the police with an allegation of aggravated trespass against the hunt saboteurs who were out on foot that day. The police attended the scene and, rather conveniently for the hunt, proceeded to arrest the only four saboteurs who hadn’t set foot outside their vehicles all day. Rather than leave the vehicles in situ, where they would likely be subject to acts of vandalism by hunt supporters (this has happened in the past – even when the vehicles were occupied), the arrestees requested that the vehicles be moved to a place of safety. They were subsequently moved by the police to Ross police station.

This left the saboteurs on foot stranded in the field, but thanks to a countrywide network of supporters, they were able to secure a lift to a warm place to wait whilst the police processed the four who had been wrongfully arrested.

The foot saboteurs waited for their lift at a bus stop in St Weonard’s . There, they were spotted by a hunt supporter, so no prizes for guessing where the final titbit in Mr Letts' ‘report’ came from.

The following week, when the same saboteurs were again out in the countryside, saving British wildlife from pointless savagery, it transpired that there was another rumour circulating. Apparently, the vehicles in question had been crushed by the authorities. As the saboteurs were sitting in one of those vehicles at the time, the driver quipped, whilst pushing his hand against the roof of the vehicle “Yeah, I pushed this one back out this morning”.

As for the allegation of saboteurs damaging hunt supporters’ cars with acid, that’s a new one on me. Can anyone provide me with a crime number?

I would apply for a job on the DM’s staff, but apparently they don’t employ folks who report FACT, opting instead to publish rumour, gossip and drivel from a community whose thuggery and lies are well hidden by the popular media, including the DM itself.

 

[Giles]

Sounds like a great laugh. Have you guys ever thought about getting horses? - you'd have an even better time.

 

[giveachance]

It seems unlikely that the police would arrest people for sitting in their cars on a public road. Although I am not saying that the Daily Mail report is true, not knowing any facts or details other then what is written, however I think you need to think your story through properly before posting it on a forum.

You claim that the saboteurs were arrested and left the others stranded in a field, did none of the others have a driving license?? Surely the police would have taken the saboteurs in the field as they were evidently trespassing? It doesn't really add up. You also claim that they waited for there lift in a warm place, but also at a bus stop? Also you state that it was 'alleged trespassing' but if they were following on foot then they were definitely would have been trespassing almost the entire time, I'm afraid the council doesn't own the countryside, and neither do saboteurs have any right to go across peoples grounds without permission. Perhaps they should think about this every time they break the law by trespassing on private property especially if the whole thing is "pointless"!!!

 

[Raynard]

It seems unlikely that the police would arrest people for sitting in their cars on a public road.I would have been inclined to agree with you, until January 15th. Feel free to request verification from Sgt Glover of Hereford police station. Apparently, the OS maps and comms equipment in the vehicle were sufficient for Sgt Glover to suspect a conspiracy. I suspect Sgt Glover is familiar with a certain secret handshake. Although I am not saying that the Daily Mail report is true, not knowing any facts or details other then what is written, however I think you need to think your story through properly before posting it on a forum. Hasn't the penny dropped, yet?

You claim that the saboteurs were arrested and left the others stranded in a field, did none of the others have a driving license?? As none of the foot sabs was in the vicinity of the vehicles at the time, and the police took the keys, it would have been difficult for them to take possession of the vehicles. Surely the police would have taken the saboteurs in the field as they were evidently trespassing? Never heard of public footpaths? It doesn't really add up. You also claim that they waited for there lift in a warm place, but also at a bus stop? I stated that they waited at the bus stop for their lift to the warm place. ie. They were picked up at the bus stop and taken to someone's house. Can I make it any clearer for you? Also you state that it was 'alleged trespassing' but if they were following on foot then they were definitely would have been trespassing almost the entire time, I'm afraid the council doesn't own the countryside, and neither do saboteurs have any right to go across peoples grounds without permission.I repeat, ever heard of public footpaths? They criss-cross much of the countryside, don't you know. Perhaps they should think about this every time they break the law by trespassing on private property especially if the whole thing is "pointless"!!! Again, read my OP properly, will you? It is the savagery of the hunt that is pointless. The work of the saboteurs is anything but.

 

[Giles]

Most Hunt sabotage is illegal being the deliberate obstruction of a legal activity. The fact is that even the LACS disassociate themselves from people like you.

 

[Alec Swan]

......., the arrestees requested that the vehicles be moved to a place of safety. They were subsequently moved by the police to Ross police station.......

Quote....As none of the foot sabs was in the vicinity of the vehicles at the time, and the police took the keys, it would have been difficult for them to take possession of the vehicles..... Unquote.

Point 1; Both quotes are yours, Raynard, which would you prefer to rely on?

Point 2; and from your first post. I'd be amazed to hear that the Police now supply a free recovery service.

I suspect that the Daily Mail aren't the only ones guilty of manipulating facts, to their own advantage.

Alec.

 

[Dirtymare]

I suspect that the Daily Mail aren't the only ones guilty of manipulating facts, to their own advantage.

Alec.

I dont usually come into this forum.
But I really have to agree with AS here.

 

[Raynard]

Most Hunt sabotage is illegal being the deliberate obstruction of a legal activity. The fact is that even the LACS disassociate themselves from people like you.

Sabotage only occurs when illegal hunting takes place.

And if the HSA is quite low down in the LACS estimation, where the hell does that leave you?

 

[Raynard]

Alec, not only did the police move the vehicles to Ross police station, they also gave the four arrested saboteurs a lift from Hereford police station to Ross to recover the vehicles upon their release.

I have to admit, these acts of benevolence are surprising but if you think I am bluffing, why don't you call my bluff? Call Sgt Glover, I implore you, then come back here and tell everyone what he said.

 

[EAST KENT]

I think Quintan Letts was being humourus,and I for one much enjoy his writings.

 

[Herne]

I am curious as to why when the Hunt Monitors think it is ok for them to rush around interfering with other people on the grounds that they "think" that illegal hunting "might" be taking place; they get so upset when the Police interfere with them on the grounds that they "think" that illegal trespass "might" be taking place.

Touch of double standards going on there, perhaps...

 

[Raynard]

Herne, your comparison is so fragile it almost made me laugh.

Firstly, when saboteurs consider the possibility that a hunt might be hunting illegally, their 'interference' merely involves following the hunt by road and public footpath.

As I stated previously, sabotage only actually takes place when illegal hunting occurs. Surely, you'd sabotage a mugger's attempt to rob an elderly lady if you saw it taking place? Any right minded individual with a bit of pluck will take action to defend the victims of illegal activity, be it an elderly lady or a fox.

(This begs the question, why are the hunts always displeased (that's putting it mildly, in some cases) to see saboteurs? If they're legally drag hunting, the presence of saboteurs should be neither here nor there, surely?)

Secondly, when the police consider the possibility that saboteurs might be acting illegally, the consequences are more severe for the saboteurs, as they were on January 15th. The police's 'interference' tends to involve saboteurs being arrested, handcuffed and incarcerated.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the police possess a lot more power than saboteurs do.

 

[Giles]

If you can prove that illegal hunting is taking place then get a prosecution. The fact is you cannot.

This is like me wrestling a random person to the ground in a shop because I am convinced they are a suicide bomber.

 

[Giles]

Sabotage only occurs when illegal hunting takes place.

And if the HSA is quite low down in the LACS estimation, where the hell does that leave you?

They love me. I am on first name terms with their chief exec.

 

[Raynard]

If you can prove that illegal hunting is taking place then get a prosecution. The fact is you cannot.

This is like me wrestling a random person to the ground in a shop because I am convinced they are a suicide bomber.

Well, it's quite telling that you compare hunts to suicide bombers.

As you are aware, monitors are really up against it when it comes to securing convictions. The whole process has to be caught on film, from fox, to hounds, to huntsmen, to the horn call egging the hounds on. This is extremely difficult, especially when hunting occurs in coverts, and/or some distance from public roads and footpaths. Neverthless, there have been convictions.

I notice you didn't address my question regarding the displeasure of the hunt when saboteurs are in the vicinity.

 

[Raynard]

They love me. I am on first name terms with their chief exec.

And that is why saboteurs disassociate themselves from the LACS.

 

[Giles]

And that is why saboteurs disassociate themselves from the LACS.

Because they are (at times) capable of behaving in a civilised way towards people that they disagree with?

Why donlt you just admit that you don't believe the law works so you take the law into your own hands?

 

[Giles]

Well, it's quite telling that you compare hunts to suicide bombers.

As you are aware, monitors are really up against it when it comes to securing convictions. The whole process has to be caught on film, from fox, to hounds, to huntsmen, to the horn call egging the hounds on. This is extremely difficult, especially when hunting occurs in coverts, and/or some distance from public roads and footpaths. Neverthless, there have been convictions.

I notice you didn't address my question regarding the displeasure of the hunt when saboteurs are in the vicinity.

I haven't compared a hunt with a suicide bomber. It's quite telling that you think I have.

 

[Giles]

Yes there have been convictions. Roughly 11 of the 50,000 or so that hunt on a regular basis.

 

[VoR]

I suspect Sgt Glover is familiar with a certain secret handshake.[/COLOR]

I have to admit, these acts of benevolence are surprising but if you think I am bluffing, why don't you call my bluff? Call Sgt Glover, I implore you, then come back here and tell everyone what he said.

Maybe I'll call the good Sergeant, I'm sure he'd be interested in your comments about the handshake and will perhaps be less benevolent next time around!

I notice you didn't address my question regarding the displeasure of the hunt when saboteurs are in the vicinity.

Ok, how would you feel if you were going about your daily and legal business and everywhere you went you were followed, filmed and then reported to the police everytime the film showed anything that could be construed as illegal even if it were not so or (and lets foget this rubbish about only sabbing when the hunting is illegal) those following you simply obstructed you as you went about your legal business?

Granted there have been some convictions under the hunting act (although given the number of hunts in the UK and the number of days where these meet, frankly very few!), some of these may have been correct however, let us not forget that there have in history been plenty of innocent people convicted, so lets not assume ALL these cases came to right conclusion!

 

[Raynard]

Because they are (at times) capable of behaving in a civilised way towards people that they disagree with?

Why donlt you just admit that you don't believe the law works so you take the law into your own hands?

Have I been uncivil? I think not. Unlike the LACS, however, I will never love you.

And you're quite right. The Hunting Act is relatively ineffective. It needs to be strengthened. That's the way a lot of animal welfare legislation starts out, though.

As for taking the law into our own hands, surely that would constitute administering punishment to those who break it? Saboteurs don't administer punishment. They intervene on behalf of the victim when a crime is in progress.

 

[Giles]

Have I been uncivil? I think not. Unlike the LACS, however, I will never love you.

And you're quite right. The Hunting Act is relatively ineffective. It needs to be strengthened. That's the way a lot of animal welfare legislation starts out, though.

As for taking the law into our own hands, surely that would constitute administering punishment to those who break it? Saboteurs don't administer punishment. They intervene on behalf of the victim when a crime is in progress.

Yes you are uncivil. The way the law works in a civil society is we have laws. If you suspect someone is breaking the law then you should take steps to get them before the courts where if you can prove them guilty they will be convicted.

I make no bones about it I regularly set my dogs in pursuit of wildlife. If you have a problem with that then take me to court or get the police to. If you cannot do that because it would clearly be a waste of time and money then it is tough luck. You are not welcome on my land interfering with my pursuit of wildlife and if you do set foot on it I will get you turfed off.

 

[irish_only]

Sabotage only occurs when illegal hunting takes place.

QUOTE]

If only.

The great unwashed who go out with my local pack obviously leave their brains and common sense at home. I have SEEN them interfering with hounds and causing obstruction when it is blatantly obvious what the two people on horses 20 minutes away dragging a line are doing.

 

[Raynard]

Maybe I'll call the good Sergeant, I'm sure he'd be interested in your comments about the handshake and will perhaps be less benevolent next time around!

How can he be less benevolent? He happened upon four saboteurs and arrested them on sight.

Ok, how would you feel if you were going about your daily and legal business and everywhere you went you were followed, filmed and then reported to the police everytime the film showed anything that could be construed as illegal even if it were not so or (and lets foget this rubbish about only sabbing when the hunting is illegal) those following you simply obstructed you as you went about your legal business?

What's wrong with being followed and filmed? And saboteurs only tend to call the police when they've been assaulted by hunt members and supporters, and not always then. As their encounter with Sgt Glover indicates, they don't get much support from the police. (And let's forget this rubbish about hunts only hunting within the law.)

Granted there have been some convictions under the hunting act (although given the number of hunts in the UK and the number of days where these meet, frankly very few!), some of these may have been correct however, let us not forget that there have in history been plenty of innocent people convicted, so lets not assume ALL these cases came to right conclusion.

Copy and paste:

And you're quite right. The Hunting Act is relatively ineffective. It needs to be strengthened. That's the way a lot of animal welfare legislation starts out, though.

Given the volume of evidence required to secure a conviction, I'd be very surprised if there has been a miscarriage of justice. I do concede that it's not impossible, just unlikely.

 

[VoR]

How can he be less benevolent? He happened upon four saboteurs and arrested them on sight.

Errm, your words not mine were that your were surprised by the benevolence

What's wrong with being followed and filmed? And saboteurs only tend to call the police when they've been assaulted by hunt members and supporters, and not always then. As their encounter with Sgt Glover indicates, they don't get much support from the police. (And let's forget this rubbish about hunts only hunting within the law.)

Honestly, you'd actually be happy to be followed, filmed and obstructed as you went about your daily legal activities by someone who's sole intent was to catch you out?
Please don't play the 'poor old sabs are always picked on' card, the fact that there have been convictions under the act disproves this and, if we are to look at assaults and intimidation I have seen an 80 year old follower surrounded in her vehicle by sabs who then intimidated the occupants, so let's accept that there are those on both sides who can act and react with violence!
Also, not sure I ever stated that all hunts had always acted within the law did I? Not all the convictions can be wrong so that would be a futile argument indeed!


And you're quite right. The Hunting Act is relatively ineffective. It needs to be strengthened. That's the way a lot of animal welfare legislation starts out, though.

Strengthening would simply lead to more animosity and violence, what is needed is for both sides to accept that they have their view and somewhere in the middle is the truth of the matter, perhaps some form of licensed hunting? I'm not sure but until people stop being so bloody-minded and accept that their view isn't necessarily right, we will continue to go round-and-round in circles!

Given the volume of evidence required to secure a conviction, I'd be very surprised if there has been a miscarriage of justice. I do concede that it's not impossible, just unlikely.[/QUOTE][/COLOR]

At least we sort of agree on this!

By the way, replying in red is extremely aggressive and reduces the affect of any views or opinions you have.

 

[Raynard]

In response to Giles:

Yes you are uncivil. The way the law works in a civil society is we have laws. If you suspect someone is breaking the law then you should take steps to get them before the courts where if you can prove them guilty they will be convicted.

So Ann Timson shouldn't have battered those gem thieves in Northampton with her handbag? She is an uncivil robbery saboteur?

I make no bones about it I regularly set my dogs in pursuit of wildlife. If you have a problem with that then take me to court or get the police to. If you cannot do that because it would clearly be a waste of time and money then it is tough luck. You are not welcome on my land interfering with my pursuit of wildlife and if you do set foot on it I will get you turfed off.

All I can say is, if you are hunting with more than two dogs, I hope you are caught and justice is served.

 

[Raynard]

If only.

The great unwashed who go out with my local pack obviously leave their brains and common sense at home. I have SEEN them interfering with hounds and causing obstruction when it is blatantly obvious what the two people on horses 20 minutes away dragging a line are doing.

The great unwashed! Gosh. That's gonna hurt for days.

If any saboteur harmed a horse or hound, they would be unceremoniously ejected from the group. Most saboteurs are vegans, whose main concern is animal welfare/rights. They would no more harm a horse or a hound than they would a fox.

 

[Megan_T]

What's wrong with being followed and filmed?

Quite a significant amount actually.

Let's not forget that it's the intent that is the issue. I'm quite sure if an individual were to follow you around with a camera, insistant that they were on the verge of catching you doing something illegal, you'd be pretty miffed.

 

[Herne]

As I stated previously, sabotage only actually takes place when illegal hunting occurs. Surely, you'd sabotage a mugger's attempt to rob an elderly lady if you saw it taking place? Any right minded individual with a bit of pluck will take action to defend the victims of illegal activity, be it an elderly lady or a fox.

Of course your claim to be only upholding the law would be a lot more believeble if you hadn't carried out such operations before the Law was introduced.

And you also miss the obvious poiunt that it is not for you to decide when hutning is "illegal". People are innocent until proven guilty in a court of Law, remember? If you think an illegal act is occurring, your corrrect action is to report it to the proper authorities.

Now as the number of aquittals over the number of convictions demosntrates, it is actually extremely difficult to prove that a crime has been committed even in a court of Law and therefore it is not at all the same thing as seeing a mugging going on and intervening.

(This begs the question, why are the hunts always displeased (that's putting it mildly, in some cases) to see saboteurs? If they're legally drag hunting, the presence of saboteurs should be neither here nor there, surely?)

Well, the answer to that question is entirely obvious. Because Hunts do not trust you not to try to frame them or set them up. After the number of failed convictions that there have been, it is seeming increasing likely that they are wise in not having that trust.

Unfortunately, after the constant stream of lies and misinformation that anti hunt people have told about Hunting over the past 40 years, it is pretty niaive of you to expect the Hunting world to suddenly believe tha you have all turned in to paragons of virtue overnight.

You may claim that, possibly with justification, that there are dishonest huting people, too, but that does not disguise the fact that there are plenty of people on your side of the fence who have been and are still prepared to indulge in dishonesty and law-breaking to pursue their objectives.

 

[Raynard]

How can he be less benevolent? He happened upon four saboteurs and arrested them on sight.

Errm, your words not mine were that your were surprised by the benevolenceOh, yes. I stand corrected.

What's wrong with being followed and filmed? And saboteurs only tend to call the police when they've been assaulted by hunt members and supporters, and not always then. As their encounter with Sgt Glover indicates, they don't get much support from the police. (And let's forget this rubbish about hunts only hunting within the law.)

Honestly, you'd actually be happy to be followed, filmed and obstructed as you went about your daily legal activities by someone who's sole intent was to catch you out?
Please don't play the 'poor old sabs are always picked on' card, the fact that there have been convictions under the act disproves this and, if we are to look at assaults and intimidation I have seen an 80 year old follower surrounded in her vehicle by sabs who then intimidated the occupants, so let's accept that there are those on both sides who can act and react with violence!I'm glad you said 'both sides'. (I never said all sabs are perfect.)


And you're quite right. The Hunting Act is relatively ineffective. It needs to be strengthened. That's the way a lot of animal welfare legislation starts out, though.

Strengthening would simply lead to more animosity and violence,For a while, perhaps. what is needed is for both sides to accept that they have their view and somewhere in the middle is the truth of the matter, perhaps some form of licensed hunting? I'm not sure but until people stop being so bloody-minded and accept that their view isn't necessarily right, we will continue to go round-and-round in circles! As it stands at the moment, hunting with more than two hounds is illegal. Perhaps the hunting community should accept this?

Given the volume of evidence required to secure a conviction, I'd be very surprised if there has been a miscarriage of justice. I do concede that it's not impossible, just unlikely.

[/COLOR]

At least we sort of agree on this!

By the way, replying in red is extremely aggressive and reduces the affect of any views or opinions you have.[/QUOTE]Point taken.