Daily Mail inaccuracies

[Raynard]

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.

If someone were to film me leaving my house and doing my shopping and so forth, I would take out a restraining order against them. If someone were to film me partaking in a sport? No objections whatsoever.

 

[VoR]

Raynard I quote; As it stands at the moment, hunting with more than two hounds is illegal. Perhaps the hunting community should accept this?

So, what you are saying is, if we went out every weekend with two hounds and flushed a fox to the gun (i.e. legal as I understand it) you, LACS, your sab colleagues et al would be happy and leave us alone? Really? I think we both know that this isn't true don't we.

 

[VoR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hbU8rYobCY

Raynard,

Use this link, your friends do you no favours do they!
IF sabs are just individuals who care about wildlife and upholding the law, then why do they dress like para-militaries?
I'm sorry but they do this to intimidate. The mounted followers in this clip (mainly ladies it appears) are doing nothing wrong, they are at a meet NOT 'hunting illegally', which you claim is the only time sabs would interfere.
The sabs, you could say are just walking down a public road, but with faces covered? With military clothing? If the hunt was not there would you accept this as normal behaviour? If they have no intention of doing anything wrong why the secrecy? The hunt followers do not seem to be covering up!
I put it to you that far from being caring, law abiding people they are in fact 'rent-a-mob' who are out to deliberately cause trouble!

 

[Raynard]

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. Ah, the old guard. Saboteurs have evolved since then.

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. There are plenty of experienced saboteurs who know when the hunt have flushed a fox.

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. The lack of trust is the hunt's problem, not the saboteurs'. They need to relax and enjoy their day's drag hunting.

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. Hmm, the term 'Quick nip to the back of the neck' springs to mind.

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. Hmm, perhaps a bit of horn calling. (It's only interfering with a lawful activity if the activity being interfered with is actually lawful.)

how odd

 

[Raynard]

Raynard I quote; As it stands at the moment, hunting with more than two hounds is illegal. Perhaps the hunting community should accept this?

So, what you are saying is, if we went out every weekend with two hounds and flushed a fox to the gun (i.e. legal as I understand it) you, LACS, your sab colleagues et al would be happy and leave us alone? Really? I think we both know that this isn't true don't we.

I'm sure that kind of hunting occurs every day of the week. They don't get sabotaged. Not that the saboteurs don't want to; but it's actions, not thought crimes, that we're discussing here.

 

[ChesnutsRoasting]

Raynard, Chillax. I've just had a vodka and lemonade, I recommend you do the same.

 

[Fiagai]

Raynard, Chillax. I've just had a vodka and lemonade, I recommend you do the same.

Mines a straight whiskey thanks

 

[Raynard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hbU8rYobCY

Raynard,

Use this link, your friends do you no favours do they!
IF sabs are just individuals who care about wildlife and upholding the law, then why do they dress like para-militaries?
I'm sorry but they do this to intimidate. The mounted followers in this clip (mainly ladies it appears) are doing nothing wrong, they are at a meet NOT 'hunting illegally', which you claim is the only time sabs would interfere.
The sabs, you could say are just walking down a public road, but with faces covered? With military clothing? If the hunt was not there would you accept this as normal behaviour? If they have no intention of doing anything wrong why the secrecy? The hunt followers do not seem to be covering up!
I put it to you that far from being caring, law abiding people they are in fact 'rent-a-mob' (Rent-a-mob? Ha! Saboteurs PAY to sabotage. There are expenses that need to be met.)who are out to deliberately cause trouble!

Ah, the Glasshouse. It's standard practice for saboteurs to wait at the meet to see in which direction the hunt sets off.

The sight of them gathering at the meet might look a little scary, but that's nothing to the heart pounding terror suffered by the fox, running for his life from a pack of baying hounds. I have no sympathy for those intimidated by a certain type of clothing.

They were gathered in such numbers at the Cotswold Vale hunt last Saturday because the week before, some saboteurs (from a group of four women and three men) were assaulted by members and supporters of that hunt.

HSA press release:

http://hsa.enviroweb.org/index.php/news/latest/295-cvh26022011

In addition, the press release doesn't mention that John Hodges almost lifted one saboteur from the ground by her hair, from the relative safety of his saddle, of course. In the ensuing struggle, the saboteur in question also sustained bruising to both of her arms; on her right arm, a deep, black bruise sustained when Hodges used his horse to barge her into a fence; on her left arm, a distinct set of Hodges' fingermarks. What a deeply unpleasant man.

Well, on Saturday, the Cotswold Vale hunt spent the day holed up in The Grange, apparently fearful that they were going to reap what they had sown the week before. None of the saboteurs out that day intended to assault anyone (I can't make you believe that, and quite frankly, I don't care if you do or don't); the sheer volume of numbers was to serve as a deterrent only.

As for the masks, some hide their identity for fear of reprisals from hunt members and supporters. Not surprising, really.

Anyway. That video - was that the worst you could do?

I'll be back with some links of my own ....

 

[Raynard]

Raynard, Chillax. I've just had a vodka and lemonade, I recommend you do the same.

What a splendid idea!

<Raynard reaches for the White Zinfandel>

 

[Megan_T]

If someone were to film me leaving my house and doing my shopping and so forth, I would take out a restraining order against them. If someone were to film me partaking in a sport? No objections whatsoever.

... even if they were constantly trying to catch you out?

I'm afraid I find this very, very hard to believe.

It's far too easy for you to sit at your computer and say that you'd have no problems with an individual or group following you around, watching your every move, hoping you'll they'll catch you doing something illegal.

Anyway, I fear any point that anyone raises here you will think you have an answer for it. Mostly because it is YOUR opinion - which of course you are perfectly entitled to.

As is everyone else.

 

[Alec Swan]

Raynard,

I'm beginning to wonder if the sabs don't enjoy hunting, as much as the rest of us, and from what you say, they pay for their sport. Is there a standard cap, for your days entertainment?

Alec.

 

[EAST KENT]

Oh Lordy..is this cretin B........s@F..k back again ? Guess it must be boring with nothing to pester after the season`s end

 

[Fiagai]

.. 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.

This is vigilantism...The law is enforced by the relevant authorities eg the police etc - taking the law into your hands results in harrasment which is in itself can be a criminal offence

...What's wrong with being followed and filmed?

The rights and wrongs of this are these activities fall under what is termed a right to privacy - this is determined by law not by individual opinion
Note: The black, red, blue phrasing is nearly impossible to read - there are Quote buttons contained within each post - much easier to read

 

[Giles]

Raynard,

I'm beginning to wonder if the sabs don't enjoy hunting, as much as the rest of us, and from what you say, they pay for their sport. Is there a standard cap, for your days entertainment?

Alec.

Of course they do! Hunt sabbing is basically just another form of hunting. They get as much fun out of it as anyone does,

 

[Giles]

Raynard I quote; As it stands at the moment, hunting with more than two hounds is illegal. Perhaps the hunting community should accept this?

So, what you are saying is, if we went out every weekend with two hounds and flushed a fox to the gun (i.e. legal as I understand it) you, LACS, your sab colleagues et al would be happy and leave us alone? Really? I think we both know that this isn't true don't we.

Hunting with more than two hounds is NOT illegal. Hunting a wild mammal with more than two hounds is. However there is still a lot of uncertainty about the definition of hunting. I set more than two dogs after deer and have no problem with it because I choose not to kill them.

 

[Raynard]

... even if they were constantly trying to catch you out?

Why would I fear being caught out?

 

[Raynard]

Raynard,

I'm beginning to wonder if the sabs don't enjoy hunting, as much as the rest of us, and from what you say, they pay for their sport. Is there a standard cap, for your days entertainment?

Alec.

Hello again, Alec. The saboteurs' standard 'cap' is a few quid for fuel. Fundraising through the summer pays for vehicles and maintenance. The HSA is very popular with the general public.

Oh, and sometimes it is highly entertaining (one cannot help but feel a touch of schadenfreude at the sight of mud plastered up the back of a huntsman's coat). A lot of the time, though, it's quite frightening.

 

[Raynard]

Oh Lordy..is this cretin B........s@F..k back again ? Guess it must be boring with nothing to pester after the season`s end

You want to watch yourself with that namecalling, EK. I was told off once by the Fat Controller for calling someone a 'bald-faced liar'. It was very wrong of me. The man might've had a beard, for all I knew.

 

[Raynard]

.. 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.

This is vigilantism...The law is enforced by the relevant authorities eg the police etc - taking the law into your hands results in harrasment which is in itself can be a criminal offence




The rights and wrongs of this are these activities fall under what is termed a right to privacy - this is determined by law not by individual opinion
Note: The black, red, blue phrasing is nearly impossible to read - there are Quote buttons contained within each post - much easier to read

Oh, Lordy. Copy and paste, again:

As for taking the law into our own hands (or vigilantism if you prefer, Fiagai), 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.

Also, the privacy laws would apply if a person were to film you through a gap in your curtains. Taking part in a sporting activity out in the open does not entitle you to privacy.

 

[Raynard]

Hunting with more than two hounds is NOT illegal. Hunting a wild mammal with more than two hounds is. However there is still a lot of uncertainty about the definition of hunting. I set more than two dogs after deer and have no problem with it because I choose not to kill them.

Thanks for that.

 

[Herne]

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. There are plenty of experienced saboteurs who know when the hunt have flushed a fox.

And it is not for them to play judge and jury either. As I say, the number of failed accusations that your lot have made clearly demonstrate that you do not have infallible judgement - so learn by your mistakes and leave it to the law.

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. The lack of trust is the hunt's problem, not the saboteurs'. They need to relax and enjoy their day's drag hunting.

That answer make no sense whatsoever. How can hunts relax when we have plenty of experience that anti-hunters bring spurious and even dishonest accusations against people - often just to enjoy the publicity it generates before the case is thrown out of court.

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. Hmm, the term 'Quick nip to the back of the neck' springs to mind.

You may claim that, possibly with justification, that there are dishonest huting people, too, but ...

Is it any wonder we find it less interesting hunting people? It's just too easy to catch them...

One telegraphs one's punches as much as one is able, but still they just walk straight into them...

Did no one ever point out to you, dear Raynard, that two wrongs don't make a right.

When someone accuses your side of telling porkies, it is NOT a defence to say "oh, well your side told fibs, too" *

It is actually more in the line of a tacit admission that your side does lie.

[size=-4]* And, before you try it, no I do not concede that my side told fibs in that regard and I will be happy to discuss that issue in a separate thread, should you desire...[/size]

 

[Fiagai]

As for taking the law into our own hands (or vigilantism if you prefer, Fiagai), 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.

Also, the privacy laws would apply if a person were to film you through a gap in your curtains. Taking part in a sporting activity out in the open does not entitle you to privacy.

The definition of vigilantism is not "punishment" which is administered by the court system AFTER someone has been found guilty of an offence. Vigilantism is the (illegal) taking on of the role of law enforcement- the police. So your surmise is incorrect. Adopting the role of a wannabe lynch mob is neither legal nor advisable in any democratic society.

Hunting is not a football match where you pay to view the players in action. There is no presumption of a right to view any activity taking place either in a private or public place. A wedding may be held in public, but the organisers of any such "private event" may refuse you permission to view or participate.

Q. Why do think so many HS get arrested? A. Mainly because they are breaking the law of the land.

 

[jokadoka]

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.

Get real.

 

[Megan_T]

Why would I fear being caught out?

I didn't ask you if you feared it. It's not about fear. The hunts don't fear the sabbs - the question raised is whether you'd feel irritated and angry about someone following you trying to catch you out.

 

[wench]

I would love a hunt sab to set about me....

 

[Alec Swan]

I would love a hunt sab to set about me....

More a discussion for soapbox, I'd suggest!!

Alec.

 

[VoR]

Ah, the Glasshouse. It's standard practice for saboteurs to wait at the meet to see in which direction the hunt sets off.

The sight of them gathering at the meet might look a little scary, but that's nothing to the heart pounding terror suffered by the fox, running for his life from a pack of baying hounds. I have no sympathy for those intimidated by a certain type of clothing.

They were gathered in such numbers at the Cotswold Vale hunt last Saturday because the week before, some saboteurs (from a group of four women and three men) were assaulted by members and supporters of that hunt.

HSA press release:

http://hsa.enviroweb.org/index.php/news/latest/295-cvh26022011

In addition, the press release doesn't mention that John Hodges almost lifted one saboteur from the ground by her hair, from the relative safety of his saddle, of course. In the ensuing struggle, the saboteur in question also sustained bruising to both of her arms; on her right arm, a deep, black bruise sustained when Hodges used his horse to barge her into a fence; on her left arm, a distinct set of Hodges' fingermarks. What a deeply unpleasant man.

Well, on Saturday, the Cotswold Vale hunt spent the day holed up in The Grange, apparently fearful that they were going to reap what they had sown the week before. None of the saboteurs out that day intended to assault anyone (I can't make you believe that, and quite frankly, I don't care if you do or don't); the sheer volume of numbers was to serve as a deterrent only.

As for the masks, some hide their identity for fear of reprisals from hunt members and supporters. Not surprising, really.

Anyway. That video - was that the worst you could do?

I'll be back with some links of my own ....

Raynard, I have accepted that pro hunters have erred as the courts have proven, you have not accepted that antis could ever do anything other than be tree-hugging vegans, spreading love and understanding in the world, you know that is not the case!
The report you post is from the HSA website, do you know any reporters? Have you ever discussed with then how they can sway opinion by giving one side of a story and avoiding cetrtain facts, how another paper/website will give the opposite view and somewhere in the middle is the truth? I think you have jumped the gun here and perhaps rather than give this in evidence should have waited until the police (and if applicable courts) have reached their conclusions, oh, but of course, they'll find on the side of the hunt because antis are always picked on even though they do no wrong!
The sight of them is 'a little scary', oh come on, if you saw this mob coming down the road towards you you'd either run or prepare to defend yourself, it's called fight or flight, the fox usually takes flight as is it's natural instinct and I'm not sure if there is any scientific evidence proving that it feels terror (although I stand to be corrected if there is!).
You also shoot youself in the foot by apparently gloating that the Cotswold was unable/unwilling (the truth of this again is likely to be somewhere in the middle) to leave The Grange, despite previously stating that the sabs wouldn't interfere unless there was an incident of illegal hunting, so, after making their point why did they not withdraw?
Please, just for once in your life, stop thinking that you and yours are incontrovertibly right and accept that this was pure intimidation and that there are factions in the sabs who are out to and do cause trouble even if, as with hunt supporters, the majority are not and do not deliberately do so.

 

[Giles]

Raynard, I have accepted that pro hunters have erred as the courts have proven, you have not accepted that antis could ever do anything other than be tree-hugging vegans, spreading love and understanding in the world, you know that is not the case!
The report you post is from the HSA website, do you know any reporters? Have you ever discussed with then how they can sway opinion by giving one side of a story and avoiding cetrtain facts, how another paper/website will give the opposite view and somewhere in the middle is the truth? I think you have jumped the gun here and perhaps rather than give this in evidence should have waited until the police (and if applicable courts) have reached their conclusions, oh, but of course, they'll find on the side of the hunt because antis are always picked on even though they do no wrong!
The sight of them is 'a little scary', oh come on, if you saw this mob coming down the road towards you you'd either run or prepare to defend yourself, it's called fight or flight, the fox usually takes flight as is it's natural instinct and I'm not sure if there is any scientific evidence proving that it feels terror (although I stand to be corrected if there is!).
You also shoot youself in the foot by apparently gloating that the Cotswold was unable/unwilling (the truth of this again is likely to be somewhere in the middle) to leave The Grange, despite previously stating that the sabs wouldn't interfere unless there was an incident of illegal hunting, so, after making their point why did they not withdraw?
Please, just for once in your life, stop thinking that you and yours are incontrovertibly right and accept that this was pure intimidation and that there are factions in the sabs who are out to and do cause trouble even if, as with hunt supporters, the majority are not and do not deliberately do so.

The hunt leaving the grange would not have been a criminal offense so if the sabs obstructed them from doing so they would have been breaking the law.

 

[VoR]

You are correct, but don't really see you point given the context?

 

[Raynard]

Here are the links I promised you, VoR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YccRUc2SDBs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJneRSgJcxI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJH...uery=fox+hunting+violence&aq=f&has_verified=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABzNXIfbeb4&feature=related

I haven't even scratched the surface yet. There are so many videos of a similar ilk. Each one of these videos trumps your 'sabs walking down a country road' effort.

Anyway, as much as I love sparring with you folks, I have things to do today. I will be back to address all comments as soon as is convenient.

Toodle pip!