Fiagai
Well-Known Member
Apologies to going back to the start of the discussion , however I do have to ask the question...Why?
That is -Why did you think to respond to it here?
Daily Mail inaccuracies
- Thread starter Raynard
- Start date
Apologies to going back to the start of the discussion , however I do have to ask the question...Why?
That is -Why did you think to respond to it here?
Jerroboam
Well-Known Member
Firstly, is it not for the Police to uphold the law? Hunt Sabs seem to be incredibly confused with their position within society, you do not create the law and nor do you uphold it, that is the job of proffessional, OBJECTIVE, policemen and women. Your constant harassment of hunt staff and hunt followers is not an issue of animal welfare any longer, you sabs enjoy hunting as much as huntings law abiding followers do, without hunting what would you people do? Perhaps a job.....
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
I agree it is not the job of the sabs to uphold the law but a clear distinction should be made between those who intend to sab a hunt and those there to monitor with video cameras etc.
Monitoring itself is a valuable weapon for the police and CPS in their efforts to police illegal hunting. Proven by the thanks given in court to those who have supplied evidence of illegal hunting which has led to conviction. Sadly monitors are being attacked and obstructed going about their legal business. It really isnt on and we should all commend the bravery of these individuals given the circumstances I believe.
Fiagai
Well-Known Member
Re hunt monitoring and legality of same- I will repost the same...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Last edited:
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
Did you have a point? Hunt monitoring is a valuable, legal tool encouraged by the law enforcement agency's with their thanks given in court to those who have provided proof of illegal hunting via legal methods. Are you going to deny this Faigai? 
Giles
Well-Known Member
Indeed and the last time I looked police don't generally enforce the law by turning up in groups of 50 or so donning balaclavas and intimidating people so they cannot ride down the public highway.
Giles
Well-Known Member
Fiagai
Well-Known Member
....*rolls around laughing so much it hurts*
Ahunter
Member
"Monitoring itself is a valuable weapon for the police and CPS in their efforts to police illegal hunting. Proven by the thanks given in court to those who have supplied evidence of illegal hunting which has led to conviction. Sadly monitors are being attacked and obstructed going about their legal business. It really isnt on and we should all commend the bravery of these individuals given the circumstances I believe"
What a load of old Cobblers!
They should repeal the act then pursue the idiot organizations that dreamed up this waste of time ban for the amount it has cost the British taxpayer. Monitor that.
What a load of old Cobblers!
They should repeal the act then pursue the idiot organizations that dreamed up this waste of time ban for the amount it has cost the British taxpayer. Monitor that.
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I simply replied to the post about the hunt sabs being confused by their role. Hoping to clear up any confusion about the difference between illegal/threatening sab activity and legal monitoring.
Hanno Verian
Well-Known Member
Did you have a point? Hunt monitoring is a valuable, legal tool encouraged by the law enforcement agency's with their thanks given in court to those who have provided proof of illegal hunting via legal methods. Are you going to deny this Faigai?
There is a huge difference between recording all activity at a hunt and editing, cutting and pasting clips to produce a grossly distorted view to support your own preconcieved ideas and objectives.
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
"Cobblers", because I posted the truth obviously. How has the Act cost the British taxpayer any more than policing hunting cost the taxpayer before the ban?
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
I am sorry but if you are suggesting convictions have been gained through distorted filming you are very much mistaken. The illegal hunting has been very clear for all to see.
oakash
Well-Known Member
Not so, B & F! Look at the video of Tony Wright hunting the Exmoor. It LOOKED illegal, if you knew nothing about hunting, but it was NOT! I trust you and your ilk will agree the Act needs repeal?
oakash
Well-Known Member
Did you have a point? Hunt monitoring is a valuable, legal tool encouraged by the law enforcement agency's with their thanks given in court to those who have provided proof of illegal hunting via legal methods. Are you going to deny this Faigai?
B & F. (or may I call you BF for short?) please tell us which court case against a hunt resulted in the monitors being thanked by the judge?
Ahunter
Member
"Cobblers", because I posted the truth obviously.
How has the Act cost the British taxpayer any more than policing hunting
cost the taxpayer before the ban?
Its Cobblers because you are portraying a one sided view that is devoid of any reality. Given Boths sideas cant stand one another its like Chelsea fans monitoring Millwall fans,thats reality.
Out on my own the other day by one of your idiot monitors, just as it was leaving it still had to shout out you brute, it could not keep its gob shut, it wants the confrontation, it wants a reaction thats reality.
"How has the Act cost the British taxpayer any more than policing hunting
cost the taxpayer before the ban?"
Not just policing my friend, what about the wasted millions spent passing this rubbish.
How has the Act cost the British taxpayer any more than policing hunting
cost the taxpayer before the ban?
Its Cobblers because you are portraying a one sided view that is devoid of any reality. Given Boths sideas cant stand one another its like Chelsea fans monitoring Millwall fans,thats reality.
Out on my own the other day by one of your idiot monitors, just as it was leaving it still had to shout out you brute, it could not keep its gob shut, it wants the confrontation, it wants a reaction thats reality.
"How has the Act cost the British taxpayer any more than policing hunting
cost the taxpayer before the ban?"
Not just policing my friend, what about the wasted millions spent passing this rubbish.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
I'm wondering if you actually thought about this quote. Read it again, and you'll see that it makes for little sense.
Alec.
Ets, if Policing before the ban, cost nothing (it wasn't Policed), then the Act itself cost several million pounds. a.
Last edited:
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
Oh come on. Video evidence is never the sole form of evidence used in court, we all know that. Just because it looks illegal, without supporting evidence it can not convict.
My ilk? Sorry, what kind of person do you believe I am? We were out at an 80th Birthday party of a family member at St.Tudy in Cornwall today. Along with good sheep farming friends who were losing chickens to a fox last night. Fortunately they heard the commotion and said fox was blasted and is no more. Excellent stuff, all for it.
I simply cannot and will not agree the Act should be repealed. I do not agree with hare coursing for sport, stag hunting or killing with dogs. I do however believe it should be ammended a.s.a.p. No more trail hunting for starters using fox scent.
EAST KENT
Well-Known Member
Policing before the daft ban?Why? we behaved ourselves with our own strict rules of etiquette and never a policeman in sight until the Great Unwashed appeared!
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
I mdidnt say the judge oakash it was the police. I will find the quotes for you.
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
People on both sides let themselves and others down. I would like to think they are still the minority. All laws cost money to get through parliament. There is no doubt the opposition to this ban did their upmost to delay it for as long as possible costing great amounts of time and money but also to include some daft ammendments and exemptions we all mock today. You cannot blame the law makers for the games played by opponents.
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
It makes perfect sense Alec try reading it again. Policing hunting before the ban cost thousands of pounds and man hours due to the aggrovation between two sides the pro hunting and anti hunting groups. I have no doubt the hunts should have payed for this police presence but sadly the tax payer, myself, picked up the bill. Then we had the bill for all the cases of violence, intimidation, vandalism from both sides to pay for. Suggesting we have suddenly gained some new large cost due to the Hunting Ban is simply a ludicrous suggestion.
Once again the reason the Act took so long to go through parliament and cost so much was delaying tactics by the pro lobby. The proposed law itself was far clearer and easy to pass than many others or could have been without the games.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
Explain to me, if you will, just how policing a legal activity, and before the ban, cost the taxpayer anything.
The word Policing, would imply that there was wrong doing, on the part of those who hunt. As a perfectly legal activity, perhaps you could explain to me just how complicit we were.
You are arguing from the point of view of a childish and wholly inaccurate standpoint.
Perhaps not on this specific thread, but it would be on others, you've made wildly silly claims. I know nothing of building, or engineering, and as I accept that, so I listen to those who do. The simple fact is that you argue from the viewpoint of someone who has no experience of your subject, what so ever, and sadly, you wont be told.
Alec.
The word Policing, would imply that there was wrong doing, on the part of those who hunt. As a perfectly legal activity, perhaps you could explain to me just how complicit we were.
You are arguing from the point of view of a childish and wholly inaccurate standpoint.
Perhaps not on this specific thread, but it would be on others, you've made wildly silly claims. I know nothing of building, or engineering, and as I accept that, so I listen to those who do. The simple fact is that you argue from the viewpoint of someone who has no experience of your subject, what so ever, and sadly, you wont be told.
Alec.
oakash
Well-Known Member
BF. please heed Alec Swans comments. You must be aware that morally and ethically you are disadvantaged. If you know ANYTHING about hunting, you will know that foxes are being killed by crueller methods now hunting is banned. You claim that 'blasting the fox with a shotgun' is HUMANE!!! You obviously have no idea of the state of maimed foxes when this, all too frequently, happens. Hunting is the natural way of fox and deer control. You (should) know it makes sense. Support it if you are concerned about mindless and unecessary cruelty to animals.
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
*sigh*
I am arguing from the point of view of a childish and wholly inaccurate standpoint?? Me?
"The word Policing, would imply that there was wrong doing, on the part of those who hunt. As a perfectly legal activity, perhaps you could explain to me just how complicit we were."
Alec you really are just arguementative for the sake of it. Any number of events are policed. If I were to say policing of football matches costs a great deal of money would you accuse me of suggesting football is illegal or footballers are doing wrong?! Of course you wouldnt.
That policing of the hunts created cost to the taxpayer.
I am arguing from the point of view of a childish and wholly inaccurate standpoint?? Me?
"The word Policing, would imply that there was wrong doing, on the part of those who hunt. As a perfectly legal activity, perhaps you could explain to me just how complicit we were."
Alec you really are just arguementative for the sake of it. Any number of events are policed. If I were to say policing of football matches costs a great deal of money would you accuse me of suggesting football is illegal or footballers are doing wrong?! Of course you wouldnt.
That policing of the hunts created cost to the taxpayer.
Fiagai
Well-Known Member
The Antis & Hunt sabs undertook violent and agressive activities against Hunts before the 2004 Hunting Act (even though the Hunts were hunting legally)
The Antis & Hunt sabs continue to be violent and agressive to those participating hunting after the 2004 Act (even though the Hunts are hunting legally) just in case they might not be!
No matter what is done / changed / legislated this bunch of eejits will never be happy because at the bottom of it they are in the main a motely collection of anarchists persuing a class war against what they perceive as the "upper classes" with a sprinkling of extreme vegans who want the countryside closed down so that it can revert to nature!
The police have to intervene because of the continued agression of these groups interfering with Hunts who are participating in an legal activity
Unfortunately the tax payer has to pay for the antics of these misanthropes
Being nice to them and attempting to explain things truthfully really is a futile waste of time
The Antis & Hunt sabs continue to be violent and agressive to those participating hunting after the 2004 Act (even though the Hunts are hunting legally) just in case they might not be!
No matter what is done / changed / legislated this bunch of eejits will never be happy because at the bottom of it they are in the main a motely collection of anarchists persuing a class war against what they perceive as the "upper classes" with a sprinkling of extreme vegans who want the countryside closed down so that it can revert to nature!
The police have to intervene because of the continued agression of these groups interfering with Hunts who are participating in an legal activity
Unfortunately the tax payer has to pay for the antics of these misanthropes
Being nice to them and attempting to explain things truthfully really is a futile waste of time
Last edited:
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
I really have tried to support it oakash. I have good friends who support it and know my stance. We have worked together, hunted together and talked often about it (without all of the internet bile). I simply cannot accept that killing with a pack of hounds is humane.
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
In the end Fiagai it isnt the antis or hunt sabs you talk about that you need to make the effort to be nice to or explain anything. It is those members of the public and MP's who are against hunting as was pre-ban who need your effort. They need to be convinced of the humane pest control arguement from your own standpoint if there is to be any chance of repeal.
Perhaps if lucky there are one or two posters on this forum who would stand some chance to get that message across to others if they went public. The majority though......
Perhaps if lucky there are one or two posters on this forum who would stand some chance to get that message across to others if they went public. The majority though......
Herne
Well-Known Member
B&F, you really do talk some nonsense. The Hunting Act was passed in almost exactly the same form as it was first laid before the House - the form in which it was drafted with the assistance of the League Against Cruel Sports. YOUR side created the exemptions, not ours!
You are as misinformed here as you were about snares - or were you just careless with your wording again?
When are you going to admit to yourself that you really don't know what you are talking about on this subject?
You really do walk straight into these things, don't you...?
It isn't football that needs policing, it's the hooligans that disrupt it. Oh, yes, just like hunting. Thanks for that...
Last edited:
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
Football is a game, and one which attracts opposing supporters. Those opposing supporters both support "The Game", and neither would want to see the demise of the opposition. Would you agree with that?
To compare the Policing of Football, and the now introduced Policing of Hunting is a rather childish argument.
Hunting was a sport, which before the ban, was conducted in a legal fashion, and generally, still is.
Quote. "Alec you really are just arguementative for the sake of it. and that would be the response of someone who sees the flaws in their own contradictions.Any number of events are policed. If I were to say policing of football matches costs a great deal of money would you accuse me of suggesting football is illegal or footballers are doing wrong?! Of course you wouldnt. I can do nothing else but refer you to my opening paragraph." Unquote.
Quote "That policing of the hunts created cost to the taxpayer." Unquote. Yes, your right, but at who's instigation, and to the benefit of who? Reply "Foxes", and you have no real comprehension of the countryside, what-so-ever.
Alec.
To compare the Policing of Football, and the now introduced Policing of Hunting is a rather childish argument.
Hunting was a sport, which before the ban, was conducted in a legal fashion, and generally, still is.
Quote. "Alec you really are just arguementative for the sake of it. and that would be the response of someone who sees the flaws in their own contradictions.Any number of events are policed. If I were to say policing of football matches costs a great deal of money would you accuse me of suggesting football is illegal or footballers are doing wrong?! Of course you wouldnt. I can do nothing else but refer you to my opening paragraph." Unquote.
Quote "That policing of the hunts created cost to the taxpayer." Unquote. Yes, your right, but at who's instigation, and to the benefit of who? Reply "Foxes", and you have no real comprehension of the countryside, what-so-ever.
Alec.