Daily Mail inaccuracies

[Binkle&Flip]

It isn't football that needs policing, it's the hooligans that disrupt it. Oh, yes, just like hunting. Thanks for that...

I dont disagree. It is the two sets of supporters that require the match to be policed. The only difference with hunting is one of the groups doesnt support the event. The event over its period of happening needs policing. You know full well what I am stating Herne.

The opponents to the hunting ban proposed over 400 ammendments to the bill in an attempt to delay it I believe. Only a handfull slipped through I agree. Wasnt one on the eve of the vote?

 

[Binkle&Flip]

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.

"Yes, your right," Right, so you now agree I was right to call it policing of the hunts. To the benefit of who? All law abiding people so in my opinion mostly the hunters.

 

[Alec Swan]

"Yes, your right," Right, so you now agree I was right to call it policing of the hunts. To the benefit of who? All law abiding people so in my opinion mostly the hunters.

Silly posts, such as that, make debate a pointless exercise.

Alec.

 

[Fiagai]

OK lets keep it simple then...

Warning: This Link contains graphic content of shot foxes....

Because the alternative is this.... LINK

Comment with photo on web site

...Thats the trouble with a .22 RF on foxes. Lots of blood indicates it wasn't an instant kill, even if the fox went down and stayed down the heart was still pumping blood out. Messy but it obviously did the job.

and shotguns are even less efficient at killing cleanly.

Hunting with hounds always means that fox die quickly.

 

[Fiagai]

B&F, you really do talk some nonsense. !

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...

Like this...

 

[Fiagai]

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.

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

.

Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJA) defines Aggrevated Trespass as follows: A person commits aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land with the intention of disrupting, or intimidating those taking part in, lawful activity taking place on that or adjacent land.

You dont have "to set foot outside" a vehicle to commit aggrevated trespass. Hunts agree access with landowners in advance - this agreement does not include those not affiliated with the hunt. They were commiting an offence under Section 68 of the criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and were not "wrongfully arrested" from the facts provided

 

[Serenity087]

B&F

Hunting only cost money to police because your ilk got kicks out of assaulting women, children and animals. Hunts on their own didn't need policing.

Although, the amount of times I've seen Surrey Police Officers sat on their utes with their packed lunches and binoculars cos there ain't no sabs out, so they're just going to enjoy the hunting, one does have to wonder... (There and then I wanted to be a copper... paid to watch hunting? Get in!)

Reguardless. The point I origionally wanted to make was this.

How does it make you feel to know the reason so many hunting cases have been thrown out of court is that the judges have ruled the evidence your chums gather is unlawful?
Usually because of attacks on hunt staff which took place before the camera was turned on?

Such kind and caring people aren't they, hunt monitors, when they have to make up incidents to prove illegal hunting...

 

[Fiagai]

I do apologise ... once gain I forgot that replies containing more than one clause can lead to confusion...so I will repeat the Main point of my previous post (#86)

No matter what is done / changed / legislated the anti's and Hunt sabuteurs will never be happy

 

[Binkle&Flip]

Serenity087. I can assure you my "ilk", as you put it do not get their kicks out of assaulting women, children or animals! Nor are hunt monitors my "chums"!
I am pro pest control. I am certainly not a sab thankyou!

 

[rosie fronfelen]

May i ask why you repeat the same old thing night and day- i think us hunters are aware of your views by now?Nothing else to do bar look at a computer screen?

 

[Herne]

I dont disagree. It is the two sets of supporters that require the match to be policed. The only difference with hunting is one of the groups doesnt support the event. The event over its period of happening needs policing. You know full well what I am stating Herne.

No. Prior to the ban, the event would not have needed policing if the saboteurs had stayed at home and not tried to interfere with a legal activity going on on private land to which they were not invited. The blame for the cost of Policing hunts therefore fell entirely on the shoulders of the anti-hunt lobby. I trust you will concede that.

Post the ban, there should still be no need for policing hunts, because hunt supporters should just ignore the silly little monitors and the monitors, if they do feel the need to play vigilante should do so solely from public rights of way and should refrain from bringing malicious false prosecutions. Unfortunately, however, four or five decades of mutual hostilty have ingrained habits and mutual hostilityinto both sides that seem unlikely to break now.

The opponents to the hunting ban proposed over 400 ammendments to the bill in an attempt to delay it I believe. Only a handfull slipped through I agree. Wasnt one on the eve of the vote?

You see, this is the probem with people like you, B&F - you are completely unwilling to learn from your mistakes.

You stated, nay crowed about the "fact", that it was the pro-hunting side that "include[d] some daft ... exemptions we all mock today"

You were wrong about that. Misinformed. Incorrect. Factually at error. However you wish to put it...

Just like you were about "snares being excellent killers".

However, no matter how many times we point out to you where you are completely wrong about something, you just pretend it never happened.

When are you going to start taking responsibility for your errors and admitting that you do not know as much about this as you think you do?

One of the most important rules of life is to learn from your mistakes. How can you learn from your mistakes, when you refuse ever to admit that you have made any?

 

[Giles]

OK lets keep it simple then...

Warning: This Link contains graphic content of shot foxes....

Because the alternative is this.... LINK

Comment with photo on web site



and shotguns are even less efficient at killing cleanly.

Hunting with hounds always means that fox die quickly.

Whether it is a clean kill largely depends on where the fox is hit. People often talk about a 'head' shot however actually head shots can merely wound. I shall drag out a photo of a hind shot through the head with a rifle and found and dispatched by the staghounds several days later.

Foxes are often lamped at night and the only target to shoot at is a pair of eyes.

One of the most interesting findings of research into wounding rates in shot foxes in common conditions was that the ratio between wounding and fatal shots was approximately the same for expert and inexpert marksmen. The difference was that the expert marksmen both killed AND wounded more foxes.

IMO lamping foxes without dogs to follow up and either locate or dispatch any wounded animals that escape is wrong.

 

[farmergirly]

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.

Why are you wasting police resources? There was nothing for you to see that day. Everything was being done legally and correctly. The only reason police come to the hunts and cost the tax payer money is because people like you turn up ,are ill informed and cause trouble.

 

[Herne]

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.

I find that statement very hard to beleive.

If you had really "tried" to understand the pro-hunting argument, if you had really talked it over ratioanlly with pro-hunting friends, then you would be able to have a sensible discussion about the relative adverse welfare implications of snaring versus hunting with me rather than ducking the issue.

The question is not whether hunting with hounds in isolation is humane.

If you accept the need to control foxes, as you say you do, the question is which methods of fox control are better to use under which circumstances - and in order to make that call, you need to understand the pros and cons of both - which is something that you have not demonstrated that you do.

 

[Giles]

exactly Herne and putting aside the arguments about pack hunting for a minute there is little doubt that hunting with dogs can be an appropriate means. A good example is fnding and flushing animals in undergrowth or taking out wounded animals.

What we need is sensible legislation that targets animal welfare. This legislation would first require their to be a need for control and secondly would require the means used not to involve undue suffering.

Any means of control that involves undue suffering to wild animals should be illegal.

This is the approach that is supported by the Countryside Alliance and opposed by LACS who actually oppose making causing undue suffering to wildlife per se illegal.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

May i ask why you repeat the same old thing night and day- i think us hunters are aware of your views by now?Nothing else to do bar look at a computer screen?

I dont repeat it night and day for heavens sake. It was obvious that the poster I replied to ( not you!), was unaware of my stance or wouldnt have posted the following........"Hunting only cost money to police because your ilk got kicks out of assaulting women, children and animals. Hunts on their own didn't need policing."

Or did you miss the post I was replying to?

I enjoy looking at my computer screen when I have a break for coffee. It is nice to sit down occasionaly with a biccie to dunk and some other peoples posts are interesting.

 

[EAST KENT]

OK lets keep it simple then...

Warning: This Link contains graphic content of shot foxes....

Because the alternative is this.... LINK

Comment with photo on web site



and shotguns are even less efficient at killing cleanly.

Hunting with hounds always means that fox die quickly.

Urgh,that is horrifying, how long before those poor foxes actually died? Hardly instant and humane in those cases was it?

 

[Giles]

Urgh,that is horrifying, how long before those poor foxes actually died? Hardly instant and humane in those cases was it?

one of the worst I have seen

http://www.skyshot.co.uk/client/gap_bwm/phrifle.php

 

[suestowford]

I found a fox that looked like that hind, hiding behind our dungheap. Half its face was shot away. It was still alive.
It was a horrible horrible find and judging by the state of the animal, the poor thing had been suffering for several days.

 

[Giles]

I found a fox that looked like that hind, hiding behind our dungheap. Half its face was shot away. It was still alive.
It was a horrible horrible find and judging by the state of the animal, the poor thing had been suffering for several days.

yeap headshots do not always kill straight away by any means and being shot in the gut is incredibly painful going by what soldiers say. The surest chance of an instant kill is heart and lungs I believe.

I hope you killed the fox asap. Of course dogs are far far better than people at finding injured animals.

 

[Raynard]

Wow, eleven pages. I have stirred up a hornets' nest, haven't I?

Just took a peek to see how things are going in here. Still don't really have the time right now to chat with you folks, but rest assured, you will all be answered in good time.

 

[Fiagai]

Wow, eleven pages. I have stirred up a hornets' nest, haven't I?.

As I supsected just another Troll....

While your at it - please answer this post before we take this any further...

Originally Posted by Raynard
This column in the DM was brought to my attention today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml
As the DM is no longer accepting comments on this page, I thought I’d respond to it here...

Apologies to going back to the start of the discussion , however I do have to ask the question...Why?

That is -Why did you wish to respond to it here?

 

[Tinkerbee]

Oh my. You expected the Daily Mail to be accurate?

 

[VoR]

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!

Once again, I have not said that the pro hunting community is always 'whiter-than-white', you however, seem incapable of such open and honest communication. I dare say on the web there are many examples of intimidation by sabs in the same vein as those you have links to. You appear to have completely missed the point of my original post, which was the question why, if there is no intent to provoke and intimidate do they dress so?
Thanks for the 'sparring' as you put it, but in 'sparring' both sides need to accept a few blows and give a few, I've given and taken some, but in the light of your inability to accept that sabs ever act inappropriately you show yourself to be lacking in the basic intelligence to hold a balanced debate so I bid you fairwell I'm going to find someone who is able to have a sensible and balanced 'sparring' session.

 

[Fiagai]

...You see, this is the probem with people like you, B&F - you are completely unwilling to learn from your mistakes...You were wrong about that. Misinformed. Incorrect. Factually at error...However, no matter how many times we point out to you where you are completely wrong about something, you just pretend it never happened...When are you going to start taking responsibility for your errors and admitting that you do not know as much about this as you think you do? One of the most important rules of life is to learn from your mistakes. How can you learn from your mistakes, when you refuse ever to admit that you have made any?

Herne - Pointing out inaccuracies in a polite and informative way and not rising to anything else in the hope that they might get bored and move on is not always possible is it? Personally I dont bother anymore....

 

[Herne]

Fiagai, dear heart, my message was not impolite and it was also informative.

Furthermore, it sticks to the subject - the errors that have been made. When you are pointing out that a poster has been at error on a number of occasions, it is not "abusive" or irrelevant to point out that they have been at error on a number of occasions, nor that they do not seem to be leaning from these errors.

You will observe that I only point out that the claims made were wrong. I do not accuse him/her of deliberately lying or descend into other abuse.

Nor do I waste everybody's time with endless repetitive comments about rabbits, trolls or other irrelevancies - which simply serve to divert the reader’s attention away from the paucity of my opponent’s knowledge.

It is also, perhaps, interesting to observe how much editing of my message you felt you had to do to try and make it a bit more “ranty-looking” in order to play your little tit-for-tat game.

One might also take a leaf from your own book and enquire why you felt the need to do this here? After all, my posting about the best way to deal with trolls (in another thread) that you paraphrase here was in response to a direct request from you for suggestions. What is your excuse…?

 

[Fiagai]

Herne - No offence meant. You have pointed out well the "errors" encountered. There is no point in being devisive. The fact that this has to be repeated again and again, is as you pointed out necessary and not abusive either. I replied because I have covered this ground previously and know from experience it really is a futile exercise. I like to call a spade a spade and not beat around the bush. The inacurracies of the posts is open for all to see. Even your last post was showing the pure exasperation of this process. The term "rabbits" is simply a take on the posters handle - look it up yourself on google. There is really no need to get het up about this. The poster has been labelled a "troll" by myself and others and it is useful for other posters to be aware of the fact. The "editing" of your reply btw is the correct way to post comments that are commented on relevent sections - you will see it much used in research etc. So no intention of making it "ranty". I hadn't replied to your original post as I had missed it and then replied to do so. The underlying point here is that no matter how much you explain, explain and explain again you end up having to say the same thing again, again and again as you also have pointed out.

 

[EAST KENT]

Oh my. You expected the Daily Mail to be accurate?

Of course not,but it is so entertaining,every day is April Fool`s Day!

 

[AmyMay]

the hunt saboteurs, whose attentions were focused on the South Herefordshire hunt on the 15th January

For what purpose exactly

 

[Herne]

Even your last post was showing the pure exasperation of this process.

Far from it. What you mistake for exasperation is, in fact, glee. (Note to self: Make more use of emoticons&#8230 Being able to point out to these people where they are wrong, with proof, is what it is all about!

As is discussed in the “Miles Cooper” thread, the way to overcome these people is to consistently confront them with the lack of consistency in their own arguments, not in the brilliance of our own. The reason why so many high-ranking members of the anti-fraternity fall by the wayside is because their positions force them to look deeper than the propaganda and they see the underlying faults and weaknesses in their own case.

We don’t persuade them by force that we are right, we help them come to realise for themselves that they are wrong.

I can quite understand why, if your attempts to argue the case achieve the results that you describe, you become frustrated and want to concede that you are unable to achieve anything positive. Personally, however, I find that my efforts usually do eventually achieve the results that I am aiming for, so I find the experience to be quite rewarding and even enjoyable.

The term "rabbits" is simply a take on the posters handle - look it up yourself on google.

Or I could save myself the trouble and just read the post elsewhere on here where you have already pointed out the reference. Oh, I already did…

My point about your rabbit references was merely that the constant repetition thereof was getting a bit stale – but, more to the point, it interferes with the flow of the thread to the third party reader, who, I am sure you would concur, we would want to come away with the impression that the anti side lost the argument, rather than that the pro side was rather rude and boring.

The "editing" of your reply btw is the correct way to post comments that are commented on relevent sections - you will see it much used in research etc.

I have given some thought to how to respond to that little claim, and, after consideration, the most appropriate comment seems to be: Eh?

There is really no need to get het up about this.

Indeed not. I’m having fun. I am, I might observe, the one responding to your interjections, not the other way around…

The poster has been labelled a "troll" by myself and others and it is useful for other posters to be aware of the fact.

Golly! A fact! I was not aware that you were an official OffTroll Inspector. And there was I naively thinking that we could all make up our own minds about such things. Tut.

Incidentally, when thinking about the conventions of trollish behaviour on the internet, you might want to give some consideration to Godwin’s Law…