Farewell, Giles!

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

ps I did conceded that I am in favour of hunts doing consevation work that enhances British wildlife.

You've got me there I must admit.

Ain't I a devil.

 

[Reginald]

You've made your stance perfectly clear: you agree with hunts boosting fox numbers then killing them because they're "vermin". Personally, I think that's immoral.

As regards Giles' tiresome flushing fixation. You yourself have said he's not a hunter: he's therefore not hunting and the Hunting Act 2004 does not apply. All those hot flushes for nothing!

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

But don't you agree with people planting woodland etc?

So what you are saying then is that people CAN go out with dogs and deliberately chase deer and they aren't breaking the law that says it is illegal to go out and chase deer with dogs?

Basically even though the law says it is a crime to flush out deer with dogs (unless you shoot them) in actual fact it isn't?


Just to get this quite right. One can go out with my dogs tomorrow morning, chase deer as far as one likes and there is no crime committed?

What would one have to do to break the law?

 

[Reginald]

If you're not hunting with dogs you cannot be convicted of the offence of hunting with dogs, that's correct. I'm delighted to have cleared this point of law up for you.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Thanks for your guidance Reginald.

Are you saying that one can take one's dogs out and deliberately flush deer out of a wood with them and one am not breaking the law?

You see what i don't get is why in that case the law says that flushing out wild mammals is hunting.

Why would the law say flushing out is hunting if it isn't?

Why would it say that it is illegal if it isn't?

It strikes me that you are saying that what the law says isn't what it means.

Just to clarify things a little further is deliberately flushing deer out of a wood with dogs hunting or not?

 

[Bedlam]

Hello, Giles!

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

You guys seem obsessed with this Giles character.

 

[Bedlam]

I think you're quite fun really - it livens up my browsing to have you irritating so many people........and it amuses me how you just keep popping back up! You're so infuriatingly persistent.....!! :grin:

 

[The Virgin Dubble]

You guys seem obsessed with this Giles character.

He's a legend...

 

[Reginald]

- "Are you saying that one can take one's dogs out and deliberately flush deer out of a wood with them and one am not breaking the law?"

You're not contravening the Hunting Act 2004 if you're not hunting them. Giles says he uses his dog to flush out the deer, not in order to catch or kill them: he's not hunting, therefore the Act does not apply.

- "You see what i don't get is why in that case the law says that flushing out wild mammals is hunting."

DEFRA has supplied a document for people like you who wish to understand the Hunting Act 2004 properly. It states:

"The Act makes it an offence for a person to hunt a wild mammal with a dog unless the hunting is exempt. For the purposes of the Act, the word ‘hunting’ has its ordinary English meaning, which includes searching for wild mammals, chasing them, or pursuing them FOR THE PURPOSE OF CATCHING OR KILLING." [my caps]

You yourself have said Giles is no "hunter": all he wants to do is scare away the deer. He doesn't want to catch or kill them, therefore the Act does not apply.

 

[brighteyes]

Much like the Scarlet Pimpernel..... I'm SURE he's not very far away :grin: :grin: :grin:

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Is there any evidence to say that defra have any more of a clue about what the law makes illegal than anyone else?

So chasing animals for sport is still legal then? The fox/stag hounds can chase them as much as they like as long as they don't kill them?

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Much like the Scarlet Pimpernel..... I'm SURE he's not very far away :grin: :grin: :grin:

lol you sound as if yoiu are encouraging the devil!""!!

 

[Reginald]

- "Is there any evidence to say that defra have any more of a clue about what the law makes illegal than anyone else?"

Well yes, DEFRA being the Government department responsible for the Hunting Act 2004.

- "So chasing animals for sport is still legal then? The fox/stag hounds can chase them as much as they like as long as they don't kill them?"

You asked me specifically about Giles. I'm happy to tell him if he's reading this that using a dog to scare away a deer does not contravene the Hunting Act 2004. The entire publicity stunt has been a waste of time and based on a basic misreading of the law.

As for other people chasing deer it would depend on the circumstances.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Ah right, but defra have argued in court that flushing out and chasing deer deer IS illegal.

They must be wrong then.

So your interpretation of the law is that hunts can willfully chase wild mammals as much as they like as long as they don't intend kill them?

That'd be a good un

 

[Reginald]

Hang on, you asked me specifically about Giles. He's not contravening the Hunting Act 2004. His entire publicity-seeking stunt is built on a misconception.

Whether hunts break the law when they chase deer etc. depends on the circumstances.

If you see Giles, please give him the good news!

 

[Eagle_day]

"DEFRA has supplied a document for people like you who wish to understand the Hunting Act 2004 properly. It states: ...."

Actually, it doesn't matter what it states because, being guidance, it has no legal authority whatsoever. Just like guidance from HM Revenue & Customs or any other government department.

So, for the moment, we're stuck with what that very nice Judge Cottle said.

 

[Sidesaddle]

lol you sound as if yoiu are encouraging the devil!""!!

Oooh hello you!

That didn't take long!

 

[brighteyes]

Who, me?

*whistles innocently *

 

[Reginald]

"Actually, it doesn't matter what it states because, being guidance, it has no legal authority whatsoever. Just like guidance from HM Revenue & Customs or any other government department."

Actually, it does matter what the DEFRA document states even though it's not legally binding. HM Revenue guides on - say - pensions are routinely quoted in court to help the judge interpret the relevant legislation. The same would go for this DEFRA document.

And anyway, we don't need the DEFRA guide. The Act states that "a person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog". As Bob pointed out, and as Giles himself has insisted ad nauseam, he's no hunter: he's merely scaring the deer away (being incapable apparently of clapping or shouting, that would do the same trick). No offence committed, other than the obvious offence of being a pillock.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

And anyway, we don't need the DEFRA guide. The Act states that "a person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog". As Bob pointed out, and as Giles himself has insisted ad nauseam, he's no hunter: he's merely scaring the deer away (being incapable apparently of clapping or shouting, that would do the same trick). No offence committed, other than the obvious offence of being a pillock.

But Reginald. Defra have told Giles and successfully argued in court that it is illegal to deliberately flush out wild mammals unless you shoot them etc. They state quite categorically that chasing wild deer with dogs is hunting as is flushing them out.

What basis do you have to disagree with them?

Can it really be true that Giles can chase deer as far as he likes with as many dogs as he likes and not be breaking the law? That seems like a remarkable thing to say.

 

[Reginald]

Let's start with the basics: when was Giles prosecuted under the Hunting Act 2004? I thought you said the authorities had hitherto refused to take any action against him.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

They have refused to take any action against him. The police say it isn't in the public interest to prosecute him.

I must say I agree with them, don't you? All he is doing is going out with four dogs, hunting for deer and when he finds any flushing them out and chasing them as far as he can. It would be utter madness to prosecute him for doing that, all he is doing is chasing deer with dogs!

Unfortunately the Government's position is that what he is doing is illegal as he uses four dogs not two and refuses to shoot the deer.

 

[Eagle_day]

"The same would go for this DEFRA document"

Has it been used in any of the legal cases to date?

Seriously, and leaving the pro/anti argument aside, DO NOT rely on government departmental guidance. Case law will always prevail. If you relied on HMRC guidance in certain instances, you would be severely embarrassed.

 

[GinGin2]

Isn't a little unfair to talk about someone who is not here to defend themselves.. :smirk:

 

[Reginald]

"Has it been used in any of the legal cases to date?"

I've no idea.

"Seriously, and leaving the pro/anti argument aside, DO NOT rely on government departmental guidance. Case law will always prevail. If you relied on HMRC guidance in certain instances, you would be severely embarrassed."

Bob asked me whether I thought what Giles did contravened the Hunting Act 2004. I said it didn't, based on what the Act actually says and backed up by DEFRA's guide to how the Act should be interpreted. Bob keeps asking me the same question and I'll keep on giving the same answer because that's what I actually think. If Giles is ever convicted under the Act for using a dog to scare away a deer I'll admit I was wrong.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

But Reginald Defra's advice is that chasing away deer IS against the act. The guidance you quote does not say that chasing away deer is still legal it just states in rather ambivalent terms somethings that are included in the offense.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Here is a link Reginald to Defra's clear view that chasing away wild deer with dogs is illegal:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/hunting_qa_a.htm#5

s hunting different from chasing away?

The Act deliberately does not define hunting with dogs because the term should be understood in its ordinary English meaning, which includes using dogs to search for wild mammals, chase them, or pursue them with the intention of catching or killing them. The deliberate use of dogs to chase a wild mammal, even if there is no intention of catching it, is hunting and as such is prohibited by the Act. This may include the wilful failure to prevent dogs from chasing wild mammals.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

I note also that in the defra guidance it alos defines the following as a 'type of hunting':

"Stalking and flushing out"

It seems strange to me that in spite of the fact that the law says that it is illegal to flush out wild mammals with dogs you claim that it is not illegal to flush out wild mammals with dogs.

It also seems a little weird that in spite of Defra advising that (MY CAPS): "The deliberate use of dogs to chase a wild mammal, even if there is NO INTENTION OF CATCHING IT, is hunting and as such is prohibited by the Act" you claim that defra advise that chasing a wild mammal with dogs is legal if there is no intention of catching it.

Could you kindly explain these apparent inconsistencies in your position reginald?

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

If Giles is ever convicted under the Act for using a dog to scare away a deer I'll admit I was wrong.

He uses dogs to CHASE (my caps) deer you silly man!