Fernie Found Guilty
- Thread starter Dillon
- Start date
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
This is "Justice", when a local man to here, was fined £115 after admitting stealing, and burning out 9 cars? Fines incidentally, which he has yet to pay, 10 months after the offence.
Appeal? Without question. This is an appalling misuse of a system which we rely upon. The given judgement must be in serious doubt. The short supply of respect which I had, is evaporating, rapidly. This is a disgrace.
Alec.
Appeal? Without question. This is an appalling misuse of a system which we rely upon. The given judgement must be in serious doubt. The short supply of respect which I had, is evaporating, rapidly. This is a disgrace.
Alec.
Paddydou
Well-Known Member
Much as I would love to keep the faith the law is an ass.
Also goes to show how confussing the law is regarding hunting. Repeal and be done with it. What as waste of the Courts time.
Also goes to show how confussing the law is regarding hunting. Repeal and be done with it. What as waste of the Courts time.
Ahunter
Member
The court cases were a waste of time even the LACS know that, they are nothing more than a legacy leftover from a failed PR campaign to
bring hunting to the forefront as an issue in the last General election. The LACS had to front them out and they know any appeal leading to an individual being cleared will only strengthen the case for repeal.
bring hunting to the forefront as an issue in the last General election. The LACS had to front them out and they know any appeal leading to an individual being cleared will only strengthen the case for repeal.
A1fie
Well-Known Member
I hope they appeal - they have an automatic right to take to.
RunToEarth
Well-Known Member
Seven day trial? Honestly, what a waste of time, how many more stupid cases have to be put through before it is repealed?
QassiaDeTouzaine
Well-Known Member
They are wasting their own time, they should be looking at far more important stuff. LACS is just taking pot luck and hoping that one day their accusations will come to something. Repeal this unworkable law!
PerdixPerdix
Well-Known Member
Not defending LACS in the slightest but the convicted should have both known better. definitely being reckless.
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
It's interesting that the court said they could see no nets in the LACS video. Presumably if there were nets then they would not have submitted a video where they could be seen?
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
I have said hitherto and I will say it again, the law, i.e. the Hunting Act 2004 cannot be sustained as a result of the subsequent comments made by the former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Fundamentally that he and his colleagues did not understand the subject.
As a result Her Majestys present government are fully empowered to emasculate the whole act using the Statutory Instrument which the Labour Grovernment built into the act as follows;
Section 14 Subordinate legislation
An order of the Secretary of State under this Act
(a)shall be made by statutory instrument,
(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament,
(c)may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes,
(d)may make different provision for different circumstances or purposes, and
(e)may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision.
However the so called great and the good of hunting do not wish to use that route to deal with the act they, in their wisdom, wish to see a full set piece battle on the floor of the House of Commons and for the whole act to be repealed completely.
That is very laudable, however they are wrong because they will never achieve that situation and the whole act will rumble on unchanged.
The best course of action is to use The Statutory Instrument - the minister could do it very quickly, almost at the stroke of her pen - yes the issues to be changed have to go before the Commons and the Lords, but from a legal perspective neither house can refuse the Minister.
As a result Her Majestys present government are fully empowered to emasculate the whole act using the Statutory Instrument which the Labour Grovernment built into the act as follows;
Section 14 Subordinate legislation
An order of the Secretary of State under this Act
(a)shall be made by statutory instrument,
(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament,
(c)may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes,
(d)may make different provision for different circumstances or purposes, and
(e)may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision.
However the so called great and the good of hunting do not wish to use that route to deal with the act they, in their wisdom, wish to see a full set piece battle on the floor of the House of Commons and for the whole act to be repealed completely.
That is very laudable, however they are wrong because they will never achieve that situation and the whole act will rumble on unchanged.
The best course of action is to use The Statutory Instrument - the minister could do it very quickly, almost at the stroke of her pen - yes the issues to be changed have to go before the Commons and the Lords, but from a legal perspective neither house can refuse the Minister.
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
still has to be voted through by both houses though jm so not just the stroke of a pen
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
If the government law officers say that parts of the act are inappropriate and/or are legally defective - I repeat legally defective then then both houses are obliged to nod the changes through under the Statutory Instrument.
Herne
Well-Known Member
Errr, has it not occurred to you that what one Secretary of State can do "at the stroke of a pen" a subsequent Secretay of State can simply undo again, just as easily, with another stroke of a different pen.
Rebanning after repeal will be as difficult as the first Ban was to implement - and it is very unlikely, after the efforst of hunting people in the last 2 elections, that any Labour Government will have the stomach for that fight again for at least a generation.
Your suggestion on the other hand is entirely too easy to overturn.
Rebanning after repeal will be as difficult as the first Ban was to implement - and it is very unlikely, after the efforst of hunting people in the last 2 elections, that any Labour Government will have the stomach for that fight again for at least a generation.
Your suggestion on the other hand is entirely too easy to overturn.
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
Yes, but you do not know which part of the Act I propose should be changed using the Statutory Instrument.
Furthermore, it is better to do something, rather than sitting around for years hoping the Conservative party might have an overall majority. The way things are going that does not look too likely.
I am told that nothing will happen to the Hunting Act 2004 in this Parliament, assuming it runs it's full term.
Hunting people who voted for an MP on the basis that they, the MPs will be able to repeal the Hunting Act 2004 within a short space of time are deluded.
Largely because neither the MPs (whilst wholly genuine on the point) when campaigning, or the voters realised just how long it takes to get these things done in Parliament even with a majority!
Last edited:
oakash
Well-Known Member
Do not think that 'some action' is necessarily better than 'none'. It is necessary that the whole Act is repealed, in order that no future Government would want to get involved in banning hunting ever again. Personally, I have terminated my membership of the Conservative Party, and will certainly not campaign for them at the end of their term unless the Hunting Act is repealed within this parliament.