Harassment by the antis - anyone ever heard of this?

combat_claire said:
I am intrigued by your assertion that you know for a fact. I should like to see your evidence for this statement, because my quick research on the subject seems to paint a rather different picture of a group of people intent on causing mayhem. I've copied this list that I produced earlier in the thread.

January 1993 - 5 police officers injured and 25 arrests of hunt saboteurs in Essex
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1474504.html

November 1993 - injunctions for the Fitzwilliam and Portman - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g-1504580.html

March 1994 - Saboteurs armed with fencing stakes hospitalise four members of the Four Burrow hunt
http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/evi...fourburrow.htm

November 1994 - Saboteurs charged with aggravated trespass following at incident at the Woodland Pytchley Hunt
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~maureen/pr1b.html

December 1996 - saboteur arrested after causing a horse to fall onto the master, Whipper in also arrested after hitting saboteur trying to force his horse onto barbed wire

June 2002 - saboteurs carrying hammers and pick axe handles attack the Three Counties Hunt - http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competit ... 36173.html

September 2004 - Old Surrey Hunt Kennels held under siege by violent saboteurs who threw stones at humans and hounds. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... sters.html

October 2004 - Suzanne Amos found guilty of ABH following incident at Quorn Hunt
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/58511.html

December 2006 - Saboteur arrested for carrying an offensive weapon at a meet of the Essex & Suffolk
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/n...2021:31:07:357

September 2009 - Tiff Clelland and David Marriot were charged with public order offences, they were asked to remove the clothing covering their faces and refused becoming verbally abusive to the police who had made the request.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/20...ving_balaclava
Given that these few cases cover 16yrs CC, it would appear the vast majority who attend hunts as an anti do so not as a rent a mob as suggested.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I remember many years ago hunting as a child having my pony hit round the head with a placard that read ' Against cruelty to animals ' Having said that remember laughing my head off when several rather large hunt followers liftted antis cars up and put them on concrete blocks !!!
 
Scratchline said:
Given that these few cases cover 16yrs CC, it would appear the vast majority who attend hunts as an anti do so not as a rent a mob as suggested.
Click to expand...

My issue was not whether they were hired to saboteur hunts or not, my issue was with the style of debating that we were sinking to - unfounded assertions from Farrier Lover that he/she knew for a fact that no anti would hurt animals. The published list above shows just how wrong that statement is and that is before you delve into hunting pre-ban anecdotes where saboteurs have managed to be directly responsible for heading the fox into the hounds through a complete lack of understanding of what they are doing.

I'd have jumped on the poster for displaying such poor skills of rhetoric whether we were debating hunting or any other issue...
 
Sorry for my confusion CC. The fact only a few of your examples related in anyway to harm to animals threw me x

Following the ban on cruelty to animals by certain forms of hunting there have been nearly 140 convictions I believe. Now that is as much if not far more worrying.
 
Wow, hold on now- how do I know for a fact that not all anti-hunting folk are rent a mob? I would have thought that it was quite obvious! I know a lot of people who are anti hunting and I have a seen a lot of little old ladies who are "monitoring" hunts and I would swear in court that they are not rent a mob and care deeply (however badly qualified) about animal welfare. How rude of you to assume that I am making a sweeping statement when I said that not ALL of either group. Perhaps you should read the post properly.

And how do I know that the hunts are acting illegally? Because I was out with one recently and was asked to stand next to the hedge holding a horse while someone went in to turn a fox back towards the hounds- I'm pretty sure that when it is that obvious there is no question. An aquaintance of mine also saw hounds coming out of a covert covered in blood with no sound of gunshots- now in fairness, there COULD be a rational and legal explanation of that so I will not comment on it further.

How exactly am I blackening the name of hunt supporters? By saying that they swear at people? Coz they do and I'm pretty sure that you can find that one out for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Scratchline said:
Sorry for my confusion CC. The fact only a few of your examples related in anyway to harm to animals threw me x

Following the ban on cruelty to animals by certain forms of hunting there have been nearly 140 convictions I believe. Now that is as much if not far more worrying.
Click to expand...

and how many of those 140 have been hunt staff? Surely if they'd all been red coats, hunting would have gone broke??
 
Farrierlover said:
Wow, hold on now- how do I know for a fact that not all anti-hunting folk are rent a mob? I would have thought that it was quite obvious! I know a lot of people who are anti hunting and I have a seen a lot of little old ladies who are "monitoring" hunts and I would swear in court that they are not rent a mob and care deeply (however badly qualified) about animal welfare. How rude of you to assume that I am making a sweeping statement when I said that not ALL of either group. Perhaps you should read the post properly.

And how do I know that the hunts are acting illegally? Because I was out with one recently and was asked to stand next to the hedge holding a horse while someone went in to turn a fox back towards the hounds- I'm pretty sure that when it is that obvious there is no question. An aquaintance of mine also saw hounds coming out of a covert covered in blood with no sound of gunshots- now in fairness, there COULD be a rational and legal explanation of that so I will not comment on it further.

How exactly am I blackening the name of hunt supporters? By saying that they swear at people? Coz they do and I'm pretty sure that you can find that one out for yourself.
Click to expand...

This is a direct quote from your original post
but I know for a fact that all anti-hunting people are not rent-a-mob and will certainly not harm animals.
Click to expand...

To me that is what I would call a sweeping statement. I have provided evidence of instances that prove that you cannot categorically state that all anti-hunting people will certainly not harm animals. It doesn't matter which side of the debate you come from, the premise of your argument was technically incorrect. Do they not teach philosophy at school any more.

I cannot comment on the specific incident that you claim to have witnessed. However since the ban I have been out with around 15 different packs and they have all been doing their utmost to comply with the law as it is written. There are over 300 packs in the UK, going out on average for 2 days a week. This makes 84,000 hunting days, yet to date there have been only 4 convictions of hunt staff under the Act and one of those was later overturned on appeal. That equates to 0.003% of hunting days ending in a conviction for illegal hunting.

Again, both my original post and my second posting was not intended to paint hunt supporters as holier than thou. I appreciate that there have been bad incidents from both sides of the divide. However I resent the implication that everyone is like that, I presented an illustration of the approach that we take as a pack to try and move this debate on. There really is no need to throw your toys out the pram.

This debate has never been and never will be about clear shades of black and white.
 
Harper_Gal said:
and how many of those 140 have been hunt staff? Surely if they'd all been red coats, hunting would have gone broke??
Click to expand...

To be honest no idea and that is the reason I didnt make any claim about individual cases although I am sure any one of us could find out if needs be. Nearly 140 cases leading to conviction under the hunting ban says it is working well.
 
Pardon me, maybe I made a statement which was easily misunderstood- I said that ALL anti-hunting people ARE NOT rent-a-mob and would not hurt animals. Thereby intending to mean that SOME may be, was I that unclear? Perhaps I should have declared that not all anti-hunting people are rent-a-mob? Whichever.

I do not know if they teach philosophy at English schools, they certainly didn't at the Irish school I went to, nor at the university I went to (perhaps I didn't do the right course?). My point was that there are bad people on the hunting side and good people on the anti side IN ADDITION to all the other things that have been claimed on here.

Of course you cannot comment on what I "claim" to have seen as you weren't there and there is no solid evidence of the fact (yes fact) that I saw it. I must say, I had every intention of being fair and factual and because you have jumped down my throat for what I posted I am really rather perturbed! You were harsh in your first post and then when I replied you accuse ME of throwing my toys out of the pram? Wow.
 
I said that ALL anti-hunting people ARE NOT rent-a-mob and would not hurt animals


I think it was pretty clear!
If you didn't mean this statement why did you write it? it certainly doesn't say 'some' or 'maybe'.
I have been following this for a while and have had run ins with Scratchline in the past (but will now agree to disagree with him for other reasons) There are good and bad people in all walks of life, not all anti's are good and not all people who hunt are bad.
 
Harper_Gal said:
and how many of those 140 have been hunt staff? ...
Click to expand...

Five hunt staff convicted from three hunts. That's it.

LACS and Scratchline quoted the higher figure which is made up of poachers and coursers to make a case that the Hunting Act is working. It isn't of course, which is why all the other anti-groups - HSA and POWA, to name but two - want the Act strengthening.
 
Harper_Gal said:
and how many of those 140 have been hunt staff? Surely if they'd all been red coats, hunting would have gone broke??
Click to expand...

Five hunt staff from three hunts. That's it.

LACS and Scratchline (LACS employee?) quote the higher figure which is made up of poachers and hare coursers in attempt to show that the Act is working against organised fox-hunting. It isn't of course, which is why every other anti group - like HSA and POWA - want the act strengthening.
 
Am on the point of giving up and am changing my mind very quickly about how nice hunting people are.....

If I said "all horses are not bay" would that mean that no horses are bay? Or would it mean that not all horses are bay? Why am I defending my grammer instead of my beliefs FFS??
 
i personally think this thread has run its course and should be put to bed, insults are starting to creep and its unnecessary, there will always be antis and always be pro hunters-neither will budge on their opinions so its all getting pointless and boring.
 
Eagle_day said:
Five hunt staff from three hunts. That's it.

LACS and Scratchline (LACS employee?) quote the higher figure which is made up of poachers and hare coursers in attempt to show that the Act is working against organised fox-hunting. It isn't of course, which is why every other anti group - like HSA and POWA - want the act strengthening.
Click to expand...

I made it clear that I was posting about the convictions under the hunting ban. As the Act covers all of these illegal activities there is no reason to separate the figures. The fact a law can be improved upon which is why I also agree with strengthening the present ban doesnt suggest for one minute the law is not working.
The hunts have found loopholes. People are vocally claiming to ignore the law. These things can and will be dealt with in due course I have no doubt.
As for now your second suggestion that i am invloved with LACS in some way I can asure you I am not.
If pushed in one direction given my understanding of the countryside, my knowledge of what the hunts get up to and my dislike of many involved I would definately go the route of the HSA.
 
Farrierlover said:
Am on the point of giving up and am changing my mind very quickly about how nice hunting people are.....

If I said "all horses are not bay" would that mean that no horses are bay? Or would it mean that not all horses are bay? Why am I defending my grammer instead of my beliefs FFS??
Click to expand...

Hi Farrierlover. Dont let them get to you. What you originally posted was clear and precise and the only, ONLY reason you are being taken to task is because you dared to be honest and question the behaviour of both sides. You cannot post freely from any anti standpoint without being jumped on which is sad because they need to debate with us and be nice to have any chance of repeal. They need the support of us all. Those of us prepared to put up with their little digs are in fact the few who actually choose to listen to their reasons for wishing to hunt. Most in the country and indeed on this forum want nothing to do with this gang but i like to let them sound off given their levels of frustration with nothing going their way.
Hunting is banned much to their dismay. Now it is becoming clear there is no chance of repeal after May 6th so they get angry. Who knows, a coalition may see the law strengthened and an end to all this nonsense lol I see the toys laying on the ground but not around your pram you can be sure of that.
 
When invited by the BBC to be guests on the BBC's politics South West show for a debate about the hunting ban the Countryside Alliance refused because hunting 'is not an election issue'.
Whilst they encourage their members to scurry about campaining for pro repeal candidates for heavens sake??

On this one occasion we shall not be letting these lunatics take over the asylum! lol lol
 
Hi jrp hope all is well with you and your family. All good here.

Just a thought lol none of your local candidates will repeal with one as yet undecided. Oooops x
 
Scratchline said:
Yes I have shot foxes and taken many more with lurchers lamping. Being ex Irish Guards I do also understand the danger of bullets. Licensed marksmen are taking out foxes in our cities and as yet havent killed anybody so perhaps we should employ them to do the job.
Click to expand...

Tut-tut! I hope you're still not taking foxes with lurchers - that is illegal!! And could you substantiate your claim about 'licensed marksmen' - who licenses 'marksmen'? The only licensing I am aware of is for firearms - and I'm damn sure that rifles are NOT being licensed for city fox control (and the police don't test the competence of holders of firearms licenses.)
 
JanetGeorge said:
Tut-tut! I hope you're still not taking foxes with lurchers - that is illegal!! And could you substantiate your claim about 'licensed marksmen' - who licenses 'marksmen'? The only licensing I am aware of is for firearms - and I'm damn sure that rifles are NOT being licensed for city fox control (and the police don't test the competence of holders of firearms licenses.)
Click to expand...

No I dont still work or keep lurchers but I am now looking for a Bed X Whippet to work with our fabulous little terrier.
Fox controllers in our cities are FAC licensed and Royal Society of Public Health Certificate in Pest Control Level 2 holders which allows them to shoot foxes. They used two different
methods, culling on the spot with rifles, the favoured method and live trapping then dispatched a.s.a.p.
Its suprising how much we need to know before we realise how little we know. And you can be 'damn sure', of that JG lol
 
Farrierlover said:
Am on the point of giving up and am changing my mind very quickly about how nice hunting people are.....

If I said "all horses are not bay" would that mean that no horses are bay? Or would it mean that not all horses are bay? Why am I defending my grammer instead of my beliefs FFS??
Click to expand...


I haven't read the rest of the thread but I'd read that as saying that no horse is bay. Was that the right answer? Hope it helped anyhow.
 
Lurchers are a type of dog. They are a sighthound crossed with any other breed. So for example, if crossed with a terrier they will possess more stamina. A longdog is a sighthound crossed with another breed of sighthound and will be the sprinters. My whippet/bedlingtons would probably cause a hell of a mess if they tried to take down a big dog fox, whereas a sturdy bull/greyhound type would make a cleaner, quicker job of it. Completely off-topic but hope this clarifies any dispute regarding lurchers versus foxes.:)
 
Scratchline said:
Fox controllers in our cities are FAC licensed and Royal Society of Public Health Certificate in Pest Control Level 2 holders which allows them to shoot foxes. They used two different methods, culling on the spot with rifles, the favoured method and live trapping then dispatched a.s.a.p.
Click to expand...

A FAC doesn't test your ability to hit the side of a barn - merely your suitability to own and use a firearm (which includes reasons for requiring it, intended use and proof that you have safe areas to shoot.) Some pest controllers MAY have a FAC - but a quick Google revealed 15 recent 'pest control' positions - some LA and some private - NONE of them required a FAC!! And which LA's employ 'fox controllers' and why on EARTH would they need to .... ah, I forgot, to shoot foxes that dig up cricket grounds or bite small children in prams! :rolleyes:


p.s I do however fully believe that if any dogs ever have to be used to take foxes as humanely and quickly as possible it would be lurchers and not hounds.
Click to expand...

That's as silly as saying all doctors can do brain surgery! Lurchers are sight hounds, bred for speed. Some are good catchers (some are bloody useless at catching!) Some will kill - some more competently than others - prey that is a suitable size/weight for them. Others will bringa live rabbit to hand unharmed!! Far more are good on rabbits or hares than are good on foxes!

Foxhounds are heavier and far more powerful than most lurchers and they have been bred specifically for their fox hunting/killing skills for hundreds of years in organised breeding environments - not the odd litters produced by individual breeders. Only the BEST hunting bitches in any foxhound pack are used to produce next year's young entry - maybe 4 or 5 are chosen out of a possible 25-30!! Hundreds of years of selective breeding means the foxhound is FAR superior to any other breed of dog for hunting foxes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top