Have I heard Right? Repeal? Might Be Back To 'Proper' Hunting Next Season?

[Giles]

That is true it doesn't define 'cruelty' what it prohibits is any act or omission which causes 'unnecessary suffering' as per the wording:

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,

(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,

(c)the animal is a protected animal, and

(d)the suffering is unnecessary.

Inspite of what you claim it does not define a list of acts or omissions and state only those are illegal.

The current protection of wild mammals act does define such a list and makes only thise actions illegal.


From what I understand the proposal is to remove the list of actions so that ANY act that causes unnecessary suffering becomes illegal.

I am equating the causing of unnecessary suffering with cruelty.

I believe the proposals are along the same lines as this:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/vo010309/text/10309-01.htm

 

[Giles]

must decide whether a party or parties have caused unnecessary suffering with regard only to those activities defined within that legislation.

This statement is wrong. The AWA does not define a list of actions and make only them illegal. Have you read it? It is very clear that any act or omission that causes unnecessary suffering to a protected is illegal (with a few other conditions). It does have other sections covering specific activities however no where does ot state that it ONLY covers those activities. You need to read section 1

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,

(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,

(c)the animal is a protected animal, and

(d)the suffering is unnecessary.

 

[Fiagai]

This statement is wrong. The AWA does not define a list of actions and make only them illegal. Have you read it? It is very clear that any act or omission that causes unnecessary suffering to a protected is illegal (with a few other conditions). It does have other sections covering specific activities however no where does ot state that it ONLY covers those activities. You need to read section 1

G - thanks I am quite familiar with the AWA (I provided the link in my last post!). I think there are some cross wires again. Btw Section 1 actually deals with Animals to which the Act applies.

The Act requires that all provisions of the Act be considered where prosecutions are being pursued. I said that courts must decide whether a party or parties have caused unnecessary suffering with regard only to those activities defined within that legislation and not an abstract notion of cruelty etc. By that I mean all the provisions contained within the specified Act. The abstract you have quoted falls under Section 4 dealing with Prevention of Harm which in addition includes the following Sub Sections:

Unnecessary suffering.
Mutilation.
Docking of dogs' tails.
Administration of poisons etc..
Fighting
(all of which I listed previously btw)

A comprehensive list of the Main Sections of the 2006 AWA (abrv.) Act are as follows:
*Prevention of harm
*Promotion of Welfare
*Licensing and registration
*Codes of practice
*Animals in distress
*Enforcement powers
*Prosecutions
*Post-conviction powers*

Interesting link btw to the Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) 2001 - it didn't make much headway though....








u


.

 

[Giles]

must decide whether a party or parties have caused unnecessary suffering with regard only to those activities defined within that legislation

Exactly. And you are wrong. Any activity that causes unnecessary suffering (that could have been foreseen avoided etc is an offense under the AWA not specific ones.

You don't have to do something that contravenes ALL the sections of the act that would be absurd and make it almost impossible to break. You;d have to cause unnecessary sufferibg to a dog while fighting it, docking it's tail and poisoning it!

 

[Giles]

Interesting link btw to the Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) 2001 - it didn't make much headway though....

It didn't because it was talked out by anti hunt MPs. However it is a similar Bill which may well replace the Hunting Act which was my original point.

 

[Fiagai]

Exactly. And you are wrong. Any activity that causes unnecessary suffering (that could have been foreseen avoided etc is an offense under the AWA not specific ones.
You don't have to do something that contravenes ALL the sections of the act that would be absurd and make it almost impossible to break. You;d have to cause unnecessary sufferibg to a dog while fighting it, docking it's tail and poisoning it!

Giles I dont mean to be pedantic but you are deliberatly misquoting the above posts.

Considering you dont appear to have read the original AWA before I posted the Link I am starting to believe that you are being deliberatly obtuse.

How "Exactly" And "you are wrong" at the same time - very very confsed by your replies...

Activity is not a reference to any specific clause or the Sub jections but the Whole of the Act. And I repeat By that I mean all the provisions contained within the specified Act

Dont be daft! of course you dont have contravene all sections of the Act to have a conviction. Please reread ....

The Act requires that all provisions of the Act be considered where prosecutions (plural) are being pursued

.

And Please note emphasis on last part of this sentance and then reread for correct interpretation.

courts must decide whether a party or parties have caused unnecessary suffering with regard only to those activities defined within that legislation and not an abstract notion of cruelty etc

Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) 2001
...and about as relevant as used toilet tissue now.

END OF.....

 

[Giles]

You are wrong because you keep stating that the AWA only applies to certain activities - it doesn't it applies to any activity or omission that causes unnecessary suffering to a protected animal (that could have been foreseen and avoided). I'm surprised you find that confusing it's actually a pretty simple concept.


In a similar way the legislation that Donoghue is proposing will apply to any act that deliberately causes undue suffering to a wild mammal - without exemption.

By exactly and you are wrong I mean exactly - that is what I have said you are saying - and you are wrong.

The Wild Mammals Protection bill 2001 is not as "relevant as toilet tissue now" because it is the basis of the legislation that Lord Donoghue is currently proposing. If that bill gets passed then it will provide the basis for the Hunting Act to be repealed.

"courts must decide whether a party or parties have caused unnecessary suffering with regard only to those activities defined within that legislation and not an abstract notion of cruelty etc"

this is pretty much the precise opposite of the true situation. The law does not define a set of activities it proscribes any activities which cause unnecessary suffering. The causation of unnecessary suffering IS an abstract notion of cruelty.

 

[AengusOg]

Repeal of the Hunting Act is the way forward. Then we only need the police to recognise the legal situation for the hunts, and to take appropriate action to protect them from balaclava-clad terrorists. If hunting were legal, surely any interference with it should be illegal.

There is nothing cruel about a pack of hounds killing a fox. It is a natural act.

 

[VoR]

Wouldn't hold my breath on any repeal at the moment, I think this country and the world as a whole have bigger fish to fry! Nor, would I hold my breath on any form of anti-hunt supporters taking any notice of a repeal, despite those who have posted on this forum that (and I paraphrase) 'sabs only get involved where they observe illegal hunting activity'. That would suggest no hunting = no sabs, in reality pre the act they 'sabbed' if there is a repeal, they'll 'sab'. The legalities I am unsure of except that the police and courts would take a 'dim view' of my stopping people doing their weekly shopping (for instance), so presumably obstructing someone doing a legal activity would be unlawful.
I suggest we wait and see what happens over the next 4 years of this government.

 

[Fiagai]

You are wrong because you keep stating that the AWA only applies to certain activities - it doesn't it applies to any activity or omission that causes unnecessary suffering to a protected animal (that could have been foreseen and avoided). I'm surprised you find that confusing it's actually a pretty simple concept.
.

No Giles you are "WRONG" as you so like saying. This is NOT what I posted. Please reread the other posts. I repeat what you have stated here is NOt what I have posted. You clearly havent understood what was said. I have already explained. Not going to bother anymore.

Def used toilet tissue ...

 

[Fiagai]

Wouldn't hold my breath on any repeal at the moment, I think this country and the world as a whole have bigger fish to fry! Nor, would I hold my breath on any form of anti-hunt supporters taking any notice of a repeal, despite those who have posted on this forum that (and I paraphrase) 'sabs only get involved where they observe illegal hunting activity'. That would suggest no hunting = no sabs, in reality pre the act they 'sabbed' if there is a repeal, they'll 'sab'. The legalities I am unsure of except that the police and courts would take a 'dim view' of my stopping people doing their weekly shopping (for instance), so presumably obstructing someone doing a legal activity would be unlawful.
I suggest we wait and see what happens over the next 4 years of this government.

Vor - I agree. Its a case of as the french say - Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

It will take more than just talking nicely to anti-hunt supporters to bring around any real change in the status quo

 

[combat_claire]

It will take more than just talking nicely to anti-hunt supporters to bring around any real change in the status quo

I'd be interested to know how many of the regular forum users actually lifted a finger during the recent Vote Okay campaigns to try and alter the political make up and bring repeal a step closer or who do something positive in another sphere to promote hunting and country sports to the wider public.

I for one can say I have a clear conscience as far as this score is concerned having done my stint of election campaigning and being on hand to parade hounds and man the CA stand at local and national country events.

 

[VoR]

I'd be interested to know how many of the regular forum users actually lifted a finger during the recent Vote Okay campaigns to try and alter the political make up and bring repeal a step closer or who do something positive in another sphere to promote hunting and country sports to the wider public.

I for one can say I have a clear conscience as far as this score is concerned having done my stint of election campaigning and being on hand to parade hounds and man the CA stand at local and national country events.

Well one thing we can all do is to be up-front with those we have contact with, work, friends, etc and not 'hide our light under a bushell' when it comes to our participation in hunting. I have found that many have been surprised that I hunt, having had the view promoted by the media that all those involved are 'upper-class' (whatever that is now!!??) something I certainly ain't . This simple act in itself, I believe, has improved their understanding as it often promotes conversation, very simple but very effective. I too have a clear conscience thanks

 

[Fiagai]

I'd be interested to know how many of the regular forum users actually lifted a finger during the recent Vote Okay campaigns to try and alter the political make up and bring repeal a step closer or who do something positive in another sphere to promote hunting and country sports to the wider public.

I for one can say I have a clear conscience as far as this score is concerned having done my stint of election campaigning and being on hand to parade hounds and man the CA stand at local and national country events.

Well done CC. I could tell you how I have been involved but then I would have to have you let the anti's know too and I dont think they are ready tbh.

 

[Giles]

No Giles you are "WRONG" as you so like saying. This is NOT what I posted. Please reread the other posts. I repeat what you have stated here is NOt what I have posted. You clearly havent understood what was said. I have already explained. Not going to bother anymore.

Def used toilet tissue ...

Great so you accept that the AWA does not ban specific activities but any activity that causes unnecessary suffering? That's pretty much what the 'used toilet tissue' that the CA wants to replace the Hunting Act with does. Except with the case of wild mammals it is deliberately causing such suffering.

Some more info on the 'used toilet tissue' here. It is also to set up an HRA

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...-compromise-deal-to-try-and-overturn-ban.html

and some more stuff here http://www.bailyshuntingdirectory.com/story-405_An-Evening-with-Lord-Donoughue.php

 

[combat_claire]

Well one thing we can all do is to be up-front with those we have contact with, work, friends, etc and not 'hide our light under a bushell' when it comes to our participation in hunting. I have found that many have been surprised that I hunt, having had the view promoted by the media that all those involved are 'upper-class' (whatever that is now!!??) something I certainly ain't . This simple act in itself, I believe, has improved their understanding as it often promotes conversation, very simple but very effective. I too have a clear conscience thanks

Great stuff VoR. I too am totally proud of what I do, verging on the obsessed as far as conversation topics go. I wish more people were happy to stand up and shout for what they believe in rather than restricting themselves to action behind a keyboard.

 

[Giles]

Great stuff VoR. I too am totally proud of what I do, verging on the obsessed as far as conversation topics go. I wish more people were happy to stand up and shout for what they believe in rather than restricting themselves to action behind a keyboard.

My main thing has been letter writing and the court case stuff with the human rights challenge

 

[Fiagai]

I wish more people were happy to stand up and shout for what they believe in rather than restricting themselves to action behind a keyboard.

My main thing has been letter writing and the court case stuff with the human rights challenge

Lol....

I believe there is a place in the process of helping to change the current legislation for both "shouting" and "letter writing".

 

[EAST KENT]

Personaly I love a good demo........

 

[combat_claire]

Personaly I love a good demo........

I hated all those trips to London, I'm such a bumpkin...

 

[Fiagai]

Personaly I love a good demo...

I agree

Ok thats 3 things "shouting", "letter writing" and a "good demo" that that can be used to help to change the current legislation

 

[Giles]

I agree

Ok thats 3 things "shouting", "letter writing" and a "good demo" that that can be used to help to change the current legislation

What about ruthless dedication to the pope?

 

[Fiagai]

What about ruthless dedication to the pope?

"fanatical" my dear...

Monthy Pythons - No one expects the Spanish Inquisition....

Our chief weapon is surprise!... Surprise and fear... fear and surprise... Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency! Our three weapons are fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope