Heythrop plead Guilty

[happyhunter123]

Apparently, the Heythrop have plead guilty to four charges of illegal hunting.

http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-20758022

 

[combat_claire]

More here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/17/david-cameron-hunt-convicted-rspca

 

[happyhunter123]

Apparently, the Heythrop have plead guilty to four charges of illegal hunting.

http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-20758022

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-20758022

Sorry doesn't work. And that should be pleaded guilty

 

[Judgemental]

Assuming my arithmatic is correct, that's a very expensive fox!

£28,000.00 worth of fox and presumably that did not include Counsel's costs for representing the Heythrop.

Hunting with a hunt that is a body corporate has some very interesting fiscal issues.

Simples, don't even think about contravening the Hunting Act 2004.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

Simples, don't even think about contravening the Hunting Act 2004.

Had they only listened to you, before embarking on a life of crime.

Alec.

 

[happyhunter123]

It could have been much worse for the Heythrop I suppose. This is the sixth hunt to be successfully prosecuted under the act, I think?

 

[Judgemental]

Had they only listened to you, before embarking on a life of crime.

Alec.

Well Alec it will serve as a clear warning to others.

I don't want to see money that some little person on a Therwellellian type pony has saved from their pocket money, that they drop into the Hunt Secretary's outstreached money bag, going to line the coffers of Counsel for the RSPCA!!!

Because that is exactly what this feckless conduct boils down to!

 

[Countryman]

Spending £350,000 of the taxpayers money on this prosecution is ridiculously irresponsible of the RSPCA. I believe I'm right in saying that the taxpayer has paid for a significant part of their massive legal bill.

I don't think you can blame the Heythrop. If you follow someone around every day they leave their house for 3 years, eventually, however law abiding you are, you'll slip up somewhere -even if it's just doing 75mph on a motorway.

I wonder, if I set up a charity to 'Prevent Crime in the Countryside' and based it around hunts and spent our time following Penny Little etc around filming them, if I'd be able to get all my legal costs paid for if I hired a top QC to prosecute her for say, harassment or to get an injunction against her...

 

[happyhunter123]

Spending £350,000 of the taxpayers money on this prosecution is ridiculously irresponsible of the RSPCA. I believe I'm right in saying that the taxpayer has paid for a significant part of their massive legal bill.

I don't think you can blame the Heythrop. If you follow someone around every day they leave their house for 3 years, eventually, however law abiding you are, you'll slip up somewhere -even if it's just doing 75mph on a motorway.

I wonder, if I set up a charity to 'Prevent Crime in the Countryside' and based it around hunts and spent our time following Penny Little etc around filming them, if I'd be able to get all my legal costs paid for if I hired a top QC to prosecute her for say, harassment or to get an injunction against her...

Indeed. I get the impression that 'monitors' have been harassing the Heythrop for years, a bit like with the Crawley and Horsham. This prosecution was only based on a few seconds of three of four days hunting out of many, many days hunting by the Heythrop since the ban. It was still bound to happen.
It seems to me that some hunts seem to get antis all the time, while others are much more lucky.

For the RSPCA the cost is great. Think of how many animals might have been helped if the money spent on this had been used. A total waste. It won't make any difference to hunting and it's future anyway.

 

[Moomin1]

Spending £350,000 of the taxpayers money on this prosecution is ridiculously irresponsible of the RSPCA. I believe I'm right in saying that the taxpayer has paid for a significant part of their massive legal bill.

I don't think you can blame the Heythrop. If you follow someone around every day they leave their house for 3 years, eventually, however law abiding you are, you'll slip up somewhere -even if it's just doing 75mph on a motorway.

I wonder, if I set up a charity to 'Prevent Crime in the Countryside' and based it around hunts and spent our time following Penny Little etc around filming them, if I'd be able to get all my legal costs paid for if I hired a top QC to prosecute her for say, harassment or to get an injunction against her...

The RSPCA are solely funded by donations. If a taxpayer wants to donate their money to support the RSPCA then that's up to them. I assume donators are clued up as to what the RSPCA do, and agree with it.

 

[EAST KENT]

They were off my list of "charities" as soon as they became political, charity and politics do not sit well with each other.Not much the Heythrop could do to deny it after this film,bring back proper hunting I say. And the sooner the better.

 

[Moomin1]

See I always get confused when people say that the RSPCA are political just for being involved and supporting the Hunting Ban. Why does that make them politically motivated? It merely just represents their opinions and beliefs of the welfare of the foxes involved. Just like lab animals etc.

 

[cptrayes]

This prosecution was only based on a few seconds of three of four days hunting out of many, many days hunting by the Heythrop since the ban. .

You aren't seriously suggesting that they were hunting legally the rest of the time? If so, please don't make me laugh There are four hunts within a not too severe travelling distance of me all hunting fox. I doubt very much that the rest of the country is any different, they just aren't getting caught.

 

[Moomin1]

You aren't seriously suggesting that they were hunting legally the rest of the time? If so, please don't make me laugh There are four hunts within a not too severe travelling distance of me all hunting fox. I doubt very much that the rest of the country is any different, they just aren't getting caught.

Quite!

 

[happyhunter123]

You aren't seriously suggesting that they were hunting legally the rest of the time? If so, please don't make me laugh There are four hunts within a not too severe travelling distance of me all hunting fox. I doubt very much that the rest of the country is any different, they just aren't getting caught.

If so many days of the Heythrop hunting were monitored, why weren't they caught before then?

 

[Moomin1]

If so many days of the Heythrop hunting were monitored, why weren't they caught before then?

Because getting information and tip offs through, then organisation of monitors etc and police presence takes a lot of planning and time. You don't just amble out to any old hunt, with no info, with a camera in your hand, and hope to see something happen which will incriminate them.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Don't you just love it when the guilty become the victimised and those who prepare the case for the prosecution are the bad guys ?

Perhaps MP's fiddling their expenses shouldn't be prosecuted either in case, heaven forbid, it's seen as political ?

Respecting the law is not an optional extra no matter who you are.

 

[cptrayes]

Respecting the law is not an optional extra no matter who you are.

This.

 

[Moomin1]

Don't you just love it when the guilty become the victimised and those who prepare the case for the prosecution are the bad guys ?

Perhaps MP's fiddling their expenses shouldn't be prosecuted either in case, heaven forbid, it's seen as political ?

Respecting the law is not an optional extra no matter who you are.

Exactly!

They broke the law. They should be punished. End of.

 

[Countryman]

I'm sure that if they'd been hunting illegally all year round it would all be on tape. Was it though? No. Just 15 minutes worth.
And don't try and suggest the monitors were rarely out! The Heythrop have, over the last few years, had 'monitors' out every single hunting day-and usually plenty of them.

 

[cptrayes]

don't try and suggest the monitors were rarely out! The Heythrop have, over the last few years, had 'monitors' out every single hunting day-and usually plenty of them.

So what then - they hunted fox illegally on four occasions the moment that they thought the monitors weren't watching?

Is that supposed to make it BETTER?

 

[happyhunter123]

I'm sure that if they'd been hunting illegally all year round it would all be on tape. Was it though? No. Just 15 minutes worth.
And don't try and suggest the monitors were rarely out! The Heythrop have, over the last few years, had 'monitors' out every single hunting day-and usually plenty of them.

If that's the case, thank you, Heythrop from taking so many 'monitors' and therefore keeping them away from the rest of us! I wonder why they get such trouble?

 

[Moomin1]

If that's the case, thank you, Heythrop from taking so many 'monitors' and therefore keeping them away from the rest of us! I wonder why they get such trouble?

Have the rest of you got something to hide too then?

 

[Countryman]

*hunted foxes. I'm not sure where you get this expression 'to hunt fox' from....

But no I'm not convinced from the footage I've seen that they were hunting illegally, but we'll see -I'm sure it'll be up on YouTube soon. Mind you, I might be wrong - I could easily see somebody getting a bit carried away one day and just for a minute encouraging hounds rather than whipping them off.

 

[Moomin1]

A genuine question to all of the pro fox hunt supporters.

Do you think it's acceptable to break the law?

 

[happyhunter123]

Have the rest of you got something to hide too then?

Nope, nothing to hide. Just don't like being harassed by antis.

 

[Moomin1]

Nope, nothing to hide. Just don't like being harassed by antis.

I suppose those who steal and get caught by the police say the same about them too!

 

[happyhunter123]

A genuine question to all of the pro fox hunt supporters.

Do you think it's acceptable to break the law?

No, but not because it is wrong to break this particular one. Breaking the law, and being caught is not going to help our cause, which is to get repeal of this piece of legislation. But I can fully understand why some packs do choose to.

 

[Moomin1]

No, but not because it is wrong to break this particular one. Breaking the law, and being caught is not going to help our cause, which is to get repeal of this piece of legislation. But I can fully understand why some packs do choose to.

I don't think it will ever be repealed.

I hope not for one, it's barbaric and completely unnecessary.

 

[happyhunter123]

I suppose those who steal and get caught by the police say the same about them too!

I shall refer you too a post I made several months ago on a different thread:

I think it's more a dislike and mistrust of the people to be honest. Many of the monitors are ex. sabs or employees of anti organisations, and so are hated by the hunting people! There is a feeling of 'you've got your ban, now leave us alone and find something else to do'. Some people worry that antis may edit footage to show illegal hunting. I have to say, I don't trust any of them an inch. They hate us and would do anything to get us into court. I have no problem in the existence of hunt monitors, I would happily welcome them if they were neutral on hunting, and were just here to see if we were keeping to the law. As most hunts are, I don't think that's an issue. The trouble is they are far from neutral.

Antis are NOT the police. I would hope the police are fairer.

I don't think it will ever be repealed.

Who knows?