Heythrop plead Guilty

[Moomin1]

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.

Well I don't personally know any hunt sabs or 'monitors' so I couldn't comment on their behaviour or stance.

If that is the case, then it's a shame that there isn't another way of policing hunts.

 

[happyhunter123]

Well I don't personally know any hunt sabs or 'monitors' so I couldn't comment on their behaviour or stance.

If that is the case, then it's a shame that there isn't another way of policing hunts.

Fair enough. Like I said, I (personally) would be genuinely happy with neutral monitors.

 

[Halfpast]

I am not a favour of hunting, but keep my opinions to myself and respect the opinions of those that do.

However it would appear that a law ,no matter who or who doesn't agree with, has been broken and therefore those need to face the consequences.

 

[perfect11s]

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.

This ... and I can't remember the numbers but did'ent they waste about 700 hours of parlimentry time on this and use the parliment act to ram it through and the war in the middle east about 8 hours !!! and RSPA I hate to think how much money our family has raised over the years for them, we stoped giving this politicaly motivated gravy train our support a few years ago what was once a great force for animal welfare is now top heavy and rotten to the core ..

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Now here's a radical idea, how about the Heythrop stop breaking the law and then all the money donated to the RSPCA can go to saving kittens ?

Or.. how about the Heythrop start saving kittens ?

If all the Outraged and Principled stop donating to the RSPCA what will happen to the kittens ?

I love kittens, especially fluffy ones.

 

[Keimanp]

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

I think it is acceptable to break the law if provided the person breaking the law is aware of the consequences of their actions and deem it to be reasonable.

I enjoy driving and on occasion I have been known to go above the speed limit of the road when I deem the visibility, conditions, my ability and the car I am driving permit it.

People pay cash as they are after a bargain really knowing they are paying less than they should due to the person receiving the cash payment not declaring the income.

People are complicit in breaking the law and only get annoyed about the ones being broken that they themselves are unable to justify.

 

[luckyoldme]

Don t get what all the fuss is about.
Break the law
get caught
go to court
get done.
happens to the best of us!

 

[Pale Rider]

Funny how folk of a certain ilk think it's ok to break laws that don't suit.

I remember years ago the Master of another hunt and his cronies, got done for being involved in dog fighting and cock fighting.

I suppose if your into blood sports almost any animal will do.

These s***houses got caught breaking the law, and got done, so what.
Pity they caused so much of the RSPCA funds to be wasted, but I suppose thats a small victory for them as they are obviously into cruelty to animals.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

I think it is acceptable to break the law if provided the person breaking the law is aware of the consequences of their actions and deem it to be reasonable.

That is when Democracy ends and anarchy slips in the back door. So if you have two houses and I am homeless, can I take one of your homes? I think that's perfectly reasonable.

I think the Jedi flag should be on the pole outside Belfast city hall. I don't care if the people of Belfast didn't vote to have it there. I want it and think its perfectly reasonable. Am I entitled to cause mayhem because I want it ?

In a democracy, we are entitled to campaign for changes in law. If not enough people feel sufficiently supportive of change, it stays.

Just a Christmas thought, those who refuse to support the RSPCA, what will you do if over the holidays, you discover a dog locked in a shed with out food or water while its owners are away ? Will you call the RSPCA or the Heythrop ?

 

[Keimanp]

That is when Democracy ends and anarchy slips in the back door. So if you have two houses and I am homeless, can I take one of your homes? I think that's perfectly reasonable.

I think the Jedi flag should be on the pole outside Belfast city hall. I don't care if the people of Belfast didn't vote to have it there. I want it and think its perfectly reasonable. Am I entitled to cause mayhem because I want it ?

In a democracy, we are entitled to campaign for changes in law. If not enough people feel sufficiently supportive of change, it stays.

Just a Christmas thought, those who refuse to support the RSPCA, what will you do if over the holidays, you discover a dog locked in a shed with out food or water while its owners are away ? Will you call the RSPCA or the Heythrop ?

Perhaps my wording of that initial sentence wasn't the best.

Everyone has the freedom to break any law they want to, yes you can squat in one of my houses, yes you can put the Jedi flag on Belfast City Hall. Squatting until recently was only considered a civil matter and not criminal and I now thanks to it being criminal have additional powers to have assistance in having you removed from my property should I choose to have the law enforced (Police aren't going to turn up to remove a squatter from a building should it not be requested by the land/building owner).

You can choose to speed or impede the flow of traffic (possibly due to being unaware of the speed of the road, when towing, driving anything other than a car or what unrestricted means on different types of road), you can choose to have the electricity meter in your house bridged so you don't run up bills, you can grow your own 'herbs' for personal use or resale, you can run a cash in hand business without declaring the income. It isn't until someone takes offence to your actions that proceedings against you may start.

You have the freedom to do as you choose but you have to face the consequences of your actions. In many cases people have broken the law to protest and bring focus to an injustice they feel they are recieving to enable to law to be changed. So I think in certain circumstances it is acceptable and common place to break the law. I also believe the vast majority of people do break the law at some point or another.

Particularly if you drive or have home improvements undertaken you are likely to knowingly or unwittingly break the law in some respect.

If I found a dog locked in a shed over winter without food or water whilst the owners are away I would make sure it had water and put a note on the shed door for the potential nominated person who is possibly looking after the dog to contact me, should I get no joy I would call back at a convenient time and talk to the neighbours. My parents dogs are barmy and knock their water over quite regularly. My initial and first response would not be to inform the RSPCA, they may get a call should my enquiries be fruitless, that doesn't mean that I feel they are brilliant but because there is no other choice!

 

[cptrayes]

I think it is acceptable to break the law if provided the person breaking the law is aware of the consequences of their actions and deem it to be reasonable.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Speechless.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK, got my breath back. Trust me keimanp you would not want to live in a world where this was accepted.

...

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Keimanp here's an estimate of the £34 BILLION people 'choosing what laws to obey cost the UK last year.http://www.victimsupport.org.uk/About-us/News/2011/01/Economic-impact-of-crime
That's your taxes, your insurance costs, your increased NHS waiting time for a hospital bed etc, etc, not to mention the human cost of crime.

You seem surprised that some people are law abiding but fortunately morality is still important to many people, they just don't make the newspapers.

 

[BBH]

Am glad they were prosecuted.

You can't pick n choose which laws to abide by.

As for the RSPCA I wish they'd put similar energy into closing down puppy farms.

 

[marmalade76]

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.

Totally agree with every word.

One of my local hunts (the one I hunt with regularly) suffers terribly with the attentions of antis, they shout abuse, called my god-daughter (who was only thirteen at the time) a slut at a children's meet, called hounds on to a main road (again, at a children's meet, one was killed) and then crowed about how lucky the hounds were that they just 'happened' to be there to save the rest (animal lovers, my arse!). My other local hunt gets not a dicky bird...

 

[Keimanp]

Horserider I live in a world where this is common place and my eyes are open to it and I realise that it does happen.

I was stood in the post office the other day listening to numerous older women complaining that they had been caught speeding. They knowingly drive, they have passed a test I hope, but they are unable to obey (either through lack of awareness or choice) the speed limit of the roads and complain at the consequences of their actions.

I used to do a paper round as a teenager, I was paid £1.15 per round which took an hour, I then worked in the local chip shop through my later teens whilst I went to univeristy it wasn't until I got my first bar job that I recieved my first wage slip.

I have had repair work undertaken on my car by the local body shop I was given two prices one for cash and one for any other payment... there was a 20% difference.

I booked a holiday to a cottage close to paignton April this year and was given a price, informed it must be cash as they paperwork is a bit of a headache.

I have had a quallified electrician undertake work within the kitchen and bathroom areas of a house that I rent out. I know he didn't fill in the paperwork for submission to Building Control 'its too much red tape'

I have had a window fitted as a replacement to a timber unit that used to exist in a rental property. Again Building Control were not informed of the change of window as required by the company that I had fit the window.

The number of people who don't know the speed limit for different vehicles using the road on different types of road is staggering. The number of caravaners, lorry drivers who speed but are below the sign posted limit of the road.

I work in Civil Engineering and have seen people extracting water from the road without a stand pipe with a meter.

I am involved in the rental of property with my family and am aware of numerous tenants that have given false meter readings to lower bills and have been left with the supplier chasing for the money.

Riding a horse on a public footpath isn't a permitted vehicle, quadbikes/trials bikes on footpaths and bridleways.

I can keep going, my examples may be from the fringes of the law or the grey area but I am not naive to believe that the majority of people are law abiding. The majority of people are not aware of the laws that they break, that does not mean that the law has not been broken it just means that it is not a significant enough breach for it to be enforced.

That would suggest that the majority of people deem it to be acceptable to break the law as claiming 'not to know' is not a defence. I would also suggest that the majority of those people would consider themselves to have morals and be law abiding.

You seem surprised that the small and regular transgressions of the law actually occur!

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Keimanp, you choose to regularly break the law, I do not.

No, its not ok if others do it, its ok that good, honest people still hold society together.

The blurring of the lines between right and wrong only means that morality gets further sidelined.

 

[Shay]

Don't loose track of the fact they Heythrop were NOT prosecuted. The CPS did not see the footage - so far as I know the Police didn't either. This was not a criminal prosecution.

They were sued in a civil suit - that is why they were not able to fund a defence.

This is the same as your neighbour taking you to court for putting your bins out badly. Or someone you met on the tube suing you for bumping into them.

This is not about breaking a law - althugh I don't debate that deliberately hunting a wild mammal with dogs is a criminal offence. Criminal law never came into this. If LACS / RSPCA were so sure a criminal act had taken place why not just hand the footage to the police. Perhaps because they could not proove a CRIMINAL offence. Only the civil offence of causing distress to the monitor filming them.

I have no objection to the police catching criminals and prosecuting them - including hunts if a criminal offence takes place. I do object to any private citizen following someone else around filiming them over a period of years and then when something does happen taking out a private civil suit rather than handing the matter over to the police.

We have a rule of law. This wasn't it.

 

[marmalade76]

Keimanp, you choose to regularly break the law, I do not.

No, its not ok if others do it, its ok that good, honest people still hold society together.

The blurring of the lines between right and wrong only means that morality gets further sidelined.

So you've never ever broken the law?

No good, honest person ever broken the law? Never broke the speed limit, never drove without tax/ins/MOT, never had under age sex/bought drink or fags underage, never paid for a job in cash, never taken cash for something without declaring it, never rode on the pavement/foot path? I consider myself a good, honest person, but I can't say I've done none of the things I've listed, how about you?

 

[MerrySherryRider]

So you've never ever broken the law?

No good, honest person ever broken the law? Never broke the speed limit, never drove without tax/ins/MOT, never had under age sex/bought drink or fags underage, never paid for a job in cash, never taken cash for something without declaring it, never rode on the pavement/foot path? I consider myself a good, honest person, but I can't say I've done none of the things I've listed, how about you?

Never even got a speeding ticket, although probably have gone over the speeding limit unwittingly as the council round here like to change the limits regularly but certainly wouldn't drive without tax/ins/MOT eek.

No to paying in cash in order to avoid tax, or ever taken cash without declaring it.
Do not ride on pavements, footpaths or behave in a way that is antisocial.

I don't think I'm unusual, I just believe in good citizenship and being a responsible member of society. Its not so hard.

PS, no to underage sex and smoking/drinking. Made up for it since and it was worth the wait.

 

[marmalade76]

Never even got a speeding ticket,

Nor have I, yet I speed regularly, not by much, but still over.

certainly wouldn't drive without tax/ins/MOT eek.

I didn't ask if you would, I asked have you ever.

No to paying in cash in order to avoid tax, or ever taken cash without declaring it.
Do not ride on pavements, footpaths or behave in a way that is antisocial.

I don't think I'm unusual, I just believe in good citizenship and being a responsible member of society. Its not so hard.

PS, no to underage sex and smoking/drinking. Made up for it since and it was worth the wait.

Good for you, but I would say that you're in a tiny minority, if, of course, you are telling the truth

 

[MerrySherryRider]

i think its quite sad that some of you think its so unlikely or unusual that the concept of law abiding citizens is something you can't comprehend.

Crikey. what a miserable thought.

 

[Keimanp]

HorseRider Do you pay your livery in Cash? do you get a reciept?

Have you ever sold any item for profit?

Have you driven with your number plate obscured by dirt?

I admit to driving above the speed limit from time to time but in places where I can see clearly and I drive a more than capable car for the roads (I like my car)

"I Choose to regularly break the law", the only one that I have said I have committed is the one relating to the speed of the car, the other are instances where I am aware it happening through both hindsight and being aware of laws and acts through my career and education. It isn't black and white and most transgressions of the law aren't really of much detriment.

I have just been round to the accountants at lunch from my day job and it is only 1.5 miles and I passed a number of people who are breaking various laws, innapropriate number plates, a lorry who's tractor plate had come loose on one side so the continental plate of the trailer was visibly displayed not matching the tractor, brake lights and tail lights not working. A flat bed transit running between sites with an unsecurred load.

Shay that is interesting that it wasn't a criminal case and was a civil suit!

ChristmasPTrees that is a very badly worded sentence but with the examples I have given across my other posts I hope that you are able to see the point I was trying to make. An individual finds it acceptable in certain instances to make a transgression against certain laws, fully accepting that the consequences of those actions should they be caught/tried. If they didn't believe it was acceptable then they wouldn't break the respective law??

 

[Maesfen]

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

Exactly.

The sad thing in all of this is if we (pro hunters) were to harass the monitors as they do us, WE would be up for intimidation. It really is one law for them (anything goes to cause disruption) and one for us when we defend our cause. If you or I walked down a high street dressed in full combat gear with balaclavas, we'd be called to account for intimidating the public; they can do anything they like and don't get a dickey bird said to them, almost exactly the same if it were travellers thieving, the police won't touch them and they know it.

 

[Rowreach]

The Heythrop get a lot of flak from the antis because they happen to be in Mr Cameron's constituency (and he has sort of promised a free vote on the hunting issue).

Indeed the antis do go out on spec waving cameras in order to try and catch something incriminating on film. One of the reasons this case cost the RSPCA so much money was because they had to pay people to sit through approximately 300 hours of film in order to find the incriminating bits.

The hunt didn't launch a robust defence, preferring to plead guilty, but say that there was never any intention to hunt foxes, rather that some hounds which separated from those hunting a trail put up a fox and killed it. This happens when you take a pack of hounds out into the countryside where "wild foxes" live.

Apparently the RSPCA never presented their evidence to the police or to the CPS in order to establish whether they had a viable case for a criminal prosecution, hence the very expensive civil one.

 

[Keimanp]

i think its quite sad that some of you think its so unlikely or unusual that the concept of law abiding citizens is something you can't comprehend.

Crikey. what a miserable thought.

I think that people believe themselves to be law abiding citizens but in reality dont fully appreciate the scope of the law.

I believe I have a good understanding/knowledge of a number of laws and requirements under varying legislation but I am only aware of a fraction and it is likely that from time to time I may break some of the other requirements/legislation that I am not yet aware of.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

People are complicit in breaking the law and only get annoyed about the ones being broken that they themselves are unable to justify.

.

Speechless.

OK, got my breath back. Trust me keimanp you would not want to live in a world where this was accepted.

...

I'm sorry C_P_T, but I think that the poster who we've both just quoted, has a point. A good point too.

Now we can't live in a society where just because we believe a law, to be wrong, that we simply ignore it. That wont do and of course I accept that.

However, there are laws which fall clearly into two categories. There are those which are created to protect man from his own kind, motoring laws for instance, and then there are those where we have one side of Society which decides that from a moral or ethical stand point, another section os society should abide by the way that THEY see fit. As an example, the major chain stores in the UK "Tested" the Sunday trading laws. There was not an evident prosecution of any of them. Why? Because the law was considered ridiculous, and was struck from the Statute Book. The ban on hunting is an equally preposterous law, and should keep the Sunday Trading Law company.

You wont agree with me, I accept, but on those occasions when you speed in your car, and you don't report yourself to the Authorities, then you are as complicit in Law breaking as the person who hunts, except of course, you've got away with it.

Alec.

ps. I hope that you're Whooping Cough is easing. a.

 

[Moomin1]

I'm sorry C_P_T, but I think that the poster who we've both just quoted, has a point. A good point too.

Now we can't live in a society where just because we believe a law, to be wrong, that we simply ignore it. That wont do and of course I accept that.

However, there are laws which fall clearly into two categories. There are those which are created to protect man from his own kind, motoring laws for instance, and then there are those where we have one side of Society which decides that from a moral or ethical stand point, another section os society should abide by the way that THEY see fit. As an example, the major chain stores in the UK "Tested" the Sunday trading laws. There was not an evident prosecution of any of them. Why? Because the law was considered ridiculous, and was struck from the Statute Book. The ban on hunting is an equally preposterous law, and should keep the Sunday Trading Law company.

You wont agree with me, I accept, but on those occasions when you speed in your car, and you don't report yourself to the Authorities, then you are as complicit in Law breaking as the person who hunts, except of course, you've got away with it.

Alec.

ps. I hope that you're Whooping Cough is easing. a.

But that is just your opinion of hunting foxes. It is not a whole lot of other people's opinions. The law was passed because it is believed that foxes are caused to suffer unnecessarily.

If someone neglects, starves, beats, or sets their dog on another dog causing major suffering, then they are falling foul of the law, so what's the difference?

 

[marmalade76]

One of the reasons this case cost the RSPCA so much money was because they had to pay people to sit through approximately 300 hours of film in order to find the incriminating bits.

Lol!! There's dedication for you!!

This really needs to be posted on a fluffy bunny site so all those rspca supporters can see exactly where their donations go

 

[Moomin1]

Lol!! There's dedication for you!!

This really needs to be posted on a fluffy bunny site so all those rspca supporters can see exactly where their donations go

Given the amount of coverage it has recieved, I am quite sure the majority of them will have an inkling don't you?

Plus, I would like to bet the a good percentage of donators would be in support of the hunting ban and it's enforcement.

 

[happyhunter123]

The law was passed because it is believed that foxes are caused to suffer unnecessarily.

I don't think that's entirely why the law was passed. I don't really, to be honest want to get into another hunting debate though.
Why is it whenever there is a hunting prosecution, all the antis come out of the woodwork telling everyone how awful it is to break the law?

I don't know why you bother arguing so much. It must be really stressful. Get a new hobby!