Heythrop plead Guilty

[MerrySherryRider]

Hunting is a real pain and always costing money.

When it was legal vast numbers of Police were deployed to protect them from the protesters, at the tax payers expense.

Now its illegal, a charity has to fund prosecutions. The CPS should have taken over this case and the others in the pipe line. Unless of course there is some political interference on behalf of the hunts.

You've noticed too ?

Fortunately, I think away from the blinkered world of Hunt World, there are many quiet members of the public who silently support the RSPCA's work against illegal hunting and are happy to add their donations for the continuation of the charity's long history of taking animal cruelty cases to justice.
Its nothing new or personal. This time it isn't working class men cock fighting. Perhaps that's why the hunt are so indignant about being brought before the courts ?

 

[marmalade76]

Hunting is a real pain and always costing money.

When it was legal vast numbers of Police were deployed to protect them from the protesters, at the tax payers expense.

Now its illegal, a charity has to fund prosecutions. The CPS should have taken over this case and the others in the pipe line. Unless of course there is some political interference on behalf of the hunts.

Actually, from what I've seen, the police are still being deployed to protect the hunt from 'monitors' and their balaclavad pals.

 

[Countryman]

I think the police presence before the ban was more to keep the two sides apart than protect the hunt - Almost always, hunts could deal with the protestors pretty 'robustly'!

 

[Moomin1]

You've noticed too ?

Fortunately, I think away from the blinkered world of Hunt World, there are many quiet members of the public who silently support the RSPCA's work against illegal hunting and are happy to add their donations for the continuation of the charity's long history of taking animal cruelty cases to justice.
Its nothing new or personal. This time it isn't working class men cock fighting. Perhaps that's why the hunt are so indignant about being brought before the courts ?

That's the funny thing, pro hunters always seem to think that donators and supporters of the RSPCA would be horrified and upset at the fact their donations have been spent on hunt related cases etc, just because they disagree with it themselves. They don't seem to grasp the fact that many RSPCA supporters will support the Hunting Ban and any prosecution which may be the result of it.

 

[Pale Rider]

I think the police presence before the ban was more to keep the two sides apart than protect the hunt - Almost always, hunts could deal with the protestors pretty 'robustly'!

Yes I know what you mean, I witnessed some hunt supporters 'deal' with some young girls who were protesting one day.

I gave evidence against them and helped convict them of assault, cowardly bullies in my view.

 

[AengusOg]

there are many quiet members of the public who silently support the RSPCA's work against illegal hunting and are happy to add their donations for the continuation of the charity's long history of taking animal cruelty cases to justice.

That will be the driving force behind their taking such cases on with such fervour. They have to get their donations from somewhere, and where better than from the ill-informed masses who hysterically reach for their purses at the slightest whiff of 'Lord Snooty' and his awful dogs chasing cuddly foxes.

Its nothing new or personal. This time it isn't working class men cock fighting.

That's a bit ill-informed as well. If you knew anything about cock-fighting, you'd know that the 'working class men' were most often employed as handlers/feeders (cockers) to the aristocrats who bred and owned hundreds of cocks. Lord Derby had a particular strain of light reds which were famour for their tenacity and stamina.

Actually, the tenacity and determination of many of the working class men who fought in the wars prior to the demise of cock-fighting was widely attributed to the affinity they had with the fighting cocks of the day. Men who would look the enemy in the eye and fight to the last, were the same men who stood around the pits and wagered their money on fighting cocks. Mains were attended by men from all walks of life.

I don't condone cock-fighting (or wars) but I do keep a few old-fashioned game fowl, purely because they have become so rare since the law was passed to ban their fighting. The are, however, not so rare as brave, principled, hard-working men these days.

 

[Pale Rider]

.



That's a bit ill-informed as well. If you knew anything about cock-fighting, you'd know that the 'working class men' were most often employed as handlers/feeders (cockers) to the aristocrats who bred and owned hundreds of cocks. Lord Derby had a particular strain of light reds which were famour for their tenacity and stamina.

Actually, the tenacity and determination of many of the working class men who fought in the wars prior to the demise of cock-fighting was widely attributed to the affinity they had with the fighting cocks of the day. Men who would look the enemy in the eye and fight to the last, were the same men who stood around the pits and wagered their money on fighting cocks. Mains were attended by men from all walks of life.

I don't condone cock-fighting (or wars) but I do keep a few old-fashioned game fowl, purely because they have become so rare since the law was passed to ban their fighting. The are, however, not so rare as brave, principled, hard-working men these days.

Barmy, absolutely barmy.

 

[Moomin1]

That will be the driving force behind their taking such cases on with such fervour. They have to get their donations from somewhere, and where better than from the ill-informed masses who hysterically reach for their purses at the slightest whiff of 'Lord Snooty' and his awful dogs chasing cuddly foxes.



That's a bit ill-informed as well. If you knew anything about cock-fighting, you'd know that the 'working class men' were most often employed as handlers/feeders (cockers) to the aristocrats who bred and owned hundreds of cocks. Lord Derby had a particular strain of light reds which were famour for their tenacity and stamina.

Actually, the tenacity and determination of many of the working class men who fought in the wars prior to the demise of cock-fighting was widely attributed to the affinity they had with the fighting cocks of the day. Men who would look the enemy in the eye and fight to the last, were the same men who stood around the pits and wagered their money on fighting cocks. Mains were attended by men from all walks of life.

I don't condone cock-fighting (or wars) but I do keep a few old-fashioned game fowl, purely because they have become so rare since the law was passed to ban their fighting. The are, however, not so rare as brave, principled, hard-working men these days.

Cockfighting is still going on in many areas.

And thank god they are caught too:
http://www.signal1.co.uk/news/local/winsford-man-convicted/

 

[FfionWinnie]

I am very unsure that this is true. The Hunting Act seems to me to be criminal law. It may have been a private prosecution by the RSPCA but that would not mean that the guilty parties do not have a criminal record.


Later edit, it does seem that like speeding offences, this offence does not give you a criminal record. It's not very clear, still looking for more info.



Animal cruelty prosecutions aren't, the RSPCA always do them.

Both the RSPCA and the CPS, do them.

 

[Judgemental]

Hunting is a real pain and always costing money./QUOTE]

I wonder how many people read that and said, "yes the man has a point" as they rush round to get horses ready and to the meet on time, whilst today, if the weather is anything like that in the West Country being soaked in an hour.

Then to be lectured when they get to the meet that the hounds will be hunting within the law.

One does have to ask, is it all still worth it..........to go for what amounts to a quiet hack round the countryside and pay accordingly.

Only to get home to clean filthy horses, feed them, dry tack and clothes, really what is it all about now?

 

[Alec Swan]

Thanks Ester, that does make some sense. I'm at a loss to see how they racked up those costs too!

How? That's easily answered, "Vivid imaginations"! Why? As part of a fund raising campaign.

......... the RSPCA do all except the major headline animal cruelty cases in Magistrate's Courts.

Interesting that to the best of my knowledge, those Farm and Livestock cases which appear before the Courts all seem to be promoted by Trading Standards, which leads me to ponder over how The LACS and regarding their deer sanctuary (sic) at Baronsdown Wood, have escaped the prosecuting attentions of Trading Standards, The rspca and The CPS.

A question for those who support the rspca, "Have you considered requesting of your charity, just why they've ignored the appalling conditions under which the deer at Baronsdown suffer"? If the rspca can give an acceptable explanation as to why they've neglected their duties, then I may have a little respect for them. I should point out here, that shying away from taking on another charity, wont be an acceptable excuse!

Alec.

 

[Countryman]

Judgemental, there's an awful lot more you can do within the law than just go for a quiet hack around the country...I don't know if you've been hunting since the ban, but if you have I would suggest you try a different pack!

 

[AengusOg]

as they rush round to get horses ready and to the meet on time, whilst today, if the weather is anything like that in the West Country being soaked in an hour.

Then to be lectured when they get to the meet that the hounds will be hunting within the law.

One does have to ask, is it all still worth it..........to go for what amounts to a quiet hack round the countryside and pay accordingly.

Only to get home to clean filthy horses, feed them, dry tack and clothes, really what is it all about now?

It's what is was always about...tradition; being socially and collectively involved; enjoying the work of hounds and the skills of those who hunt them; riding over all sorts of terrain and obstacles; exchanging news and views; living, working and playing in the country; wildlife conservation; land management;...oh, and management of the fox population.

 

[AengusOg]

http://horsegossip.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=149896

 

[Alec Swan]

http://horsegossip.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=149896

That's an excellent opening post, and thank you for posting it. One small problem though. Those who blindly follow the rspca, and donate vast sums to them, never read of the realities. When the rspca goes to its supporters, and begs them to dig deep, it's to save the poor little foxes from a death by torture. The more that the rspca spend, so the greater their perceived need, and so the greater their donations. It's an exercise in making money, it has nothing to do with animal welfare, and if it's possible, even less to do with their stated principles.

There really should be a commission which looks into the "goings-on" of these animal charities, and whilst they're at it, they could have a look at the various wildlife trusts, too.

Alec.

 

[Clodagh]

Just hopping belatedly on this thread. I haven't even read it all but surely there are a few points to consider.
1. Hunting foxes with packs of dogs is basically illgal.
2. If there was only a small amount of illgal goings on does that make any difference.
3. If your car was being watched by CCTV and for 23 hours it was fine but for five minutes it was trashed would that make the CCTV less meaningful?

 

[Judgemental]

Just hopping belatedly on this thread. I haven't even read it all but surely there are a few points to consider.
1. Hunting foxes with packs of dogs is basically illgal.
2. If there was only a small amount of illgal goings on does that make any difference.
3. If your car was being watched by CCTV and for 23 hours it was fine but for five minutes it was trashed would that make the CCTV less meaningful?

Spelling is not one of your strong 'points'.

The word is ILLEGAL.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

That will be the driving force behind their taking such cases on with such fervour. They have to get their donations from somewhere, and where better than from the ill-informed masses who hysterically reach for their purses at the slightest whiff of 'Lord Snooty' and his awful dogs chasing cuddly foxes.



That's a bit ill-informed as well. If you knew anything about cock-fighting, you'd know that the 'working class men' were most often employed as handlers/feeders (cockers) to the aristocrats who bred and owned hundreds of cocks. Lord Derby had a particular strain of light reds which were famour for their tenacity and stamina.

Actually, the tenacity and determination of many of the working class men who fought in the wars prior to the demise of cock-fighting was widely attributed to the affinity they had with the fighting cocks of the day. Men who would look the enemy in the eye and fight to the last, were the same men who stood around the pits and wagered their money on fighting cocks. Mains were attended by men from all walks of life.

I don't condone cock-fighting (or wars) but I do keep a few old-fashioned game fowl, purely because they have become so rare since the law was passed to ban their fighting. The are, however, not so rare as brave, principled, hard-working men these days.

I think it is you, who is ill informed. Cock fighting is alive and well in the UK today, supported by people who believe spilling an animals blood for their pleasure is perfectly acceptable. Much like fox hunting, only cock fighting in the UK and around the world doesn't involve the cost of maintaining a horse on full livery while its townie owner lives in the city.
Aristocrats have long had an affinity with killing animals for sport, of which breeding cocks is just a part, however, lesser mortals (unless for example, there are thousands of aristocratic families in the Phillipines ?) share the same lack of compassion, the world over.

So, on the day on which, yet again, 76% of voters are against fox hunting and 81% against stag hunting, which is it ?- is it the riding and social aspects that entice you to hunt 8 yrs after the ban was introduced, or do you persist, spending time and expense each year only waiting for the day when foxes can be legally killed for your pleasure ?
If its the former, then carry on with your trails and stop wingeing about changing a law only the blinkered few have a problem with.

 

[Luci07]

I think it is you, who is ill informed. Cock fighting is alive and well in the UK today, supported by people who believe spilling an animals blood for their pleasure is perfectly acceptable. Much like fox hunting, only cock fighting in the UK and around the world doesn't involve the cost of maintaining a horse on full livery while its townie owner lives in the city.
Aristocrats have long had an affinity with killing animals for sport, of which breeding cocks is just a part, however, lesser mortals (unless for example, there are thousands of aristocratic families in the Phillipines ?) share the same lack of compassion, the world over.

So, on the day on which, yet again, 76% of voters are against fox hunting and 81% against stag hunting, which is it ?- is it the riding and social aspects that entice you to hunt 8 yrs after the ban was introduced, or do you persist, spending time and expense each year only waiting for the day when foxes can be legally killed for your pleasure ?
If its the former, then carry on with your trails and stop wingeing about changing a law only the blinkered few have a problem with.

Not interested in the cock fighting discussion but would like to know where you got your figures from? I, for one wasn't asked?!!!

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Not interested in the cock fighting discussion but would like to know where you got your figures from? I, for one wasn't asked?!!!

Try the 10 o'clock news. No it wasn't only council estate town dwellers who were asked, the poll used the same criteria that all major polls use in our democratic society.
I think some London-living hunting folk had as much chance being asked for their opinion as born and bred country dwellers like me.

 

[AengusOg]

which is it ?- is it the riding and social aspects that entice you to hunt 8 yrs after the ban was introduced, or do you persist, spending time and expense each year only waiting for the day when foxes can be legally killed for your pleasure ?
If its the former, then carry on with your trails and stop wingeing about changing a law only the blinkered few have a problem with.

I don't hunt. Never have. Probably never will.

 

[Nancykitt]

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.

To go right back to page 1 here - it is foolish to 'assume that donators are clued up.' I speak from experience as I myself donated to the RSPCA for some years, based on their campaigns about tackling puppy farming, abuse of domestic animals, poor animal welfare practice in factory farming situations, etc. When I received a newsletter some time ago claiming that, thanks to the RSPCA, 'our beautiful wild foxes will be able to live in freedom without the threat of being hunted', I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. This sort of deliberate misleading of the public, in itself, should be illegal.

Most people I speak to are simply not aware that killing foxes is perfectly legal. I have been present when foxes in our area have been shot as they have launched an attack on livestock. This is perfectly legal, even if the fox isn't killed outright and spends days going through a slow painful death (luckily, on this occasion, the death was quick).
Other methods of killing foxes are perfectly legal too. The spotlight here is on hunting with hounds and it's all about politics and class issues. The RSPCA and several other 'anti' organisations are very good at giving the impression that foxes are now protected from being killed because of this law. Foxes are not protected from being killed - for good reason.

Three months ago I came across an emaciated and very sick dog, wandering near to my house. I took it to the local vet and had it treated for an infection, but the vet said that the dog was a 'welfare case' and I should contact the RSPCA. When I phoned I was made to feel like a criminal - 'You took someone else's dog? You should be aware that this is not something we condone and the police may be paying you a visit.' The dog was returned to the 'owner' by the dog warden and the RSPCA took no further action, even after receiving the vet's report, because 'funds are limited.' Several of my friends, who had been regularly donating, have now stopped. They had absolutely no idea about how the RSPCA spends its money. The propaganda is extremely misleading.

This is a vile organisation that uses emotive campaigning to mislead so that they can extract funds from people to spend on fighting political battles.

 

[Luci07]

Try the 10 o'clock news. No it wasn't only council estate town dwellers who were asked, the poll used the same criteria that all major polls use in our democratic society.
I think some London-living hunting folk had as much chance being asked for their opinion as born and bred country dwellers like me.

Well I, too am a born and bred country person. And I DO support hunting. Having a farmer as an uncle, having had chickens as a child, having had the misfortune to run into a bunch of incredibly aggressive sabs years ago when I was only hacking..all made me support hunting. In fact I was (way before the hunting act) very much on the fence. The sabs made me rethink, look for myself and make my decision. In favour of hunting.

 

[Nancykitt]

And just to add that I was a council estate town dweller - infact I was born in a council house on the outskirts of a large city and did not move to a rural area until I was 42. I have made my own mind up based on all the evidence I've gathered.
But while I was a 'council estate town dweller' I was exposed largely to the 'hunting is vile and cruel and carried out by people with more money than you' line - so in the days of yore, I would probably have voted against hunting.

If we could be sure that every single person asked had full awareness of the same set of facts I would have more time for these polls.

 

[Kittykins]

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.

People not breaking laws that are illiberal is where totalitarianism slips through the back door. There is a difference between laws which prevent, say, stealing, in which there is a victim, and laws which prevent people from doing something that other people happen not to like, which are essentially victimless. Therefore the morality behind breaking them is different.

Speeding is a grey area, as much of the time there is no potential victim (doing 75mph on a clear motorway in good conditions), but occaisionally there is (doing 35 in a built up area with poor visibility and where kids are playing). I'd speed in the first example but not the second, as would most people I'd guess.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

A question for those who support the rspca, "Have you considered requesting of your charity, just why they've ignored the appalling conditions under which the deer at Baronsdown suffer"? If the rspca can give an acceptable explanation as to why they've neglected their duties, then I may have a little respect for them. I should point out here, that shying away from taking on another charity, wont be an acceptable excuse!

Alec.

No answers? No explanations? Not a word? Total silence?

Thought so.

Alec.