Hunt Ban & Free Vote

[Herne]

Your mistake, Herne. Vote for what you believe is RIGHT, not what you think will benefit you. Ultimately, we, the voters, will get what we deserve by taking an ethical stance.

Wishfull thinking, I'm afraid.

Liberal supporters have been voting for what they think is right since 1922 without getting anything very much (and I include the last two years in that! )

Politics is always about making compromises. No one except a Prime-Minister with a massive landslide majority gets what they want in politics. Everyone else has to compromise and trade.

Voting for a minority party as a protest will never be as effective in attaining the changes that you want as joining a succesful party and working to change it from within.

 

[Herne]

I was gratified to see Herne is now supporting my view that the Statutory Instrument should be used, if only to give it a Parliamentary airing.

Our previous disagreement was not so much about whether it should be used as what it could be used for.

My reservation about the SI route is that what is done by SI is just as easily undone by SI, whereas what is undone by repeal is massively more difficult to redo by legislation.

However, give the political unlikelihood of obtaining the ideal solution, I am reluctantly moving closer to your position on the basis that some of what you can get is better than none of what you want.

 

[Herne]

Herne, The problem is that we don't all think we can put up with a Cameron government for the sake of hunting. I voted C, last time and took part in VoteOK, but this time I shall be voting UKIP - you KNOW it makes sense!

I KNOW it is utter foolishness...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ys-hell-lost-dozens-MPs-Labour-landslide.html

Talk about cutting off your head to spite your nose...

 

[Judgemental]

Our previous disagreement was not so much about whether it should be used as what it could be used for.

My reservation about the SI route is that what is done by SI is just as easily undone by SI, whereas what is undone by repeal is massively more difficult to redo by legislation.

However, give the political unlikelihood of obtaining the ideal solution, I am reluctantly moving closer to your position on the basis that some of what you can get is better than none of what you want.

A wind of change bloweth then....

Perhaps the embryo of a move has been at last conceived.

 

[JanetGeorge]

I KNOW it is utter foolishness...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ys-hell-lost-dozens-MPs-Labour-landslide.html

Talk about cutting off your head to spite your nose...

Exactly. And how can ANYONE take seriously an article whose headine includes the words: "Stunning blow for Cameron as poll says he'll lost dozens of MPs in Labour landslide"

Mid-term polls are never anywhere NEAR accurate. People use them to 'punish' their party, by saying they'll place their vote with UKIP or the Monster Raving Loonies! Come election day, MOST come to their senses! After all, why waste your vote!

 

[Countryman]

Judgemental my fear is that if that is done then there will ever be any chance of getting the Act repealed due to a 'That'll keep 'em happy' mentality.

Out of interest, what sort of exemption would you put into the Act? A wrecking one, I assume, like 'if he has permission to hunt over the land' ?

 

[Hunters]

These polls may not be 100% accurate, but the conservatives have and are continuing to lose voters.

Selfishly, I would just like to see whosoever concerned sort what potentially could be the last chance to sort the ruddy mess.....

 

[Judgemental]

Judgemental my fear is that if that is done then there will ever be any chance of getting the Act repealed due to a 'That'll keep 'em happy' mentality.

Out of interest, what sort of exemption would you put into the Act? A wrecking one, I assume, like 'if he has permission to hunt over the land' ?

Simples and as I have said before the wording of the act should be changed requiring a Police Officer to obtain a Magistrates Warrant in order to enter land or property in the investigation of an alleged offence. (Currently the act only requires a warrant for a dwelling house). In particular the warrant must be obtained for the officer to visit any tract of country so filmed in the evidence of the person or persons making the allegation. That the officer must walk the extent of the alleged line of any fox and hounds in it's entirety and certify that they have done so.

 

[Countryman]

I can see the point JM, especially if you're right and it requires the policeman to get a warrant to walk along the land he has filmed from the road.

However, wouldn't it just be easier to insert a real wrecking amendment like:
"His hunting is exempt if he has received permission to hunt over the land he hunts on"

Such an amendment would essentially legalise hunting again.

 

[Alec Swan]

Simples and as I have said before the wording of the act should be changed requiring a Police Officer to obtain a Magistrates Warrant in order to enter land or property in the investigation of an alleged offence.

........

Would you propose that this should apply to any intended arrest, or was it just for the offence of hunting? As a bit of a for-instance; The drink driver, fleeing from the risk of capture, abandoning his car and legging it across a field would presumably be free from arrest, would he?

Alec.

 

[Judgemental]

Would you propose that this should apply to any intended arrest, or was it just for the offence of hunting? As a bit of a for-instance; The drink driver, fleeing from the risk of capture, abandoning his car and legging it across a field would presumably be free from arrest, would he?

Alec.

Alec absolutely not. I am surprised by your comments bearing in mind the high regard you are held.

This is simply applicable to the Hunting Act 2004. Because it means there is a second line of 'precaution' in that, before the officer visits the person or persons against who an allegation is made, the officer first has to persuade a magistrate there is a case to answer.

Then if the magistrate so determines that a warrant should be issued, the police officer executes the warrant at the place where the alleged offence took place and if the offender is not present, then the officer has to find the offender.

Upon finding him or her the officer takes a statement and then is obliged to walk the line of the alleged hounds and fox, in so doing the officer is obliged to compile a map of the area in accordance with National Crime Specifications.

In the event there is an alleged kill, then under a further amendment via Statutory Instrument it becomes mandatory for Scenes of Crime Investigation unit to be called into the alleged crime area, to determine whether the alleged kill was sustained by hounds under the control of the alleged offender.

It will be important to add to the act via The Statutory Instrument that all hounds involved are identified and DNA tested to match that DNA found on the kill.

Frankly I cannot see that anybody could object to those proposals.

 

[Herne]

Oh dear. I thought we had progressed beyond this.

A Statutory Instrument cannot be used to amend the Act.

The ONLY thing an SI can be used for (Section 2, ss2) is to vary a class of exempt hunting.

 

[Herne]

However, wouldn't it just be easier to insert a real wrecking amendment like:
"His hunting is exempt if he has received permission to hunt over the land he hunts on"

Such an amendment would essentially legalise hunting again.

Unfortunately, such a wrecking amendment would be extremely unlikely to stand up to Judicial Review.

 

[Countryman]

I think we have to hope Cameron tries to sort out the West Lothian Question before 2015 then.

 

[Herne]

As I mentioned in the other thread, very unlikely to happen before the referendum in 2014 and almost impossible to push through thereafter prior to May 2015.

The devil shits in big heaps...

 

[Countryman]

I agree it'll only happen after the referendum. But don't you think Cameron might try to push it through before 2015 if only to put himself in a better position in the election.

 

[Judgemental]

Oh dear. I thought we had progressed beyond this.

A Statutory Instrument cannot be used to amend the Act.

The ONLY thing an SI can be used for (Section 2, ss2) is to vary a class of exempt hunting.

Herne - rubbish, absolute rubbish

The Statutory Instrument under Section 14 states as follows:

Subordinate legislation.
An order of the Secretary of State under this Act—
(a)shall be made by statutory instrument, .
(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, .
(c)may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes, .
(d)may make different provision for different circumstances or purposes, and .
(e)may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision.

In other words it can be used in any circumstance and Exempt Hunting is not specific. Where you dreamt that up from is a mystery?

 

[JanetGeorge]

Oh dear. I thought we had progressed beyond this.

A Statutory Instrument cannot be used to amend the Act.

The ONLY thing an SI can be used for (Section 2, ss2) is to vary a class of exempt hunting.

Please noite JM and others: Herne KNOWS how Parliament works and is better quaified than anyone else here to give advice on what can and can't be done - and when. PLEASE listen to him - otherwise we're arguing about pigs flying!

 

[Judgemental]

Please noite JM and others: Herne KNOWS how Parliament works and is better quaified than anyone else here to give advice on what can and can't be done - and when. PLEASE listen to him - otherwise we're arguing about pigs flying!

Janet, don't we all for a variety of reasons and specific connections.

The Hunting Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/contents

I invite anybody to read the Act in some cases for the umpteenth time because the Herne's of this world continually put their own Parliamentary spin on the wording.

The SI allows the Secretary of State to make any amendment he or she wishes to table.

c, d and e are outstandingly clear, anything can be amended:

(c)may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes, .
(d)may make different provision for different circumstances or purposes, and
(e)may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision.

In my opinion, there are a bunch of movers and shakers who know perfectly well that the SI can be used but are still living in a world of Repeal or nothing!

 

[JanetGeorge]

Janet, don't we all for a variety of reasons and specific connections.

>>>>

In my opinion, there are a bunch of movers and shakers who know perfectly well that the SI can be used but are still living in a world of Repeal or nothing!

Well, JM - I don't know you - or your 'connections' - but on my own knowledge and experience of how Parliament works - I'd say Herne is FAR better qualified than you - and - frankly - talks a lot more sense!

 

[Alec Swan]

Alec absolutely not. I am surprised by your comments .......

This is simply applicable to the Hunting Act 2004. ........

J_M, I surprise myself on occasion!!

I do however, fail to see how we can have a system whereby a Police officer needs to apply to a Court for a warrant, for one type of offender or offence, but not for another. Warrants, as far as I'm aware, are not issued on the grounds of being crime specific.

It still seems to me that you have the belief that the Law shouldn't, or doesn't need to be, even handed, in that it should be dispensed in one direction, but not in another. I wouldn't want to see Hunting favoured by jurisdiction. I want to see Hunting flourish and continue, but without bias. It aint going to happen, sadly.

Whilst we're considering the Hunting Act, just a question; If I slip two of my dogs and encourage them to course a hare, am I breaking the Law?

Alec.

 

[Judgemental]

Well, JM - I don't know you - or your 'connections' - but on my own knowledge and experience of how Parliament works - I'd say Herne is FAR better qualified than you - and - frankly - talks a lot more sense!

Merely quoting the Hunting Act 2004 does not remotely imply anything but the facts and therefore, it seems a sensible source of information.

As for your hero Herne, you have rather dropped him in it, have you not? If he is so marvellous, why has he not done more towards gaining just a little amendment? Simply to keep the 'chattering classes' happy.

Its all very well for all these chaps to bounce around seeking support for hunting as we knew it in days of yore, yet once they are comfortably ensconced in the H of C that's the end of poor poltroons such as myself - used yet again by the good and the great.....

 

[Hunters]

Judgemental, sadly you are not alone. Many of us have worn the soles of our shoes thin whilst walking the streets in order to support our 'so called' friends & supporters. Our particular lot manoeuvred 3 individuals into the H of C.

Given the lack of activity from almost anyone with regards to any change on the ban, it all now seems to have been a waste of our time.

 

[Countryman]

JM in any case I'm not sure how your suggestions would work to prevent monitors filming illegal hunting - which is after all the greatest danger to hunts, much more so than the police.

 

[Judgemental]

Judgemental, sadly you are not alone. Many of us have worn the soles of our shoes thin whilst walking the streets in order to support our 'so called' friends & supporters. Our particular lot manoeuvred 3 individuals into the H of C.

Given the lack of activity from almost anyone with regards to any change on the ban, it all now seems to have been a waste of our time.

Yes Hunters that's about the size of what is a massive con.

Of course I alway laught when I think about the whole scenario, the pleadings, the duress, the outright pressure put on the membership of all hunts to return the 'right' MP, who would most certainly support the repeal.

No sooner did one particular lady MP get to the Commons but she declared she was bored and went off to dally with her boy friend, who promptly blew the whistle.

No it has become a huge waste of time and effort.

 

[Herne]

Herne - rubbish, absolute rubbish

The Statutory Instrument under Section 14 states as follows:

Subordinate legislation.
An order of the Secretary of State under this Act—
(a)shall be made by statutory instrument, .
(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, .
(c)may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes, .
(d)may make different provision for different circumstances or purposes, and .
(e)may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision.

In other words it can be used in any circumstance and Exempt Hunting is not specific. Where you dreamt that up from is a mystery?

JM it is not a mystery - I told you where it came from in my message.

Part 1 deals with the offences:

Section 1 says that hunting mammals with dogs is an offence, unless exempt.

Section 2, sub-section 1 says that exempt hunting is in Schedule 1
Section 2, sub-section 2 says "The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1 so as to vary a class of exempt hunting"

That is the part of the Act that sets out what the SoS may amend by order.

After Sections 3, 4 and 5, you then get Part 2 dealing with Enforcement, which, after Section 10, then leads on to Part 3, General, which deals with definitions and procedures.

Section 14, which you quote above, specifies the procedeures for making an order under Section 2, subsection 2. It does not give carte blanche for the SoS to do anything at all.

Think about it - if your interpretation was right, then S2, ss2 would be superfluous.

I am sorry, but you are wrong.

 

[Herne]

Whilst we're considering the Hunting Act, just a question; If I slip two of my dogs and encourage them to course a hare, am I breaking the Law?

Er, yes.

I am confused as to why you even need to ask that?

EDIT: Unless you are going to claim that it was exempt under one of the classes in Sch 1, such as retrieval of a shot hare...?

 

[Herne]

I agree it'll only happen after the referendum. But don't you think Cameron might try to push it through before 2015 if only to put himself in a better position in the election.

He could try, I suppose. Wouldn't be a bad idea. Might even achieve it if he is ruthless enough...

 

[Herne]

Judgemental, sadly you are not alone. Many of us have worn the soles of our shoes thin whilst walking the streets in order to support our 'so called' friends & supporters. Our particular lot manoeuvred 3 individuals into the H of C.

Given the lack of activity from almost anyone with regards to any change on the ban, it all now seems to have been a waste of our time.

If Labour had won in 2010, would you be surprised that the Conservatives had not obtained repeal by now?

No. Because they would not be in power with a majority governement.

Well, they are not in power with a majority government now - and that is why we have not got repeal yet.

It has got nothing to do with breaking promises - it has got everything to do with plain and simple political mathematics.

The Conservative Party might have sort of won the last election, but the pro-repeal party did not.

Therefore, we need to keep fighting until we do.

Or give up - and, personally, I am not a quitter.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

Whilst we're considering the Hunting Act, just a question; If I slip two of my dogs and encourage them to course a hare, am I breaking the Law?

Alec.

Er, yes.

I am confused as to why you even need to ask that?

EDIT: Unless you are going to claim that it was exempt under one of the classes in Sch 1, such as retrieval of a shot hare...?

To be perfectly truthful, I didn't expect a reply from anyone. To be equally truthful, I wouldn't give a thought to the law, or the consideration of others, or their feelings. If I want to course my dogs, then that's what I shall do, regardless of the consequences.

Alec.