Hunt Virgin!!

[Ereiam_jh]

The whole thing sounds like a total laugh to me, which is what I am into. I love it when people get all moralistic, what a giiggle. There's nothing like a bit of hypocrisy to get my juices flowing. LOL.

I think we all know that the tossers who pretend to be in charge of this country are a bunch af ar se holes..

You break the law Endy whether it's having a few tokes or dropping a few pills at your hippy festival or trespassing on someones land. So do I chasing a dew deer round some woods. As long as you don't hurt people or animals I do not give a toss what you get up to. If it is illegal then so much the better.

No one really gives a toss; we are perfectly capable of telling right from wrong we dont need a bunch of tw&ts in wigs to tell us what to do. Or worse still those f uckers in parliament.

When I see Tony Blair or Gordon Brown or Davic Cameron on the telly I just think what complete tw*ts they are. Lets be honest why the fuc k should I obey a coupl e of c unts who go invade other peoples countries.

As long as I'm not hurting anybody or being cruel, crime to me is a duty not a a right.

FuK them and their law.

I used to be into illegal raves when they banned them. During the demos against the criminal Justice Bill we used to drop tabs and Es and smoke spliffs right in front of the police in central london. So what? No one really gives a toss about any of it.

lol

 

[Ereiam_jh]

ooh that was one of my most literate posts especially after three bottles of wine.

God do I have a hangover this morning.

I'm going to drink a bottle of fruit smoothie and then be sick.

 

[endymion]

Don't smoke spliffs, they make me paranoid and haven't took pills since I was a 17 year old raver! The only drug of choice for me is one which I can't afford......

I'm NOT a hippy and I take great offence at being called one. The festivals I go to are just the usual Glasto, T in Park stuff, no hippy sh*t.

Anyway I agree with a lot of what you are saying, people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't hurt each other or animals. But hunting usually involves killing animals, innit?

We are ruled by a bunch of fcukwits and the opposition are just as bad but having grown up on a Scottish council estate in the 80's under Thatcher's rule I can't ever bring myself to think nice thoughts about the Tories. There is actually no-one to vote for, it's quite sad really.

Hope yer hangover clears up, hair of the dog will do the trick. A quick whiskey or brandy in yer morning coffee will sort you out.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

But hunting usually involves killing animals, innit?

No we've already been through this. It might be hard to prove intent to kill so they took that out of the definition. Same with cruelty. That means you are still guilty even if you aren't killling animals or being cruel.

In fact you don't have to be doing anything wrong at all to be guilty of a crime. Which is why there is nothing wrong in principal with committing crimes nowadays.

 

[endymion]

I'm not just talking about fox hunting Giles. I'm talking about the many other types of hunting too.

But since you mention it....

In hunting with hounds humans might encourage, initiate and manipulate a hunt but it's essentially the dogs that are hunting and not the people.

When a dog is chasing an animal what does it think it's doing? Hunting it of course.

When an animal is being chased what does it think is happening? It thinks it is being hunted of course.

Therefore what the human's intentions are is irrelevant.

The process of hunting is a chase, once killed the animal has BEEN hunted, past tense. An animal does not have to have been killed for a hunt to have taken place. Chasing animals is hunting animals, at least from the point of view of the hound.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

The Government are quite clear about what the law bans. It's doing anything that might fall under the meaning of the word 'hunt' to a wild mammal with a dog.

Hence it includes searching for wild mammals with dogs, dispersing wild mammals with dogs as well as chasing wild mammals with a dog.

It's irrelevant whether there is any intention to catch the wild mammal. That is why chasing or driving away is also illegal.

If you read the Government's evidence during the Human Right's case you'd get probably the best definition of what they intended to ban. Some of it they haven't made clear on their website probably because it is too ridiculous.

Indeed the act explicitly bans hunting for a wild mammal with a dog if the intention is merely 'research and observation'.

The reason the Act is cast so widely is in my opinion the difficulty in proving any more narrow definition of the term and also the difficulty in proving cruelty.

I simply cannot see why it should be illegal to go out with a dog and search for wild mammals. I like seeing wild mammals I often go out with my dogs on Exmoor and diligently search for red deer. I'm not being cruel in doing so. Nor can I see why I shouldn't disperse wild mammals with my dogs. The idea that I should be prohibited from going out and flushing out and driving away wild mammals with dogs is quite clearly ridiculous.

As you said in a previous post its all about where the law draws the line. The hunting Act draws the line in completely the wrong place. That is why just with other ridiculous laws people should go out and break it.

You say 'the human's intentions are irrelevant' actually I agree with you in this. The government make a big deal about intention when they say that hunting is an 'intentional activity'. Almost all crimes require a 'mens rea' of intent. Actually this does not entail what you or I would call intent. It merely means that if we know a consequence is highly likely from our action then the 'mens rea' or mental element required for a crime is present. Hence someone can't just stand there while his dogs are rummaging around in the bushes after wild mammals and say 'it's the dogs hunting not me' if this wasn't the case then the hunts could simply watch as there dogs chased and killed foxes and absolve themselves of all responsibility.

Having been informed by the Government that I am committing a crime by walking my dogs round my woods with the intention of dispersing the wild deer I can't just carry on doing the same thing but now claim that the wild deer are dispersed by accident. The simple fact is that I know that if I walk my dogs round my farm I know that they will flush out wild mammals. This is why it was ridiculous to make flushing out wild mammals illegal.

When I wander round with my dogs I am aware of them searching for wild mammals. I don't stop them doing this. I'm aware of them scent trailing wild mammals, I am perfectly happy to let them doing this. When they find a wild mammal they chase it. I have no problem whatsoever with this either. Indeed I am happy to join in as well. I've cahsed deer with the dogs, then caught up with them further up the valley and chased them again. I have no doubt the dogs intend to catch and kill the wild mammal, I have no doubt that the wild mammal is in fear for it's life. However being slightly more intelligent than these animals I am aware that the dogs won't catch the wild mammal. The only dogs they have ever caught are the odd rabbit, rat and a few mice.

At the end of the day I have a lot more sympathy with the cause of animal welfare than you might think. I would very much have welcomed the extension of the Animal Welfare Act to cover wild mammals as well as domestic ones. It doesn't. Securing real improvements in animal welfare for wild mammals takes substantial resources and sensible rational legislation.

To be quite honest I couldn't care less what public opinion is about hunting, nor what the process was by which the Hunting Act was arrived at. Even if the entire nation was screaming for my blood as a result of breaking the Hunting Act I still would not obey it. Whatever your emotional attachement to it is and however politically important it is, it simply is not rational. I can think of no sane reason why I should obey this law. I very very much doubt that anyone would be stupid enough to prosecute me for breaking the Hunting Act. Why on earth would they want to do such a bizarre thing?

When cr@p laws like the Hunting Act get passed all the effect is is to legitimise crime. Personally I think breaking the Hunting Act is funny. I'm sorry if you can't see the joke. Although I do admit it is wearing a little thin! However sometimes the best jokes improve with age.

lol

 

[endymion]

I ain't reading no darn essay, I got no damn time!

You gonna have to wait till I can read this mate. I'm writing a dissertation, have some mercy!

 

[pagancluf]

Hi I went out on my first hunt this year and it was fantastic, it was an optional jumping day (good start for Archies Mum) and all the riders were really helpful and friendly, def going next year, starting with the warm ups in the Autumn.