Hunting is in a spot of bother

[palo1]

Mark Hankinson has won his appeal against conviction re: Webinars. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ppeal-against-conviction-encouraging-illegal/

 

[Tiddlypom]

He is a very lucky man to be let off on appeal .

I wonder how the major landowners will play it now?

 

[Koweyka]

This outcome makes no difference because damage has already been done. Even seasoned hunters knew exactly what he was talking about doing and agreed he was guilty.

The things that will be remembered though are “soft underbelly" "smokescreen" "wheeze" “burner phone”

This is what will be etched in the publics memory of what “hunters” like to talk about when they think no one is listening. When you take the whole thing into context with Mancroft and Tyacke and Davies who should all be up on charges EVERYONE knows how they plotted to kill foxes and get away with it.

Hunting is in terminal decline, the webinars highlighted everything hunters didn’t want to be heard and brought it into the public domain, so get your kicks while you can, the anti movement is stronger than ever, more and more hunts folding every week, more turning to clean boot, the days of killing foxes are numbered…. see you in the fields ?

 

[YorksG]

How interesting to see that some people appear to agree with "the rule of law" and the justice system, when the outcome supports their view, but then claim luck, or an incorrect decision, when the outcome disagrees with them.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Oh, he's lucky all right. I was surprised but pleased with the original verdict, which having read through the transcripts and viewed the webinars was indeed the correct one. He's been given the benefit of the doubt on his wording on appeal.

So no one ever thinks that the courts come to the wrong conclusion on occasion?

 

[ycbm]

Mark Hankinson has won his appeal against conviction re: Webinars. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ppeal-against-conviction-encouraging-illegal/

Surprising, but if he's been found not guilty he's been found not guilty.


I wonder what the appeal made of the advice to have two phones, one for the official organisation of the hunt and a separate one for sharing the fun of the day, and only give the first one up to the police in the event of a complaint of illegal hunting? That seems rather less capable of an innocent explanation.
.

 

[palo1]

How interesting to see that some people appear to agree with "the rule of law" and the justice system, when the outcome supports their view, but then claim luck, or an incorrect decision, when the outcome disagrees with them.

Yes. I wonder too how the big organisations who have suspended trail hunting licences following the webinar conviction will act now; they are kind of damned whatever they do and I understand that most were advised to hold fire until after the appeal but...

If they reinstate trail hunting licences then they will be the focus for attention from anti-hunt groups which is problematic in democratic but also organisational terms. If they don't reinstate licences then they will look as if the rule of law doesn't inform their decision making. I understand the difficulties for public facing organisations but I would hope that those that revoked/refused licences on the basis of the webinar conviction will think again as that basis for their decision has been turned over.

In the Lake District NP for example, where trail hunting licences have not been issued there are no convictions for illegal hunting and no cases in process. That doesn't seem like a reasonable basis on which to ban a legal activity but I can see that it is complicated. At the very least I hope National Resource Wales allow the bloodhounds access as they have used NRW land for several years and there is no issue whatsoever with their activities; it was appallingly unfair of NRW to lump them in with trail hunting re: not issuing licences.

 

[palo1]

For anyone not sure about bloodhounds, this is very informative and can be viewed without any anxiety at all

 

[palo1]

Surprising, but if he's been found not guilty he's been found not guilty.


I wonder what the appeal made of the advice to have two phones, one for the official organisation of the hunt and a separate one for sharing the fun of the day, and only give the first one up to the police in the event of a complaint of illegal hunting? That seems rather less capable of an innocent explanation.
.

It obviously wasn't compelling enough to the appeal judge. I guess that is the whole nature of the law and the right to reply/appeal - evidence has to be compelling. I don't know if MH will get a refund on his fine though! In my view the outcome is welcome in justice terms but it isn't necessarily helpful to hunting. I sincerely hope this hasn't been more trouble than it is worth in that sense although I know many hunting people will be delighted with this outcome. I know too that this will have been hugely difficult for MH as an individual; this experience will haunt him even when he has been vindicated. I imagine that some anti hunt groups and individuals will not respond well to the news...LACS have barely covered it tbh.

 

[Clodagh]

It obviously wasn't compelling enough to the appeal judge. I guess that is the whole nature of the law and the right to reply/appeal - evidence has to be compelling. I don't know if MH will get a refund on his fine though! In my view the outcome is welcome in justice terms but it isn't necessarily helpful to hunting. I sincerely hope this hasn't been more trouble than it is worth in that sense although I know many hunting people will be delighted with this outcome. I know too that this will have been hugely difficult for MH as an individual; this experience will haunt him even when he has been vindicated. I imagine that some anti hunt groups and individuals will not respond well to the news...LACS have barely covered it tbh.

I’m not responding well, he’s an arrogant tosser who wrecked hunting for thousands.

 

[palo1]

I’m not responding well, he’s an arrogant tosser who wrecked hunting for thousands.

I hear you. I didn't think an appeal was wise in all honesty but at the same time I want to live with a justice system that includes the right to appeal. I don't have the legal knowledge or training to assert what is or isn't right under our law. What I think doesn't matter thankfully. I found it bizarre that MH, would, in the context of the webinars, do what was claimed he did. BUT that, nor the successful appeal takes away from the need to deal with bad behaviour in hunting. I suspect that both sides at the extreme end will simply find this to be fuel to their fire when in fact what most hunting people want to do is to accept the need for better governance, discipline, communication that have been highlighted through this; get those things in place and move on. I I know he came across as arrogant in the way this case was portrayed in the media; I don't think he personally wrecked hunting for thousands - the MFHA have been a team in that respect I just blooming hope that the new organisation for governance do an infinitely better, more trustworthy and convincing job.

 

[Clodagh]

I hear you. I didn't think an appeal was wise in all honesty but at the same time I want to live with a justice system that includes the right to appeal. I don't have the legal knowledge or training to assert what is or isn't right under our law. What I think doesn't matter thankfully. I found it bizarre that MH, would, in the context of the webinars, do what was claimed he did. BUT that, nor the successful appeal takes away from the need to deal with bad behaviour in hunting. I suspect that both sides at the extreme end will simply find this to be fuel to their fire when in fact what most hunting people want to do is to accept the need for better governance, discipline, communication that have been highlighted through this; get those things in place and move on. I I know he came across as arrogant in the way this case was portrayed in the media; I don't think he personally wrecked hunting for thousands - the MFHA have been a team in that respect I just blooming hope that the new organisation for governance do an infinitely better, more trustworthy and convincing job.

Same people new jackets?

 

[palo1]

Same people new jackets?

They are different people; let us hope they have learnt something from this mess and have the ability to make change happen. That is wanted and clearly expressed by many hunting people too.

 

[Tiddlypom]

The newly appointed Hunting Director of the new single governing body for hunting – the British Hound Sports Association (BHSA) - is very much one of the old guard. He contributed to the MFHA webinars.

 

[paddy555]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...nviction-encouraging-illegal-fox-hunting.html

 

[Tiddlypom]

As above, the National Trust are not changing their stance on trail hunting following the results of the appeal.

"A National Trust spokesman said: “There were many contributing factors in our decision to no longer issue trail hunting activities on National Trust land, including the appropriate use of charitable funds, the risk of reputational harm to the Trust and the result of the recent members’ resolution vote on this matter at our October 2021 annual general meeting.

“We will not be reviewing our position on trail hunting as a result of this appeal.”

 

[sakura]

No one who cares about their reputation is going to reverse their decision on banning trail hunting on their land - public opinion is very clear and the days of hunting are numbered.

 

[Fellewell]

Reputation? Or a desire to no longer be deluged with death threats, property damage, livelihoods destroyed and civil unrest in the countryside by a nameless , shameless group of balaclava-clad terrorists.
Arguably not one fox has been saved as a result of all their action. If a fox is a problem it will still be culled.
Traditionally land owners never had a problem with the hunts, they were invited and welcomed until the sabs turned up (clues in the name) sabs forced the ban but not content with that they set about further disruption and chaos and prevented hunts who were observing the law from functioning at all. It's a war they couldn't lose but it gained absolutely nothing for the fox.
I know this argument has been done every which way but lets not pretend there's something noble going on here re: the licences. This is about having millions in reserve and hanging on to it.

 

[Miss_Millie]

Reputation? Or a desire to no longer be deluged with death threats, property damage, livelihoods destroyed and civil unrest in the countryside by a nameless , shameless group of balaclava-clad terrorists.
Arguably not one fox has been saved as a result of all their action. If a fox is a problem it will still be culled.
Traditionally land owners never had a problem with the hunts, they were invited and welcomed until the sabs turned up (clues in the name) sabs forced the ban but not content with that they set about further disruption and chaos and prevented hunts who were observing the law from functioning at all. It's a war they couldn't lose but it gained absolutely nothing for the fox.
I know this argument has been done every which way but lets not pretend there's something noble going on here re: the licences. This is about having millions in reserve and hanging on to it.

That isn't true, you only have to go on farming forums to see how anti-hunt many farmers are. Trespass, crops damaged and livestock killed are commonly cited grievances. One such comment on TFF:

'Banned this year on most of mine, totally fed up with there arrogant ways, cutting wire, blocking drains then not unblocking, trampling ditches in because they can't jump and don't get me going about the followers ******* should of done it years ago......'

 

[ycbm]

.

Traditionally land owners never had a problem with the hunts, they were invited and welcomed until the sabs turned up

Absolutely untrue. I have met many farmers over the years who disagree with hunting fox with hounds followed by horses and several who have banned them from their land if they were lucky enough not to be tenants.
.

 

[Koweyka]

“Arguably not one fox has been saved as a result of all their action.”

I would beg to completely differ on this point, I know for a fact many foxes/hares/otters are still alive because of the actions of monitors and sabs stopping the illegal actions of many hunts over the country.

Last season we witnessed more landowners than ever taking the hunt to task and throwing the hunt off their land that they were trespassing on.

I wonder if the Drewitts are rightly convicted under Section 1 and 3 of the hunting act, that more landowners will see its just not worth the risk having wildlife criminals marauding across their land destroying foxes and fields alike.

 

[palo1]

“Arguably not one fox has been saved as a result of all their action.”

I would beg to completely differ on this point, I know for a fact many foxes/hares/otters are still alive because of the actions of monitors and sabs stopping the illegal actions of many hunts over the country.

Last season we witnessed more landowners than ever taking the hunt to task and throwing the hunt off their land that they were trespassing on.

I wonder if the Drewitts are rightly convicted under Section 1 and 3 of the hunting act, that more landowners will see its just not worth the risk having wildlife criminals marauding across their land destroying foxes and fields alike.

But you forget that many farmers also hate and deeply resent the attitudes and actions of sabs and where they are under pressure will choose to support local hunts (who include their neighbours and friends) rather than angry, anonymous gangs accessing their land as they please. The vast majority of farmers, like horseowners do not post on public forums/social media so their attitudes cannot be guessed at. Both sides of the debate represented here know of farmers that support or resent hunting.

Sabs assert that they have 'saved' individual foxes (from???) yet anti-hunting actions have done nothing for fox population health at all. Anti hunting has done nothing FOR the countryside, nothing for the improvement of fox habitats, nothing for the health of rivers, moorlands, nothing for the ground nesting birds that face really significant risks from fox predation, nothing to prevent foxes from being killed in huge numbers by guns.

It suggests at least, that anti-hunters recognise that foxes need controlling and are happy to see a huge number being shot. For many people (including myself) the number of foxes being shot all year round, including pregnant and nursing vixens, is excessive, to say nothing of any welfare issues arising. Yet I understand that farmers and landowners do not want foxes and other people enjoy the sport of shooting them day and night, spring, summer, autumn and winter. Hunting foxes with hounds would not be an answer of course but anti-hunting groups do NOTHING to prevent the killing of foxes (as vermin) in large numbers. How is that 'saving' foxes?

 

[Koweyka]

But you forget that many farmers also hate and deeply resent the attitudes and actions of sabs and where they are under pressure will choose to support local hunts (who include their neighbours and friends) rather than angry, anonymous gangs accessing their land as they please. The vast majority of farmers, like horseowners do not post on public forums/social media so their attitudes cannot be guessed at. Both sides of the debate represented here know of farmers that support or resent hunting.

Sabs assert that they have 'saved' individual foxes (from???) yet anti-hunting actions have done nothing for fox population health at all. Anti hunting has done nothing FOR the countryside, nothing for the improvement of fox habitats, nothing for the health of rivers, moorlands, nothing for the ground nesting birds that face really significant risks from fox predation, nothing to prevent foxes from being killed in huge numbers by guns.

It suggests at least, that anti-hunters recognise that foxes need controlling and are happy to see a huge number being shot. For many people (including myself) the number of foxes being shot all year round, including pregnant and nursing vixens, is excessive, to say nothing of any welfare issues arising. Yet I understand that farmers and landowners do not want foxes and other people enjoy the sport of shooting them day and night, spring, summer, autumn and winter. Hunting foxes with hounds would not be an answer of course but anti-hunting groups do NOTHING to prevent the killing of foxes (as vermin) in large numbers. How is that 'saving' foxes?[/QUOTE

For the love of god please stop with this diatribe again. This assertion that monitors and Sabs run around causing chaos is just getting tired now …. If that was the case why aren’t there masses of Sabs being charged and hauled into court week after week ? If that were the case there would be dispersal orders permanently in place at every hunt. The only defence you can ever drag up is by casting shade on your opposition, yet the amount of charges and convictions against hunts is increasing rapidly. What is even more heartening is the amount of prosecutions that the police have filmed themselves of illegal hunting.

What has hunting done for the countryside ? Seriously ….improving fox habitats are you referring to artificial earths so they have somewhere nice to live ? Where they have food delivered by the nice people who then either put them in bags or stab them with pitchforks ?

Anti hunt think fox numbers need controlling, where do you get this nonsense. The amount of foxes being killed by cars or shot by trigger happy individuals is abhorrent. I suggest you get yourself on some of these supposedly secret forums where the real scum of society hang around and post pictures of what they do to wildlife and I can tell you many of them have hunt connections. Though your words seem to suggest that we should be out stopping these sort of people just not the ones that ride horses with a pack of hounds that also kill foxes ….

Again your assertion that “anti hunt people” do nothing for foxes (yet the clue is in the name for the main purpose of what they do) is based on what exactly? You have absolutely no idea what any sab and monitor does for conservation.

I am not going around in this perpetual circle with you again Palo, it serves no purpose at all. The seismic change has happened and hunting is on its knees and nothing will change that now.

 

[ycbm]

Edited for you K. (This is easy, it doesn't need admin, just a copy and replace the square bracket you edited off by mistake.)

But you forget that many farmers also hate and deeply resent the attitudes and actions of sabs and where they are under pressure will choose to support local hunts (who include their neighbours and friends) rather than angry, anonymous gangs accessing their land as they please. The vast majority of farmers, like horseowners do not post on public forums/social media so their attitudes cannot be guessed at. Both sides of the debate represented here know of farmers that support or resent hunting.

Sabs assert that they have 'saved' individual foxes (from???) yet anti-hunting actions have done nothing for fox population health at all. Anti hunting has done nothing FOR the countryside, nothing for the improvement of fox habitats, nothing for the health of rivers, moorlands, nothing for the ground nesting birds that face really significant risks from fox predation, nothing to prevent foxes from being killed in huge numbers by guns.

It suggests at least, that anti-hunters recognise that foxes need controlling and are happy to see a huge number being shot. For many people (including myself) the number of foxes being shot all year round, including pregnant and nursing vixens, is excessive, to say nothing of any welfare issues arising. Yet I understand that farmers and landowners do not want foxes and other people enjoy the sport of shooting them day and night, spring, summer, autumn and winter. Hunting foxes with hounds would not be an answer of course but anti-hunting groups do NOTHING to prevent the killing of foxes (as vermin) in large numbers. How is that 'saving' foxes?

For the love of god please stop with this diatribe again. This assertion that monitors and Sabs run around causing chaos is just getting tired now …. If that was the case why aren’t there masses of Sabs being charged and hauled into court week after week ? If that were the case there would be dispersal orders permanently in place at every hunt. The only defence you can ever drag up is by casting shade on your opposition, yet the amount of charges and convictions against hunts is increasing rapidly. What is even more heartening is the amount of prosecutions that the police have filmed themselves of illegal hunting.

What has hunting done for the countryside ? Seriously ….improving fox habitats are you referring to artificial earths so they have somewhere nice to live ? Where they have food delivered by the nice people who then either put them in bags or stab them with pitchforks ?

Anti hunt think fox numbers need controlling, where do you get this nonsense. The amount of foxes being killed by cars or shot by trigger happy individuals is abhorrent. I suggest you get yourself on some of these supposedly secret forums where the real scum of society hang around and post pictures of what they do to wildlife and I can tell you many of them have hunt connections. Though your words seem to suggest that we should be out stopping these sort of people just not the ones that ride horses with a pack of hounds that also kill foxes ….

Again your assertion that “anti hunt people” do nothing for foxes (yet the clue is in the name for the main purpose of what they do) is based on what exactly? You have absolutely no idea what any sab and monitor does for conservation.

I am not going around in this perpetual circle with you again Palo, it serves no purpose at all. The seismic change has happened and hunting is on its knees and nothing will change that now.



This post is Koweykas, not mine.

 

[ycbm]

…. If that was the case why aren’t there masses of Sabs being charged and hauled into court week after week ?

This is Palo's argument as to why there are so few hunting prosecutions and I don't accept it for sabs either. There is definitely illegal harassment going on, and probably criminal damage.

But both crimes, like many others, are very difficult to prove well enough to get into court. And I hope if people continue to insist that illegal hunting can't be happening because there aren't any prosecutions, they realise that the same argument applies to sabbing.
.

 

[Sandstone1]

Hunts get can get themselves in to enough trouble without the help of sabs, webinars giving advice how to get away with illegal hunting, foxes being stabbed with pitchfolks, hounds being shot, sabs being ran over with horses, and off course still actively hunting foxes when ever they think they can get away with. How is that the sabs fault.

 

[palo1]

Hunts get can get themselves in to enough trouble without the help of sabs, webinars giving advice how to get away with illegal hunting, foxes being stabbed with pitchfolks, hounds being shot, sabs being ran over with horses, and off course still actively hunting foxes when ever they think they can get away with. How is that the sabs fault.

I was not remotely condoning appallling behaviour (on either side) - I was directly addressing the notion of the anti-hunt movement 'saving foxes' and landowners not welcoming trail hunting. @Koweyka has asked me to stop with 'this diatribe' but wants a space to put forward their own ideas? That isn't 'debate'. It is pointless arguing about this as positions are so entrenched but I believe in challenging ideas and opinions that I think are wrong, is all.

Koweyka said 'I suggest you get yourself on some of these supposedly secret forums where the real scum of society hang around and post pictures of what they do to wildlife and I can tell you many of them have hunt connections.'

As a reply to that I would point out that many sabs and sab groups have some equally disturbing connections; sadly humans can be utterly grim in many ways but I would hope that neither pro nor anti hunters would see those vile associates as representative of their particular standpoint. I do not want to use this post to identify particularly worrying individuals as a riposte to Koweyak - that just isn't helpful and will only result in even more pointless insult-sharing.

 

[palo1]

Hunts get can get themselves in to enough trouble without the help of sabs, webinars giving advice how to get away with illegal hunting, foxes being stabbed with pitchfolks, hounds being shot, sabs being ran over with horses, and off course still actively hunting foxes when ever they think they can get away with. How is that the sabs fault.

Well I know this will irritate you but the appeal court judge decided that the only convicted webinar participant was not, in fact, guilty of 'giving advice how to get away with illegal hunting'.

 

[Mrs_P]

Wow first of all this thread is just..... epic ? taken me a while to read through all this but would like to contribute my opinion for what it may be worth.

I hunt with the local bloodhounds and have also hunted with two local trail hunting packs. I have not witnessed any illegal hunting with either of the packs I have hunted with.

I think sabs and illegal hunts are as bad as each other to be honest. I have seen hunts causing chaos by trespassing, upsetting livestock, blocking roads, one pack fairly local to us and not one I choose to ride with, are renowned for it and hated by many a local landowner.

Equally I have witnessed some appalling behaviour from sabs again trespassing, upsetting livestock, and local people. Our yard owner had a very upsetting encounter with a group on her land last season who took it upon themselves to go running across a field of heavily pregnant ewes in pursuit of the hunt who were hunting through a neighbouring farm.

When asked to leave by our (elderly and female) yard owner she was called "a pro-hunt sl@g" along with every name they could think of by a group of mostly male masked strangers.

It seems to me that both are as bad as each other and I personally hold little respect for either.

 

[palo1]

Wow first of all this thread is just..... epic ? taken me a while to read through all this but would like to contribute my opinion for what it may be worth.

I hunt with the local bloodhounds and have also hunted with two local trail hunting packs. I have not witnessed any illegal hunting with either of the packs I have hunted with.

I think sabs and illegal hunts are as bad as each other to be honest. I have seen hunts causing chaos by trespassing, upsetting livestock, blocking roads, one pack fairly local to us and not one I choose to ride with, are renowned for it and hated by many a local landowner.

Equally I have witnessed some appalling behaviour from sabs again trespassing, upsetting livestock, and local people. Our yard owner had a very upsetting encounter with a group on her land last season who took it upon themselves to go running across a field of heavily pregnant ewes in pursuit of the hunt who were hunting through a neighbouring farm.

When asked to leave by our (elderly and female) yard owner she was called "a pro-hunt sl@g" along with every name they could think of by a group of mostly male masked strangers.

It seems to me that both are as bad as each other and I personally hold little respect for either.

I am really glad to hear neither your bloodhound or trail hound pack are badly behaved! That is my experience also. This thread, like others on the issue of hunting is, indeed 'epic'! . There are very strong opinions voiced here but generally reasonably civilised lol.