Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Wishfilly]

That’s not what palo said at all, and, by misrepresenting their argument, you only make your side look worse.

Palo merely commented on the fact that, on both sides, there are extremists (that’s how I read it) whose involvement in the debate has escalated to the point they’re unable to show compassion or even a basic understanding of the law.

The more people take on this polarised viewpoint, the more likely things like the aforementioned alleged hit-and-run are to happen.

I'm sorry, but this is victim blaming in the extreme. As far as we are aware, the person involved in the hit and run has not committed any illegal acts. The fact that other sabs (who she may not be directly associated with) have sometimes behaved badly does not justify this behaviour at all.

The behaviour of the driver is extremely dangerous (which I think we can all agree on). It wouldn't be a proportionate reaction to trespass, it's clearly not self defence.

And the fact remains, sabs in their current form would very likely not exist if all hunts followed the law. Hunts have the power to de-escalate completely by behaving at all times in a law abiding way (not just following the hunting act, but also in terms of things like keeping their dogs under close control and not allowing them to kill or chase people's pets and livestock).

Also, and I know rural police forces are ridiculously over-stretched, I think in some cases, the police haven't helped, because they have ignored reports of dangerous/problematic behaviour until something goes seriously wrong. I don't fully blame the police, because hunting is obviously very difficult to police and their resources have been cut to the bone.

 

[Gallop_Away]

I must admit that we have had no issues with Sabs for a while now. We were last visited early last season but since then nothing. We had our opening meet last weekend and it was a fabulous day. Again no sign of the sabs. Perhaps they final believe us when we say that we are not illegally hunting but genuinely trail hunting. Time will tell.

Ultimately there are rights and wrongs and law breaking on both sides. I think we all agree on that. I do think it's naive to say that sabs would not exist bar for illegal hunting as, correct me if I'm wrong but it is the moral issue of animal rights that I think most sabs take issue with as opposed to the law breaking. If the hunting ban was lifted tomorrow, sabs would not disappear, and whilst my experience has taught me that not all sabs are in it for the protection of animals, I'm sure a great many are, and they would continue to want to put a stop to hunting, legal or not. I also think that if hunting is truly and completely banned in all forms, sabs will likely target other areas of legal hunting and activities involving the use of animals such as horse racing, and the meat and dairy industries.

 

[sunleychops]

I'd have a lot more sympathy for sabs if they didnt insist on covering their faces and harassing children

 

[Koweyka]

I'd have a lot more sympathy for sabs if they didnt insist on covering their faces and harassing children

We would have more respect for hunters if you weren’t deliberately trying to harm wildlife and kill Sabs ?‍

 

[Millionwords]

I'd have a lot more sympathy for sabs if they didnt insist on covering their faces and harassing children

Exactly the sort of comment we're talking about. ?
What has this added to the talk of a hunt follower deliberately hitting a sab with their car? Comments like these make it sound like you think they deserved it...and if not, it doesn't lend itself to a useful dialogue either.

 

[palo1]

I have some sympathy with Sabs actually and have no issue with hunt monitors. Like @Gallop_Away , we have had monitors (and sabs) who have found nothing to 'do' and have ceased visiting. I understand that Sabs feel they must stop an activity for a variety of reasons but not all of those reasons or methods are, to me, appropriate or justified. Thankfully we are entitled to have different opinions.

However, I have certainly come across sabs for whom the 'struggle/fight' is far more important than an actual truth or the victim of that struggle (foxes, badgers etc). Last weekend, as I said, a neighbour had to report a well known sab and sab vehicle for hitting a child on a pony. That child and pony were hacking down the road; no hounds in sight, no animal in danger, no active participation in any form of hunting activity at that point. It was a very rural road too. The same sab vehicle insisted on driving right up behind my mare's ample bum as I was hacking to meet a friend (not in hunting dress at all). They also overtook at speed and very dangerously later on in the day. None of that behaviour is about animal welfare or applying any UK law. Those sabbing individuals in the car were fully masked and be-camered, filming me as I hacked about and later, filming children who were not involved in any form of hunting activity. There could be no justification for any of that behaviour nor the threatening appearance of those sabs, who were, in fact looking for a visiting hunt but were lost at the point I encountered them and at the point they hit the child and pony (and shouted some hair curling abuse at someone else...).

What was on the video of that poor woman being hit is appalling. There can be no justification for that in any way. What I was getting at was the context in which this vile battle in the countryside has developed; where elements of both sides feel that law breaking and dangerous behaviour are 'justified' in their 'struggle'. Those are NOT values that are held by everyone in both communities (sabs and hunters) and it is unrealistic to suggest that sab or hunting communities subscribe to the extreme in the way that certain individuals do. I hope the person driving the car that hit that sab has the book comprehensively thrown at them and I am utterly revolted on several levels that a child was in that car. I am not in any way sympathetic to that behaviour nor is anyone else I associate with. I would hope that most sabs, too, would not think that harassing me, hitting a child on a pony or shouting vile abuse at someone is ok either.

 

[sakura]

I'll be honest, I have never had any problems with sabs or hunt monitors - not to say others haven't. I've had countless problems with the hunt though. As has already been said on this post - sabs, in the capacity being discussed here, simply wouldn't exist if hunts weren't illegally harming and killing wildlife.

The simple fact that sabs were bought into the discussion about the poor woman being intentionally hit by a car is, I think, the point being made. It didn't need to be mentioned at all because it had nothing to do with what happened to the poor woman.

 

[palo1]

I'll be honest, I have never had any problems with sabs or hunt monitors - not to say others haven't. I've had countless problems with the hunt though. As has already been said on this post - sabs, in the capacity being discussed here, simply wouldn't exist if hunts weren't illegally harming and killing wildlife.

The simple fact that sabs were bought into the discussion about the poor woman being intentionally hit by a car is, I think, the point being made. It didn't need to be mentioned at all because it had nothing to do with what happened to the poor woman.

The problem is, I fear, that the identity of that woman that was hit, as a 'sab' has everything to do with it.

 

[sakura]

The problem is, I fear, that the identity of that woman that was hit, as a 'sab' has everything to do with it.

It shouldn't though. And do we have proof that she is a "sab", a hunt monitor or just someone accompanying the group?

 

[Koweyka]

I have some sympathy with Sabs actually and have no issue with hunt monitors. Like @Gallop_Away , we have had monitors (and sabs) who have found nothing to 'do' and have ceased visiting. I understand that Sabs feel they must stop an activity for a variety of reasons but not all of those reasons or methods are, to me, appropriate or justified. Thankfully we are entitled to have different opinions.

However, I have certainly come across sabs for whom the 'struggle/fight' is far more important than an actual truth or the victim of that struggle (foxes, badgers etc). Last weekend, as I said, a neighbour had to report a well known sab and sab vehicle for hitting a child on a pony. That child and pony were hacking down the road; no hounds in sight, no animal in danger, no active participation in any form of hunting activity at that point. It was a very rural road too. The same sab vehicle insisted on driving right up behind my mare's ample bum as I was hacking to meet a friend (not in hunting dress at all). They also overtook at speed and very dangerously later on in the day. None of that behaviour is about animal welfare or applying any UK law. Those sabbing individuals in the car were fully masked and be-camered, filming me as I hacked about and later, filming children who were not involved in any form of hunting activity. There could be no justification for any of that behaviour nor the threatening appearance of those sabs, who were, in fact looking for a visiting hunt but were lost at the point I encountered them and at the point they hit the child and pony (and shouted some hair curling abuse at someone else...).

What was on the video of that poor woman being hit is appalling. There can be no justification for that in any way. What I was getting at was the context in which this vile battle in the countryside has developed; where elements of both sides feel that law breaking and dangerous behaviour are 'justified' in their 'struggle'. Those are NOT values that are held by everyone in both communities (sabs and hunters) and it is unrealistic to suggest that sab or hunting communities subscribe to the extreme in the way that certain individuals do. I hope the person driving the car that hit that sab has the book comprehensively thrown at them and I am utterly revolted on several levels that a child was in that car. I am not in any way sympathetic to that behaviour nor is anyone else I associate with. I would hope that most sabs, too, would not think that harassing me, hitting a child on a pony or shouting vile abuse at someone is ok either.

Did you have a hat cam ? Behaviour like that near a child or an animal is deplorable, it’s not the values my group or all the people I know have, in fact we stop traffic if hounds are loose and if the hunt is emerging onto a busy road to avoid any potential accidents. Even when we are deliberately being held up by riders we have to sit and suffer so we don’t scare the horses. If you have the evidence of that behaviour then it should be reported and book thrown at them.

 

[Koweyka]

I would also point out that woman that was hit wasn’t even masked up as some on this thread think that’s justification…. “masked up sabs”

 

[Annagain]

BBC is reporting the woman who was hit has non-life changing/threatening injuries and has been released from hospital. I wonder if the "attempted wounding" is because the injuries aren't deemed to be serious enough? I don't mean to downplay it in any way by saying that, the victim has been incredibly lucky in not being more seriously injured, I'm just trying to work out how it could be "attempted". The offence carries life imprisonment as maximum sentence and rightly so.

I know the conversation has moved on but in case anyone's interested, I checked with OH last night and I was right - the "attempted" would be because the injuries are not serious enough (thankfully) for the offence to be "wounding with intent". For it to be "wounding" it has to involve broken skin (usually a knife or other stab/slash wound) and for GBH it has to involve at least a broken bone. The victim was incredibly lucky that neither of these things occurred. He said the police could possibly have gone down the ABH route but attempted wounding with intent carries a far longer sentence. In the eyes of the law, the "intent" is the important part so whether it's "attempted wounding" or "wounding" doesn't make much difference to the sentence but can mean a conviction is more likely as there is no benefit to the defence in arguing the nature of the injuries doesn't warrant the charge.

 

[palo1]

Did you have a hat cam ? Behaviour like that near a child or an animal is deplorable, it’s not the values my group or all the people I know have, in fact we stop traffic if hounds are loose and if the hunt is emerging onto a busy road to avoid any potential accidents. Even when we are deliberately being held up by riders we have to sit and suffer so we don’t scare the horses. If you have the evidence of that behaviour then it should be reported and book thrown at them.

No hat cam but a vehicle reg and several witnesses. It has been reported and is being taken seriously. Thankfully no-one was hurt. It would never occur to me, or feel necessary for me to ride with a hat cam actually here though I know in other places riders do use that to help reinforce respect from drivers etc. Usually here horse riders are treated well. I think you would be frustrated if you as an anti-hunt activist were lumped in with this kind of bad behaviour? As I am when accused of illegal activity, as I am when accused of supporting appalling attitudes on social media. I think it would be much more productive if more respect was offered generally but then pigs might fly...

 

[palo1]

I know the conversation has moved on but in case anyone's interested, I checked with OH last night and I was right - the "attempted" would be because the injuries are not serious enough (thankfully) for the offence to be "wounding with intent". For it to be "wounding" it has to involve broken skin (usually a knife or other stab/slash wound) and for GBH it has to involve at least a broken bone. The victim was incredibly lucky that neither of these things occurred. He said the police could possibly have gone down the ABH route but attempted wounding with intent carries a far longer sentence. In the eyes of the law, the "intent" is the important part so whether it's "attempted wounding" or "wounding" doesn't make much difference to the sentence but can mean a conviction is more likely as there is no benefit to the defence in arguing the nature of the injuries doesn't warrant the charge.

I hope that the case stays the journey although of course, that may impact on children

 

[sunleychops]

We would have more respect for hunters if you weren’t deliberately trying to harm wildlife and kill Sabs ?‍

I dont hunt, I think its a pointless activity where people dress up and push horses too far personally.

Doesn't mean I think wearing face coverings and starting fights to then play the victim card is acceptable behaviour.

I also think the woman driving should be charged with attempted murder.

 

[Sandstone1]

I'd have a lot more sympathy for sabs if they didnt insist on covering their faces and harassing children

Try having a look at members of the hunt, In my area their " Terrier men" wear masks. This as always will go round in circles so I am not even going to bother. Most sane reasonable human beings will know whos in the wrong here.

 

[Koweyka]

I dont hunt, I think its a pointless activity where people dress up and push horses too far personally.

Doesn't mean I think wearing face coverings and starting fights to then play the victim card is acceptable behaviour.

I also think the woman driving should be charged with attempted murder.

And are you referring to Sabs or the Terriermen ?

 

[Koweyka]

Try having a look at members of the hunt, In my area their " Terrier men" wear masks. This as always will go round in circles so I am not even going to bother. Most sane reasonable human beings will know whos in the wrong here.

Well of course the terrier men have to wear masks because it’s cold on a quad according to Pinocchio Portwin, nothing to do with them wanting to hide their faces when for example they are digging out badger setts (two Wynnstay terrier men just found guilty of this) and not wanting to be caught or the East Kent hunt have just been filmed releasing a bagged fox yesterday by masked up terrier men, or assaulting people happened to my group a few weeks ago oh no it’s just the Sabs that wear masks to hide their identity so they aren’t targeted by pro hunt, happens a lot, for example details posted of where Sabs kids go to school, what time they are picked up was posted on that Facebook page that was referred to earlier, because the sab in question didn’t wear a mask.

This victim shaming is disgusting, the girl that was run over wasn’t even wearing a mask, but even if she was there is no justification for it and some of the comments on here are very inflammatory.

 

[palo1]

Well of course the terrier men have to wear masks because it’s cold on a quad according to Pinocchio Portwin, nothing to do with them wanting to hide their faces when for example they are digging out badger setts (two Wynnstay terrier men just found guilty of this) and not wanting to be caught or the East Kent hunt have just been filmed releasing a bagged fox yesterday by masked up terrier men, or assaulting people happened to my group a few weeks ago oh no it’s just the Sabs that wear masks to hide their identity so they aren’t targeted by pro hunt, happens a lot, for example details posted of where Sabs kids go to school, what time they are picked up was posted on that Facebook page that was referred to earlier, because the sab in question didn’t wear a mask.

This victim shaming is disgusting, the girl that was run over wasn’t even wearing a mask, but even if she was there is no justification for it and some of the comments on here are very inflammatory.

THere is no justification for what happened to that poor woman. It isn't to do with covered faces either. As for the assault and criminality, 5 sabs were convicted of threatening behaviour - including towards a young girl only in August this year. That incident also included physical assault by sabs. It is clear that there is appalling and dangerous behaviour on both sides here.

 

[Sandstone1]

Exactly, but some on here will never see that. I just hope the girl that was knocked down is ok.

 

[moosea]

That’s not what palo said at all, and, by misrepresenting their argument, you only make your side look worse.

Palo merely commented on the fact that, on both sides, there are extremists (that’s how I read it) whose involvement in the debate has escalated to the point they’re unable to show compassion or even a basic understanding of the law.

The more people take on this polarised viewpoint, the more likely things like the aforementioned alleged hit-and-run are to happen.

If you post on a public forum then other members are going to interpret things in their own way. I think 'misrepresenting their argument' is just a ridiculous thing to say - I represented the comment in the way I read it, that the woman being hit by the car was wrong but sabs have done worse.
So thanks for your comment but I am perfectly capable and allowed to interpret comments how I please.

I must admit that we have had no issues with Sabs for a while now. We were last visited early last season but since then nothing. We had our opening meet last weekend and it was a fabulous day. Again no sign of the sabs. Perhaps they final believe us when we say that we are not illegally hunting but genuinely trail hunting. Time will tell.

Ultimately there are rights and wrongs and law breaking on both sides. I think we all agree on that. I do think it's naive to say that sabs would not exist bar for illegal hunting as, correct me if I'm wrong but it is the moral issue of animal rights that I think most sabs take issue with as opposed to the law breaking. If the hunting ban was lifted tomorrow, sabs would not disappear, and whilst my experience has taught me that not all sabs are in it for the protection of animals, I'm sure a great many are, and they would continue to want to put a stop to hunting, legal or not. I also think that if hunting is truly and completely banned in all forms, sabs will likely target other areas of legal hunting and activities involving the use of animals such as horse racing, and the meat and dairy industries.

If you think that sabs would still sab hunts if there was no illegal activity why do you think that your hunt is no longer being attended?
Do you think anyone sabs pleasure rides? If it is all about animal rights surely they would sab pleasure rides too??
Genuine questions - not asked with malice, just with curiosity.

 

[palo1]

If you post on a public forum then other members are going to interpret things in thier own way. I think 'misrepresenting their argument' is just a ridiculous thing to say - I represented the comment in the way I read it, that the woman being hit by the car was wrong but sabs have done worse.
So thanks for your comment but I am perfectly capable and allowed to interpret comments how I please.



If you think that sabs would still sab hunts if there was no illegal activity why do you think that your hunt is no longer being attended?
Do you think anyone sabs pleasure rides? If it is all about animal rights surely they would sab pleasure rides too??
Genuine questions - not asked with malice, just with curiosity.

Well yes, they do sab pleasure rides and all sorts of other activities...

 

[moosea]

Well yes, they do sab pleasure rides and all sorts of other activities...

I've never ever heard of anyone sabing a pleasure ride!

Have you any links to reports of this?

Has anyone else heard of this??!!!


ETA: Sat here giggling at the idea of a group of sabs turning up at a pleasure ride! Do they hold signs that say ' no more fun on horses'??!!!!! lol!!!!

 

[Tiddlypom]

If a pleasure ride is put on to raise funds for an illegally fox hunting hunt, then yes, the antis are bound to be interested.

ETA The antis might picket the entrance to the pleasure ride venue holding anti hunt banners, etc.

There are indeed unpleasant nutters on both sides. It was worth pointing out that they exist on the pro hunt side of the divide, too.

 

[palo1]

I've never ever heard of anyone sabing a pleasure ride!

Have you any links to reports of this?

Has anyone else heard of this??!!!

A huge number of fun rides are actually organised by hunts or related pony clubs and there are numerous news reports about sabs targeting them. A small selection: https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/new...anner-waving-sabs-target-hunt-fun-ride-749794

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/hunt-saboteur-attacked-car-two-6747856

https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/01/hang-on-why-are-hunt-saboteurs-targeting-drag-hunts-7111818/

 

[moosea]

A huge number of fun rides are actually organised by hunts or related pony clubs and there are numerous news reports about sabs targeting them. A small selection: https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/new...anner-waving-sabs-target-hunt-fun-ride-749794

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/hunt-saboteur-attacked-car-two-6747856

https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/01/hang-on-why-are-hunt-saboteurs-targeting-drag-hunts-7111818/

OK! So pleasure rides organised by hunts then!!!

So excluding pleasure rides organised by hunts have you any links to non hunt related pleasure rides being sabbed?

Lol!!!

 

[palo1]

OK! So pleasure rides organised by hunts then!!!

So excluding pleasure rides organised by hunts have you any links to non hunt related pleasure rides being sabbed?

Lol!!!

Well I did include incidents of sabbing drag hounds, which have NEVER hunted animals. The other thing is that a huge number of pleasure rides are organised by hunts. Racing is regularly and increasingly targeted as are country shows and even...pony painting parties here: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...-rights-activists_uk_5b6d5f19e4b0530743c8ed9f. As one of the anti hunt posters on here has said, many sabs are activist in a number of ways.

 

[palo1]

OK! So pleasure rides organised by hunts then!!!

So excluding pleasure rides organised by hunts have you any links to non hunt related pleasure rides being sabbed?

Lol!!!

You are making the assumption there that all hunts are guilty of illegal hunting and so sabbing their fun rides might be 'justified'.

 

[moosea]

Well I did include incidents of sabbing drag hounds, which have NEVER hunted animals. The other thing is that a huge number of pleasure rides are organised by hunts. Racing is regularly and increasingly targeted as are country shows and even...pony painting parties here: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...-rights-activists_uk_5b6d5f19e4b0530743c8ed9f. As one of the anti hunt posters on here has said, many sabs are activist in a number of ways.

OK. So do you have any links to non hunt related pleasure rides being sabbed please?

The pony party 'sabbing' link you have put up was not only from 2018, but also the 'sabbing' appears to be a petition against pony parties. Hardened animal rights nutters at their worst!!!!

You are making the assumption there that all hunts are guilty of illegal hunting and so sabbing their fun rides might be 'justified'.

The second link you posted was a link to a pleasure ride being sabbed for the hunt at which a lady was just run over!!!!! Come on palo at some point you ( Hunt supportes, not the actual you!) are going to have to admit that you've backed yourselves into a corner - maybe you'll understand how the fox felt during all those days cubbing??


Bring on the full ban asap. Hunts, in general, just can't be trusted to stay within the law.

 

[palo1]

ok. So do you have any links to non hunt related pleasure rides being sabbed please?



The second link you posted was a link to a pleasure ride being sabbed for the hunt at which a lady was just run over!!!!! Come on palo at some point you ( Hunt supportes, not the actual you!) are going to have to admit that you've backed yourselves into a corner - maybe you'll understand how the fox felt during all those days cubbing??


Bring on the full ban asap. Hunts, in general, just can't be trusted to stay within the law.

Yes I know that one of those sab protests was at a hunt with a distinctly poor record at the time (let alone after this week's news) but the fun ride was still involving a huge number of people that don't go out hunting and included children. The fun ride activity was in no way a danger to wildlife but the sabbing was intended to upset and intimidate those taking part. I understand the 'point' of that. Sabbing of Drag Hounds is simply dumb as is the sabbing of country shows because they parade hounds and have 'working hunter' classes. I have been accosted at the gates of a country show for exactly those reasons and tried politely to explain that a Working Hunter class was not quite what they thought. But would those folk listen? Nah!! The levels of ignorance and prejudice I have encountered at protest level is genuinely surprising.