Miss_Millie
Well-Known Member
Yes. Imported from fox farms in Europe.
Hunting is in a spot of bother
- Thread starter Tiddlypom
- Start date
Yes. Imported from fox farms in Europe.
Millionwords
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how I'd feel about friends who thought this was acceptable.
sakura
Well-Known Member
I think that's already been done (but not the same hunt I don't think)
Yes, a hunt sab was run over and killed in 1991 by the Cheshire Beagles.
shortstuff99
Well-Known Member
Oh don't worry I'm sure they will still get to fence judge at Burghley horse trials.
shortstuff99
Well-Known Member
Yes it is uncomfortable.
SilverLinings
Well-Known Member
And it's really alarming if they actually believe what they say: there are lots saying that it's the sab's fault as 'he shouldn't have been there' but pedestrians shouldn't be wandering about in the middle of a road but if one was you surely just wouldn't just drive your car into them then continue on your merry way?! I thought it was particularly callous that the rider didn't look back to check he hadn't killed/seriously injured the sab, he just rode on.
Sandstone1
Well-Known Member
I think they already have done so!
Millionwords
Well-Known Member
Yes, they did, drove at speed at a female sab and knocked her down, with a child in the car no less!
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/fox-hunt-leicestershire-saboteur-cottesmore-b2211856.html
Clodagh
Playing chess with pigeons
No charges were ever bought against the driver of the car.
Michen
Well-Known Member
I just give up. That video of the gate jumping was shared in a group. Why, why would you be sharing something like this as if it’s something to be proud of.
It’s completely mental. The hunts are basically putting the nail in their own coffin.
I honestly don’t think if I was still in the UK I’d bother going out with anything other than the drag now.
It’s completely mental. The hunts are basically putting the nail in their own coffin.
I honestly don’t think if I was still in the UK I’d bother going out with anything other than the drag now.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
The sab might well have been trespassing, but he/she was in plain sight of the Cottesmore huntsman and he should not have jumped the gate while the sabs were on on it. The sab and the poor horse could have been killed, this was disgraceful and dangerous behaviour. I hope that the police bring the huntsman in for questioning.
Was that clip really filmed and shared by pro hunt? I presumed that it was filmed and shared by the antis.
Another thing which riles me. Why the need for for so many damn quad bikes attached to every hunt? They look suspicious as heck. Legal terrier work is permitted under the Hunting Act, but the naughty hunts take full opportunity to use the terrier men to help them carry out their dirty work. Lots of terrier men still out on Saturday despite the request from BHSA, though whether there were terriers in the boxes or they were left at home is unclear. The prolific quad bike escort that many hunts seem to need is beyond suspicious. Maybe one for fence repair etc, but not a whole fleet of them. There were no such things when I hunted.
Was that clip really filmed and shared by pro hunt? I presumed that it was filmed and shared by the antis.
Another thing which riles me. Why the need for for so many damn quad bikes attached to every hunt? They look suspicious as heck. Legal terrier work is permitted under the Hunting Act, but the naughty hunts take full opportunity to use the terrier men to help them carry out their dirty work. Lots of terrier men still out on Saturday despite the request from BHSA, though whether there were terriers in the boxes or they were left at home is unclear. The prolific quad bike escort that many hunts seem to need is beyond suspicious. Maybe one for fence repair etc, but not a whole fleet of them. There were no such things when I hunted.
ycbm
Overwhelmed
I just assumed they were being used by hunt followers who can't ride or can't be bothered to dress properly to hunt.
.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
There's a whole massive travelling circus of car followers who come under that category, who regularly park in idiotic places and stuff up the roads when the hunt are about. The quad bikes in contrast are attached to the hunt.
ycbm
Overwhelmed
Yes i get that they belong to the hunt in some way but I still thought they were just followers on the day because, as you point out, you can't use that number of terriers.
.
.
meleeka
Well-Known Member
I’m a bit confused as to why you need terriers for trail hunting in the first place?
Sandstone1
Well-Known Member
They should have been. The rider of that horse should be arrested too. Its way past time that these types of incident were delt with properly. Its quite strange how many of these " isolated incidents" and "few bad apples" there are is it not? Also remarkable how all the pro hunters on here have gone very very quiet.
cauda equina
Well-Known Member
From the nyt article:I've managed to get to it by googling the article rather than going to it via the link
ETA having now read it the article seems to mainly be about the hunting issue being a class war, rather than any opinion on whether illegal hunting is right or wrong morally (obviously they must recognise it's at least wrong from a legal POV). Even the quotes they include from both sides mainly consist about comments on class which is disappointing as I think the issue is actually about far more than that (for both sides).
The hunters often refer to the activists as “townies,” accusing them of being naïve to the importance of hunting to rural communities. The activists argue that fox hunting encapsulates the brazen “mafia mentality” of England’s upper classes.
Ms. Irwin, the bakery owner, underlined that tension. “I grew up on a council estate,” she said. “Here, it’s about privilege. They have wealth. Everything they will ever need. They shout insults at us for being poor, but the countryside is wasted on the people who live here.”
Which does sound very much like a class war thing, rather than concern for the quarry
But I guess there's a range or spectrum of motives on both sides; just as some people hunt to watch hounds work and (possibly) see them kill things and others just go out for a jolly, some sabs are no doubt in it to save the foxes while others' main concern is to stick it to the toffs, and all possible combinations in between
Red-1
I used to be decisive, now I'm not so sure...
I am against the grain here. Goodness only knows, I believe the hunt was breaking the law, as many do regularly, and I don't like that. On this occasion, the sabs were also against the law, trespassing (presuming it is not on a footpath) and preventing a lawful (until proved otherwise) activity taking place. Not to mention sitting on the gate.
I think the huntsman was reckless. However, he told the sabs his plan, there was space to jump, in a reckless manner, but there was space. The man on the gate moved slightly away, as a rational person would do. The man on foot still had space, and knew the plan.
I would have pulled up as the man on foot had his back to the fence. I would not have even got that far personally, as the space was not great. However, there was space, just not a margin for error.
The man on foot only moved into the jump space once the horse was beyond the point of no return. I lifted a photo from a FB comment, lifted from the video...
The top photo, there is space and the horse is committed. The bottom photo, there is still space and the horse is already taken off.
Yes, I think the huntsman was reckless. There was barely space, although he was jumping an an angle away from the bystanders. Had they remained still, he would not have hit him. The man on foot, however, had his back to the horse/rider so it was foreseeable that he may step the wrong way.
Yes, I think the sab was also reckless, but not as much so as the huntsman by virtue of the fact he had his back to the horse and possibly didn't see how close it was, despite being verbally told of the plan.
I feel for the poor horse, who was looking forward through the bridle, picked his spot, which was clear, and had someone move directly underneath him so he couldn't land properly. I do hope he wasn't injured.
I wonder how this will play out in court, as I don't think it is entirely clear cut. Yes, I think the huntsman will be found guilty, but the sab had a contributary part. Fortunately, I think the hooves missed him and I would imagine he is bruised but not broken. Personally, I think the sab deliberately moved in front of the horse deliberately but, unless he says so, that can't be proved. As he had his back to the horse, I think the rider is therefore guilty of assault. However, I suspect the Police will put it as an accident.
Yes, I think the huntsman should also have stopped to check the sab for injury. In a car, this would be an actual offence not to stop. However, in this case I dare say he will say (with some justification) that he feared for his own safety if he stopped. If I had knocked someone over, I would have stopped. but then, I would never have jumped that fence in that situation in the first place.
neither covered themselves in glory and yes, the huntsman takes the majority of the blame.
I thought the car one was worse, where the sab woman was simply walking, she did not step into the path of the car and the car simply mowed her down. It was also worse for a child being in the car. I can't believe that one went without the woman being charged, it was assault with a weapon along with any driving offences. Straight up. Not to mention the safety of the child.
Because the car one didn't go to court and that was much clearer cut, I doubt this one will. Unless there has been a sea change in attitude. I do hope that the man is not badly injured, and the horse is none the worse too.
I do think that hunting's days are numbered. Personally, I am glad as our local hunts are a bind. Disrespectful, breaking the law, trespassing and causing damage and injury to other animals.
I think the huntsman was reckless. However, he told the sabs his plan, there was space to jump, in a reckless manner, but there was space. The man on the gate moved slightly away, as a rational person would do. The man on foot still had space, and knew the plan.
I would have pulled up as the man on foot had his back to the fence. I would not have even got that far personally, as the space was not great. However, there was space, just not a margin for error.
The man on foot only moved into the jump space once the horse was beyond the point of no return. I lifted a photo from a FB comment, lifted from the video...
The top photo, there is space and the horse is committed. The bottom photo, there is still space and the horse is already taken off.
Yes, I think the huntsman was reckless. There was barely space, although he was jumping an an angle away from the bystanders. Had they remained still, he would not have hit him. The man on foot, however, had his back to the horse/rider so it was foreseeable that he may step the wrong way.
Yes, I think the sab was also reckless, but not as much so as the huntsman by virtue of the fact he had his back to the horse and possibly didn't see how close it was, despite being verbally told of the plan.
I feel for the poor horse, who was looking forward through the bridle, picked his spot, which was clear, and had someone move directly underneath him so he couldn't land properly. I do hope he wasn't injured.
I wonder how this will play out in court, as I don't think it is entirely clear cut. Yes, I think the huntsman will be found guilty, but the sab had a contributary part. Fortunately, I think the hooves missed him and I would imagine he is bruised but not broken. Personally, I think the sab deliberately moved in front of the horse deliberately but, unless he says so, that can't be proved. As he had his back to the horse, I think the rider is therefore guilty of assault. However, I suspect the Police will put it as an accident.
Yes, I think the huntsman should also have stopped to check the sab for injury. In a car, this would be an actual offence not to stop. However, in this case I dare say he will say (with some justification) that he feared for his own safety if he stopped. If I had knocked someone over, I would have stopped. but then, I would never have jumped that fence in that situation in the first place.
neither covered themselves in glory and yes, the huntsman takes the majority of the blame.
I thought the car one was worse, where the sab woman was simply walking, she did not step into the path of the car and the car simply mowed her down. It was also worse for a child being in the car. I can't believe that one went without the woman being charged, it was assault with a weapon along with any driving offences. Straight up. Not to mention the safety of the child.
Because the car one didn't go to court and that was much clearer cut, I doubt this one will. Unless there has been a sea change in attitude. I do hope that the man is not badly injured, and the horse is none the worse too.
I do think that hunting's days are numbered. Personally, I am glad as our local hunts are a bind. Disrespectful, breaking the law, trespassing and causing damage and injury to other animals.
Last edited:
Sandstone1
Well-Known Member
Whatever excuses that are made about the sab trespassing , should not have been on the gate etc etc just do not cut it. The huntsman saw them and still jumped the gate. If you see someone stood in the road do you run them over because they should not be there? If you are driving on a private road and someone is walking on the road can you run them down simply because they should not be there? Of course not. The huntsman was 100% in the wrong here. He also showed how little his horse matters to him too.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
But would the equivalent not be someone moving into the path of your car within your stopping distance capabilities?
I'm a bit baffled as to why anyone would turn the other way and 'wander' in the situation as presented.
I'm a bit baffled as to why anyone would turn the other way and 'wander' in the situation as presented.
Clodagh
Playing chess with pigeons
I agree with you in the main except I don’t think the huntsman did anything wrong, he and his horse would be used to jumping gates so there wouldn’t have been danger there but the sab moved in front of the horse deliberately.
Clodagh
Playing chess with pigeons
My impression was the horse was taking off when the sab moved into its path, it would have been dangerous to the horse to try to stop the jump at that point.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
Yes, ergo it's not the same as just wilfully running someone over because they are where they shouldn't be.
Clodagh
Playing chess with pigeons
Sorry. I see what you mean.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
it perhaps should have been without your stopping distance capabilities but 
.
.
ycbm
Overwhelmed
I see plenty wrong with jumping a gap on a gate about 2 feet wide beside the head of a human being, irrespective of whether the other sab moved into the horse's path or not.
Millionwords
Well-Known Member
I find those assertions quite shocking really.
Surely if there was risk if injury to anyone, the action should not have been taken.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
People still get in cars though
Gallop_Away
Well-Known Member
Completely agree both rider and sab are completely reckless to their own safety, the safety of others, and the safety of the horse. It is only a matter of time before someone on either "side" is killed.
Last edited:
Clodagh
Playing chess with pigeons
Off topic (but I’m prone to that) if you were on your way to work and Extinction Rebellion were blocking the road but there was room to drive past would you not do so?