Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Fellewell]

But the horse should not have been jumping. Thats the point.

I think that might have been an opportunity wasted as far as the sabs are concerned. How are they going to gather all their 'incriminating evidence' if they're not able to orchestrate yet more 'near misses' for the web. What happened to the footage taken by the lad sitting on the gate?

 

[sakura]

Why risk your horse, yourself, and another human beings life? He knew they were in extremely close proximity to the gate itself.

 

[Sandstone1]

of course the huntsman knew they were there! but they were not in the line of the jump path were they? Or am I watching a different video?!

had he wanted to intentionally jump sab he’d have aimed at them (and consequently actually missed them as theymoved)

At the risk of being facetious and to quote my late Dad " If your aunt had balls she would be your Uncle"

 

[Miss_Millie]

It's always the same people on here defending the indefensible.

 

[Red-1]

I agree with most of this except that I am less sure that the sab stepped out deliberately. As the horse turned to jump the sab was looking away from the horse, and I believe if anyone did this deliberately they would look at the horse. To me it looked as though he took a sidestep as the horse jumped, without seeing what was coming.

I'm not sure either, hence I agree that we can never know...

Personally, if I had been that sab and knew the horse was about to jump the gate there, I would not have turned my back and wandered to where the horse was due to jump. But he may have done.

It is precisely because of the unpredictability of people that I would not have jumped the gate for point 2 in my last post. Having already counted it out from point 1! Hence thinking the huntsman was reckless.

 

[shortstuff99]

So she isn't actually interested in following the legalities? She was suspected of having broken one law (at least) was bailed with conditions, but decided to flout those conditions, to try and ensure that others were prevented from possibly breaking the law?

Yes, but unfortunately that doesn't mean we are still allowed to run them over.

 

[YorksG]

Yes, but unfortunately that doesn't mean we are still allowed to run them over.

Indeed, but it does rather show her regard for the law. When sabs are claiming that they are there to prevent law breaking, by law breaking, it does rather dilute their argument.

 

[ester]

At the risk of being facetious and to quote my late Dad " If your aunt had balls she would be your Uncle"

ermmm yeah that really helps explain your position

 

[Sandstone1]

Indeed, but it does rather show her regard for the law. When sabs are claiming that they are there to prevent law breaking, by law breaking, it does rather dilute their argument.

Given the amount of law breaking from certain hunts in the news recently this comment is really quite funny.

 

[shortstuff99]

Indeed, but it does rather show her regard for the law. When sabs are claiming that they are there to prevent law breaking, by law breaking, it does rather dilute their argument.

I would say a lot of sabs are there to stop the killing of foxes rather then law breaking, that's more the monitors.

 

[Sandstone1]

ermmm yeah that really helps explain your position

My position is this. Fox hunting with hounds is illegal. There are many many examples of hunts breaking the law. Saying If this and If that makes no difference. Thats what my comment meant. Just a bit of humour. Sorry if it went over your head. Never mind.

 

[ester]

I’m more a say what you mean (and in this instance see) sort of girl

i think he was reckless to jump but I don’t think he aimed for a sab.

 

[Clodagh]

It's always the same people on here defending the indefensible.

And always the same people on the other side. I suspect most people have given up on this thread

 

[Sandstone1]

And always the same people on the other side. I suspect most people have given up on this thread

Well lets hope a thread like this will not be needed soon. When ALL hunting with hounds is banned as it soon will be. Thanks in the main to hunts who break the law.

 

[The Fuzzy Furry]

Well lets hope a thread like this will not be needed soon. When ALL hunting with hounds is banned as it soon will be. Thanks in the main to hunts who break the law.

Do you mean all hunting?
Just trail hunting? or blood hounds and drag hunting too?

 

[Sandstone1]

Do you mean all hunting?
Just trail hunting? or blood hounds and drag hunting too?

I think it will all go personally. I have nothing against proper drag hunting or Blood hounds but I feel that because of all the illegal activity behind the smokescreen of trail hunting it will all go at some point. Had trail hunting been done properly it would have been ok but because of a load of idiots thinking the law does not apply to them here we are....

 

[meleeka]

If he’d accidentally squashed the sab I would have expected him to stop and say something, even if it was “You could have been killed or killed my horse you stupid idiot”, or at least check if the sab was dead or not. He just rode off.

 

[ester]

Police investigate after hunt saboteur is hit by horse

Hunt saboteurs filmed a horse hitting one of them as the rider jumped over a gate.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[palo1]

Police investigate after hunt saboteur is hit by horse

Hunt saboteurs filmed a horse hitting one of them as the rider jumped over a gate.

www.bbc.co.uk

In that footage it really looks as if the sab walked in front of the horse, far too late for the rider to change anything. I know that in the moments previous to this the conversation between huntsman and sabs had taken place so that clip isn't the extent of the incident.

 

[Millionwords]

Police investigate after hunt saboteur is hit by horse

Hunt saboteurs filmed a horse hitting one of them as the rider jumped over a gate.

www.bbc.co.uk

"investigating potential criminal charges" against the hunt saboteur." What a ridiculous statement.

Ita quite clear the sab did not know the horse was jumping, they were fiddling with a pocket or something.

Those defending him, had the people at the gate been anyone EXCEPT sabs, would it have been an acceptable action to jump? Walkers? Children? Old folks?
No. Clearly it wouldn't. If anything sabs are likely more aware of the danger the horse poses than your average member of the public.

He knew exactly what he was doing he said "well you'll HAVE to come out of the way".

I know this because the public are idiots and one opened a fencing footpath block today, and then nearly fell down the hole we had excavated in the path which there was no way around.

 

[Fellewell]

So surely the huntsman should have used his noggin, thought how this would probably go, and choose not to jump a gate and risk this exact scenario happening? If everyone knows Sabs do everything possible for bad press then surely this was 100% predictable.

That's the bit I can't get!

So we have a huntsman, going about his lawful business when he is unlawfully obstructed. Was he supposed to stand there all day with concerns about what was going on elsewhere and his responsibility for the rest of the field probably uppermost in his mind? He gave them due warning of his intention to proceed and while his horse was mid-air the sab moved into his path. Is there that much to fathom, really? And this is far from being an isolated incident.

 

[Millionwords]

So we have a huntsman, going about his lawful business when he is unlawfully obstructed. Was he supposed to stand there all day with concerns about what was going on elsewhere and his responsibility for the rest of the field probably uppermost in his mind? He gave them due warning of his intention to proceed and while his horse was mid-air the sab moved into his path. Is there that much to fathom, really? And this is far from being an isolated incident.

He could have gone round. Or opened the gate, or got one of the terriermen to open the gate, any number of solutions.

Would it be acceptable to endanger anyone else other than sabs?

 

[sakura]

We can debate all day when exactly the sab moved in front of the horse and/or if you think them being a sab changes anything (it doesn’t really), but ultimately, the huntsman knew they were very close to the solid object he was about to jump and that what did happen, could happen. So I would not put my horse at risk in the way he did.

 

[AmyMay]

So we have a huntsman, going about his lawful business when he is unlawfully obstructed. Was he supposed to stand there all day with concerns about what was going on elsewhere and his responsibility for the rest of the field probably uppermost in his mind? He gave them due warning of his intention to proceed and while his horse was mid-air the sab moved into his path. Is there that much to fathom, really? And this is far from being an isolated incident.

The huntsman has responsibility for the hounds (they were with him), not the field (they’re the Master’s responsibility).

I’m beyond amazed that anyone could even begin to defend his actions.

Not that it matters to the event, but I don’t believe the sab deliberately moved into the path of the horse. His attention was on his phone.

 

[Clodagh]

He could have gone round. Or opened the gate, or got one of the terriermen to open the gate, any number of solutions.

Would it be acceptable to endanger anyone else other than sabs?

Anyone other than sabs would have moved aside when he came up to the gate and said he needed to go through.
And I can’t see any one person getting off their horse into a group of sabs to try to open a gate, get my horse and hounds through and then shut it again.

 

[Sandstone1]

So we have a huntsman, going about his lawful business when he is unlawfully obstructed. Was he supposed to stand there all day with concerns about what was going on elsewhere and his responsibility for the rest of the field probably uppermost in his mind? He gave them due warning of his intention to proceed and while his horse was mid-air the sab moved into his path. Is there that much to fathom, really? And this is far from being an isolated incident.

Lawful business hey? ok. Lets let that one go. Say I am a taxi driver, someone is standing in the road, I say if you do not move I am going to run you over. Person does not move so I run him down. Am I right?

 

[shortstuff99]

So we have a huntsman, going about his lawful business when he is unlawfully obstructed. Was he supposed to stand there all day with concerns about what was going on elsewhere and his responsibility for the rest of the field probably uppermost in his mind? He gave them due warning of his intention to proceed and while his horse was mid-air the sab moved into his path. Is there that much to fathom, really? And this is far from being an isolated incident.

Yes because regardless of what he believes should happen, the reality is it isn't going to happen and this surely just plays into the sabs hands!

 

[Bluewaves]

He risked someone's else's life. No matter the rights or wrongs of the guys on the other side of the gate! You don't proceed to do something that can hurt someone else by the action you take. It doesn't matter who the other person is unless it's someone who is endangering you (which they weren't) , that's the only time, you can do something legally to harm them.

 

[Millionwords]

Anyone other than sabs would have moved aside when he came up to the gate and said he needed to go through.

And if they didn't? do you think he would do the same? And would people defend it then?

 

[Millionwords]

I'm absolutely astounded ANYONE can even begin to defend actions which could have killed someone (without not only even a backwards glance for their welfare, but to claim it was all the injured parties fault), which were done in pursuit of carrying out an activity for enjoyment.
It doesn't matter whether sabs whether hunt, strip that away, you are defending potentially killing someone's because your fun is being spoilt momentarily.

I'm genuinely shocked by some posters.