Hunting is in a spot of bother

Gallop_Away said:
And when they finish with them and start harassing "regular" equestrians out on fun rides, local show jumping competition etc?
Click to expand...

Well if you are asking for my personal opinion here, I am increasingly questioning our right to get entertainment from sitting on the back of creatures we have bred to be both stoic and fragile, while keeping them in completely unnatural ways to facilitate that.

I can easily see the end of all riding of live horses in future, so we would only be discussing how soon or how late that happens.

Regardless of your opinion of these activities, they are legal, and whilst people have every right to protest if they have something against them, they do not have a right to force their views on others through violence and intimidation.
Click to expand...

Nobody anywhere on this forum has ever said they do.
.
 
The argument that sabs will "move on" to other activities once trail hunting stops circling the bowl and finally winds up where it belongs is such a straw man argument.

Times chance and it's up to those involved in trail hunting to make a case for it to remain a legal activity. At the moment the governing body and hunt staff are failing miserably at doing so.
 
ycbm said:
Nobody anywhere on this forum has ever said they do.
.
Click to expand...


Well I am unsure why you felt the need to take issue with any of the points I have made today 🤷‍♀️ you may be glad to see certain equestrian pursuits dissappear e.g. racing, but that wasn't really the point of my earlier post that you quoted.
 
CrunchieBoi said:
The argument that sabs will "move on" to other activities once trail hunting stops circling the bowl and finally winds up where it belongs is such a straw man argument.

Times chance and it's up to those involved in trail hunting to make a case for it to remain a legal activity. At the moment the governing body and hunt staff are failing miserably at doing so.
Click to expand...

I say this as someone who loves trail hunting. Its no longer a case of IF imo, but a case of WHEN it will be banned completely. It's gone too far down the road now. The blame lies squarely at the hands of illegal hunts.

And when hunting is finally banned, I would hope to see sabs dissappear with it. Sadly I don't think it will be the case.
 
Gallop_Away said:
Well I am unsure why you felt the need to take issue with any of the points I have made today 🤷‍♀️ you may be glad to see certain equestrian pursuits dissappear e.g. racing, but that wasn't really the point of my earlier post that you quoted.
Click to expand...


I would be happy to clarify any of my posts you are confused about. I thought they were all self explanatory.
.
 
Gallop_Away said:
I say this as someone who loves trail hunting. Its no longer a case of IF imo, but a case of WHEN it will be banned completely. It's gone too far down the road now. The blame lies squarely at the hands of illegal hunts.
Click to expand...

Can certainly agree with that, I think blame should probably also be placed at the door of two weak governing bodies and organisations such as the CA who were willing to champion hunts that everyone and their dog knew were acting unlawfully.
 
ycbm said:
I would be happy to clarify any of my posts you are confused about. I thought they were all self explanatory.
.
Click to expand...

Thank you but I've no desire to keep going round in circles over the same points over and over again, as we have done many times throughout this epic thread.
 
CrunchieBoi said:
Can certainly agree with that, I think blame should probably also be placed at the door of two weak governing bodies and organisations such as the CA who were willing to champion hunts that everyone and their dog knew were acting unlawfully.
Click to expand...

Yes I would agree with that to. Illegal hunts should have been dealt with immediately by a governing body that were willing to make it clear that Illegal hunting and bad behaviour by hunts was not going to be tolerated. Sadly this hasn't been the case and now we are where we are.
 
Fred66 said:
How much disruption do football clubs cause when thousands of fans descend for a match ? Or cycling clubs when they have time trials or races? Or places of worship ?
We live in a country where we have to share the resources, this doesn’t mean those who are part of the disruption are arrogant, they have every right to be there.
Others need to learn tolerance, the arrogance comes when people who don’t have a legal right to be there either do it anyway with no attempt at an apology or restitution of damage.
And yes I would agree that some hunts do fall into the latter and therefore could reasonably be classed as arrogant in those instances, however the ones who are totally arrogant are the sabs.
Click to expand...

We live in a country where we have to share the resources, this doesn’t mean those who are part of the disruption are arrogant, they have every right to be there.

This!! In order for a democracy to have integrity there must be tolerance of all manner of groups and activities. That is the way that democracy works. Y
 
cauda equina said:
This is confusing me -
'The huntsman was arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm'
but
'the hunt saboteur did not suffer any serious injuries during the incident'

How can it be GBH if the sab wasn't seriously hurt?
Click to expand...

Probably because he rode his horse at her which could only have been done with the intent to cause GBH, if not kill her. I've just seen the footage and it is absolutely appalling. It makes me embarrassed and ashamed to be an equestrian. Anyone even trying to defend these actions should be deeply ashamed of themselves, too.
 
Willowbankstables said:
Probably because he rode his horse at her which could only have been done with the intent to cause GBH, if not kill her. I've just seen the footage and it is absolutely appalling. It makes me embarrassed and ashamed to be an equestrian. Anyone even trying to defend these actions should be deeply ashamed of themselves, too.
Click to expand...
So is it the intent that matters, rather than the result?
 
Gallop_Away said:
The point I was making, quite clearly I thought, is that if we allow the behaviour of sabs to continue because we take the view that their behaviour is ok as hunting is illegal, what happens when they have finished with hunting and turn their attention elsewhere to other LEGAL activities?
Click to expand...

as long as shooting is first on the list then fine by me. Just because an activity is LEGAL doesn't mean it is acceptable nowadays.
 
cauda equina said:
So is it the intent that matters, rather than the result?
Click to expand...
GBH can include psychiatric injury. The injury must be inflicted directly or indirectly by some deliberate or reckless conduct by the offender that was not an accident. I would imagine the police have evidence enough to arrest on suspicion of this if they have done so.
 
palo1 said:
We live in a country where we have to share the resources, this doesn’t mean those who are part of the disruption are arrogant, they have every right to be there.

This!! In order for a democracy to have integrity there must be tolerance of all manner of groups and activities. That is the way that democracy works. Y
Click to expand...
Including protesters then.
 
cauda equina said:
So is it the intent that matters, rather than the result?
Click to expand...
There's only so many outcomes to ploughing your horse through people, and none of them are good.
If you shot someone in the head, and they somehow survived, that doesn't diminish the fact that you shot them in the head which again, tends to have limited outcomes.
 
Gallop_Away said:
Again,

Peaceful protest = fine

Using violence and harassment to force your views on other = not fine.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what hunts are also doing, to sabs, to landowners, to those who disagree. Neither should be doing it. But saying we all have to allow others to do their thing, and democracy only works if everyone is permitted.
 
Millionwords said:
That's exactly what hunts are also doing, to sabs, to landowners, to those who disagree. Neither should be doing it. But saying we all have to allow others to do their thing, and democracy only works if everyone is permitted.
Click to expand...

Tolerance of others acting within the law. Illegal hunts should not be allowed to continue breaking the law, and neither should sabs.
 
Gallop_Away said:
Tolerance of others acting within the law. Illegal hunts should not be allowed to continue breaking the law, and neither should sabs.
Click to expand...
Just because something is legal doesn't make it morally or ethically acceptable. There are examples of many things in history which were legal at the time that we would find shocking now. If the suffragettes had only ever 'peacefully protested', then I very much doubt they would have achieved their aims.
 
paddy555 said:
[


I really don't want to appear thick or naive but isn't that what some of the hunting people are doing ATM. Isn't that why we even have this thread.
Click to expand...

And have I not said this is unacceptable also? Why does it have to be either/or? Can we not agree that it is not acceptable to break the law to suit your own agenda? Be it hunt sab or illegal hunts?
 
Sossigpoker said:
Well the sabs are doing the work that the authorities should be doing!
I've seen a film of a PCSO saying to a sab to "make sure the footage isn't shaky or they won't be able to use it"! Why the feck aren't the cops out the monitoring the hunts instead of expecting us civvies to do so?
The reason why it's OK for us civvies to monitor hunts and record evidence is because our police won't do it (and many of them are busy joining the hunts !)
If the sabs turn their attention to say horse racing- good for them. What goes on behind closed doors needs to be exposed in so , so many fields.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a fair comment about the police. They're massively understaffed, overworked and underfunded (and are legally prevented from going on strike like other public servants so tend to be treated less favourably by the government as there's little they can do about it). They also spend 90% of their working lives dealing with issues other agencies have failed to deal with (not necessarily through any fault of their own). My OH is no longer on the front line (and I don't call it that lightly, it's like a war zone some days) but he would gladly put himself in danger to save others, scrape bits of brain off the road after a motorbike accident, run to things others are running away from, break down doors to find people in all sorts of states of decomposition, get attacked by dogs deliberately trained to go for police when he tries to arrest a drug dealer who's ruining lives. They deal with all sorts of really unpleasant and dangerous things every day and for every one they deal with, there are probably 4 other people who need their services.

I'm sure a lot of them would rather be out in countryside monitoring hunts but the reality is they're dealing with someone with mental health issues who's an immediate danger to themselves or others, a domestic abuse case where whole families are at risk, a traffic accident where an ambulance hasn't turned up for more than an hour, a stabbing where a 16 year old has been murdered, drug dealers selling to vulnerable people or recruiting teenagers to sell for them. If the choice is dealing with things like this or standing in a field in case someone is hunting a fox, of course they are going to have to prioritise - especially if someone else is gathering evidence for them that they can review later on.

I know plenty of horse riding police officers too and not one of them hunts.
 
Willowbankstables said:
Just because something is legal doesn't make it morally or ethically acceptable. There are examples of many things in history which were legal at the time that we would find shocking now. If the suffragettes had only ever 'peacefully protested', then I very much doubt they would have achieved their aims.
Click to expand...

The non-peaceful suffragists were then and now seen to have damaged the movement; this is pretty well documented. The thing about parliamentary democracy is that a wide range of ethical and moral positions are well tolerated within the law. Laws are changed through the democratic process. One of the reasons some people feel so strongly about the hunting act is because it 'failed' on the democratic process test (it had to be forced through parliament using a very particular strategy that did not allow for the full democratic process). There are many things that people find unethical or immoral in today's society but that does not mean they need to be illegal. We are supposed to live in a tolerant, liberal society.

Opinions and feelings are not the same as the democratic process and our society has to work with that, not disregard it.
 
Gallop_Away said:
So again, is it acceptable to break the law as long as you deem your reasons are justified? What if we all decide to take the law into our own hands to suit our own agendas?
Click to expand...
The elderly person who got trampled by the man on his horse was standing in front of a gate. It's hardly anarchy abounding 🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️
 
palo1 said:
This!! In order for a democracy to have integrity there must be tolerance of all manner of groups and activities. That is the way that democracy works. Y
Click to expand...

Sure, but I think you're always going to struggle to convince people to be tolerant of activities where animals are intentionally hurt and killed.

Whilst we're talking of democracy, hunting foxes with hounds is illegal. So why is it still happening? That's what this entire thread comes down to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top