Hunting is in a spot of bother

[palo1]

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.

Absolutely this, other than it is not appropriate to ask or rely on completely unobjective volunteers to provide evidence of crime. IF the police want hunting monitors then they should recruit them, train them and be accountable for them (as if they have time or money for that either!!). It just isn't acceptable to allow interest groups into the field of the law. If I chose to 'monitor', report on, abuse or sabotage pub-goers evenings because I felt strongly about the number of people drink driving I would very soon be in court. If I regularly got in the faces of people with prior form for drink driving I would be arrested. If I lurked in pub car parks filming people or goading them I would be VERY unwelcome generally and I could see that laying me open to abuse and aggression myself. The police cannot monitor that activity either but you just don't see anti-drink driving vigilantes!! Sabbing hunts, shoots and other animal related activities really is no different in legal or democratic terms and it is daft to pretend that it is.

As for the horse riding police officers - I know at least 2 that hunt (legally) regularly. I know all sorts of people that do and don't hunt!

 

[palo1]

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.

THere are sadly many, many ways in which the hurting and killing of animals is absolutely tolerated in our society. As for hunting (legally or otherwise), why people want to do it is an interesting question. It is still a feature of UK life and is still massively contentious. There is not a consensus about hunting partly because it has been so politicised and for some people is symbolic of a culture war. It is almost impossible for most people to see it objectively I think.

 

[Gallop_Away]

The elderly person who got trampled by the man on his horse was standing in front of a gate. It's hardly anarchy abounding

Who mentioned that individual sab in that moment? You are clutching at straws I'm afraid.
It is well known sabs AS AN ORGANISATION regularly tresspass/intimidate/harass so can we please stop pretending otherwise.

 

[Annagain]

Absolutely this, other than it is not appropriate to ask or rely on completely unobjective volunteers to provide evidence of crime. IF the police want hunting monitors then they should recruit them, train them and be accountable for them (as if they have time or money for that either!!). It just isn't acceptable to allow interest groups into the field of the law. If I chose to 'monitor', report on, abuse or sabotage pub-goers evenings because I felt strongly about the number of people drink driving I would very soon be in court. If I regularly got in the faces of people with prior form for drink driving I would be arrested. If I lurked in pub car parks filming people or goading them I would be VERY unwelcome generally and I could see that laying me open to abuse and aggression myself. The police cannot monitor that activity either but you just don't see anti-drink driving vigilantes!! Sabbing hunts, shoots and other animal related activities really is no different in legal or democratic terms and it is daft to pretend that it is.

As for the horse riding police officers - I know at least 2 that hunt (legally) regularly. I know all sorts of people that do and don't hunt!

But you do get plenty of people phoning the police to report drink driving or filming incidents and providing that evidence to the police. Of course I'm not suggesting that they do the police's jobs, just that IF anybody (not just sabs but any citizen in any situation) provides evidence of wrongdoing, the police can investigate and act on it should they see fit and I'm sure this is part of the decision making process when they are allocating scarce resources.

And yes, I agree with you that all sorts of people do and don't hunt. I was responding to the comment that "many of them (the police) are busy joining the hunts". Through riding I know many horse riders, some of whom are police officers. Through my OH, I know many police officers some of whom ride ( actually very few of them, despite us being far from an inner city) and of all the riding police officers I know, none of them are "busy joining the hunts". Of course there will be police officers who hunt but the the implied accusation that the police aren't monitoring the hunts because they are the ones hunting just doesn't hold water. The idea that your average police officer even those up to inspector or chief inspector has any say in policy of this sort is ludicrous. They're too busy firefighting (possibly literally soon with the fire service going on strike) to think about anything other than the next job.

 

[ycbm]

you just don't see anti-drink driving vigilantes!!

You don't see them, no, but I know of people who were arrested driving home after police were told by concerned locals that they were regularly drinking all evening and driving home from the pub.

Google "reporting drink driving" and you will see how many Police Forces officially request people to call them if they know someone is drink driving.
.

 

[Miss_Millie]

The police cannot monitor that activity either but you just don't see anti-drink driving vigilantes!!

Drink driving isn't an organised sport.

I think if any other organised sport with a governing body was regularly resulting in those partaking trespassing, damaging property, livestock and sometimes even killing people's pets, there would indeed be people lining up to protest or trying to stop them.

 

[Clodagh]

I can't speak for everyone, but I do know that even on this forum I am far from alone in feeling that I will not be sorry to see either of those disappear.
.

That is a bit extreme, I gather from this and other posts you are actually against horse riding per se?

 

[lizziebell]

And when they finish with them and start harassing "regular" equestrians out on fun rides, local show jumping competition etc?

People already protest at other equestrian events. There was an incident of protesters at the GP Showjumping in Bordeaux last week.

 

[palo1]

Drink driving isn't an organised sport.

I think if any other organised sport with a governing body was regularly resulting in those partaking trespassing, damaging property, livestock and sometimes even killing people's pets, there would indeed be people lining up to protest or trying to stop them.

Well publicans generally have a licensing body through the local council and they are the ones serving drinks to people who do regularly or occasionally drink drive/are underage/also using illegal substances on the premises. You are splitting hairs for the sake of it and I am sure you know that. As for @ycbm's comment on people ringing the police with concerns about drink driving, that is absolutely right and should be the same for other things. Standing in a pub car park shouting abuse at people, filming them, filming their children, setting up cameras on their land or that of their neighbours, following them and other forms of harassment would generally be considered completely unacceptable.

 

[Sossigpoker]

Two more Avon Vale scum have been arrested today!
I suspect the female of them is the blonde seen on the film keeping a lookout as the foxes are dug out.

 

[Millionwords]

Well publicans generally have a licensing body through the local council and they are the ones serving drinks to people who do regularly or occasionally drink drive/are underage/also using illegal substances on the premises. You are splitting hairs for the sake of it and I am sure you know that. As for @ycbm's comment on people ringing the police with concerns about drink driving, that is absolutely right and should be the same for other things. Standing in a pub car park shouting abuse at people, filming them, filming their children, setting up cameras on their land or that of their neighbours, following them and other forms of harassment would generally be considered completely unacceptable.

But if it was specific people, maybe people who had knocked someone down whilst drink driving, or killed someone whilst drink driving, and they had somehow gone unpunished, and continued to organise drinking sessions and drove home after each one....this would be unsurprising behaviour from protesters.

The two are in no way comparable and you know it.

 

[palo1]

But if it was specific people, maybe people who had knocked someone down whilst drink driving, or killed someone whilst drink driving, and they had somehow gone unpunished, and continued to organise drinking sessions and drove home after each one....this would be unsurprising behaviour from protesters.

The two are in no way comparable and you know it.

Genuinely, why do you think that? Both scenarios (trail hunting and going to the pub) have potentially serious illegal activities related to their participation. Both have legislation around what activities can and cannot be conducted in that arena. Both have laws that are very difficult for the police to entirely monitor and both are activities that are conducted in and around public spaces. Why are they not comparable?

''But if it was specific people, maybe people who had knocked someone down whilst drink driving, or killed someone whilst drink driving, and they had somehow gone unpunished, and continued to organise drinking sessions and drove home after each one....this would be unsurprising behaviour from protesters.''

But there are people in almost every community that others are aware of that have had drink driving convictions or convictions for substance abuse/selling as well as those that remain doing those things without being caught or punished. I think it is completely naive to suggest that isn't the case.

 

[Burnttoast]

That is a bit extreme, I gather from this and other posts you are actually against horse riding per se?

Don't sound so shocked Some people (even some people who rode or ride) are not at all sure it's in the horse's best interests. I'm one of them, and although ill health precludes my riding now I don't think I would ever ride again even if able. I still enjoy having my retired boy at home, though, just watching him horsing with his mate. One of the most talented horse people I know has always maintained that if we did what was really in horses' best interests we would never get on board (that's some impressive cognitive dissonance going on there, but that's maybe another conversation). And a good friend of mine who's worked for many years in welfare doing genuinely useful things for the species as a whole is struggling with this dilemma now and wondering whether she can get enough of a horsey fix from the ground.

 

[Millionwords]

Genuinely, why do you think that? Both scenarios (trail hunting and going to the pub) have potentially serious illegal activities related to their participation. Both have legislation around what activities can and cannot be conducted in that arena. Both have laws that are very difficult for the police to entirely monitor and both are activities that are conducted in and around public spaces. Why are they not comparable?

''But if it was specific people, maybe people who had knocked someone down whilst drink driving, or killed someone whilst drink driving, and they had somehow gone unpunished, and continued to organise drinking sessions and drove home after each one....this would be unsurprising behaviour from protesters.''

But there are people in almost every community that others are aware of that have had drink driving convictions or convictions for substance abuse/selling as well as those that remain doing those things without being caught or punished. I think it is completely naive to suggest that isn't the case.

Theyre not an organised sports group, they don't have a governing body who are supposed to maintain standards and continually fail to do so, they are only held to account as individuals.

If it was an organised sport group or a book club or anything with a clear organisational structure, it wouldn't surprise me if protesters protested. If there's a structure, there should be methods of maintaining standards and the group should be held to account over actions of its members.

 

[Millionwords]

The arrest was just on the BBC news

 

[ycbm]

That is a bit extreme, I gather from this and other posts you are actually against horse riding per se?

I don't see how you come to that conclusion since I am still riding.
.

 

[Miss_Millie]

You are splitting hairs for the sake of it and I am sure you know that.

Nope. I'm really not.

 

[Sossigpoker]

I suspect it's these two mouth breathers who are the latest arrests :

Wiltshire Hunt Saboteurs

At some time in the last couple of weeks, these barbaric criminals dug out a brace (two) foxes. This is mating seasons and the foxes which were paired up would likely have included a pregnant vixen....

www.facebook.com

 

[palo1]

Theyre not an organised sports group, they don't have a governing body who are supposed to maintain standards and continually fail to do so, they are only held to account as individuals.

If it was an organised sport group or a book club or anything with a clear organisational structure, it wouldn't surprise me if protesters protested. If there's a structure, there should be methods of maintaining standards and the group should be held to account over actions of its members.

But the local council provides a licence, the publican has specific responsibilities, there are national laws around alcohol and what is and isn't acceptable. The body that is accountable is the local council, after the individual accountability of the publican. There certainly is a clear structure and clear standards/codes of conduct for conditions of licensing.

 

[Millionwords]

But the local council provides a licence, the publican has specific responsibilities, there are national laws around alcohol and what is and isn't acceptable. The body that is accountable is the local council, after the individual accountability of the publican. There certainly is a clear structure and clear standards/codes of conduct for conditions of licensing.

Not for those drinking, and its those that protesters would be protesting about. Honestly I don't understand what is gained by forcing me to even waste my energy writing that.

You know exactly what I'm saying. Youre not stupid. It feels like youre just being obtuse.

 

[Clodagh]

I don't see how you come to that conclusion since I am still riding.
.

I know, but you have said quite a bit recently how much you are thinking about what we make them do. Not judging! I’m very non judgemental overall about anything tbh.

 

[paddy555]

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?

yes it is not acceptable to break the law for your own agenda. However if the illegal hunts were not breaking the law then the sabs wouldn't be needed.
If all hunts were squeaky clean and proven to be then I would be very happy to condemn illegal sab violence but that is not the case.
If the sabs were not about I guess that a lot more hunts would be breaking the law as I see little to hold them to account.

 

[paddy555]

As for hunting (legally or otherwise), why people want to do it is an interesting question. It is still a feature of UK life and is still massively contentious. There is not a consensus about hunting partly because it has been so politicised and for some people is symbolic of a culture war. It is almost impossible for most people to see it objectively I think.

I don't think it is in the slightest impossible to see it objectively. I think most people see a group of hunts acting illegally and make a reasonable presumption that many others are as well, and there do seem to be rather a lot. I am sure there are some trail hunting perfectly down here in the west country but I am not sure which ones they are.

None of the public can ascertain just from the name or from looking at them which hunts really are abiding by the law.

As far as I see it the hunts are the total cause of this problem. They are legally allowed to trail hunt so why can't they just trail hunt? Why do they see they have the right to take it upon themselves to break the law?

It may be symbolic of a culture war. To many it is the arrogant, entitled elite breaking the law. To the hunters it is their right to be arrogant and entitled and to break the law as they choose.

 

[FestiveG]

yes it is not acceptable to break the law for your own agenda. However if the illegal hunts were not breaking the law then the sabs wouldn't be needed.
If all hunts were squeaky clean and proven to be then I would be very happy to condemn illegal sab violence but that is not the case.
If the sabs were not about I guess that a lot more hunts would be breaking the law as I see little to hold them to account.

The sabs were breaking the law before the hunting act. No one kills foxes at hunt sings, or at hunt balls, it didn't and doesn't stop sabs from violence at both events.

 

[Gallop_Away]

yes it is not acceptable to break the law for your own agenda. However if the illegal hunts were not breaking the law then the sabs wouldn't be needed.
If all hunts were squeaky clean and proven to be then I would be very happy to condemn illegal sab violence but that is not the case.
If the sabs were not about I guess that a lot more hunts would be breaking the law as I see little to hold them to account.

Sabs existed long before the hunting ban, and they will exist once trail hunting is gone. To think otherwise is very naive I'm afraid.

 

[SilverLinings]

If the sabs were not about I guess that a lot more hunts would be breaking the law as I see little to hold them to account.

I would hope the persistent hunt monitors would still hold them to account. Anecdotally in the areas where there are predominantly monitors (rather than sabs) the hunts seem to be more likely to be behaving legally, and the hunters and monitors have a far better and less confrontational relationship than hunters versus sabs. It seems to be less likely to turn into a fight where both sides just become intent on doing what they want to do regardless of anyone else/the law.

 

[paddy555]

Sabs existed long before the hunting ban, and they will exist once trail hunting is gone. To think otherwise is very naive I'm afraid.

yes I met plenty before the hunting ban.
However we have moved on since the hunting ban. Not only is some sab activity illegal the hunts have now joined in the illegality.

 

[Quigleyandme]

I don’t understand why the sab sitting on the gate facing the huntsman didn’t shout a warning or pull their colleague out of the path of the horse. That is what raises my suspicions that it was a deliberate, badly timed, foolhardy attempt to obstruct the horse from jumping the gate. I think the sabs thought the huntsman would be forced to abort the jump or the horse would run out or refuse.

 

[Millionwords]

I don’t understand why the sab sitting on the gate facing the huntsman didn’t shout a warning or pull their colleague out of the path of the horse. That is what raises my suspicions that it was a deliberate, badly timed, foolhardy attempt to obstruct the horse from jumping the gate. I think the sabs thought the huntsman would be forced to abort the jump or the horse would run out or refuse.

They did shout. They couldn't have reached.
They also likely assumed he wouldn't actually be stupid enough to do it.
How fast are anyones reactions?

I cant understand trying to lay blame at the door of the sabs, when the action shouldn't have happened and someone has been arrested because the police seemingly think the rider should not have done it.

 

[Sossigpoker]

I don’t understand why the sab sitting on the gate facing the huntsman didn’t shout a warning or pull their colleague out of the path of the horse. That is what raises my suspicions that it was a deliberate, badly timed, foolhardy attempt to obstruct the horse from jumping the gate. I think the sabs thought the huntsman would be forced to abort the jump or the horse would run out or refuse.

Given the huntsman has been arrested and remains in custody for GBH, the authorities thankfully take this seriously.