Hunting is in a spot of bother

[AdorableAlice]

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.

Spot on, and it would not have happened had the pair of them decided to stick to a public footpath where they could legally walk without the risk of danger or obstruction across England's green and pleasant land.

 

[bonny]

Spot on, and it would not have happened had the pair of them decided to stick to a public footpath where they could legally walk without the risk of danger or obstruction across England's green and pleasant land.

Does sitting on a gate sound like a dangerous thing to do ?

 

[moosea]

If I chose to ignore the warning then I would be at least equally responsible for any subsequent injuries.
If I not only ignored the warning but then chose to step into the path narrowing the gap when the driver was already moving then I would be responsible for not only my own injuries but damage caused to the driver and his vehicle.

No you wouldn't the driver would be charged. Do you have any links to cases where a pedestrian has been charged for being run over?

It's ridiculous!!

Not necessarily pro hunt, possibly fed up of people thinking that they have the right to deliberately interfere with other’s activities.
This thread is a point in case, I keep reading how arrogant the hunts are in respect of their attitude and I am sure there are instances where this is true, however in the main I would say that they try to be polite.

Yeah there are apparently hundreds of instances where hunts and/ or their members have displayed astounding arrogance and interfered with peoples right to take part in legal activities. The whole thread on here is littered with people pointing out that the hunts have ...

Trespassed - repeatedly
Killed pets - again not just once
Hunted fox
Ridden recklessly on public roads
Allowed their dogs to be out of control in public places
Prevented others from performing legal activities such as riding in certain areas on hunt days, turning out their horses on hunt days allowing their pets onto their own property.
caused injury to other humans.

Tell me again how polite the hunt members are, I could do with a good giggle.

Now you may feel that as hunting is illegal and these hunts are breaking the law, the sabs are justified. But what happens when they have finished with hunting and they turn their attention to other LEGAL activities? Fishing, shooting, horse racing, eventing, farming... where do you draw a line?

people can protest whatever they want.

Whilst I do not condone the actions of the huntsman, I have been on the receiving end of sabs abuse. They pick and pick and bully and bully relentlessly. Then someone snaps and they are right there to catch it on camera. Whilst the hunt should have more sense than to give the bullies the reaction they want, this isn't always easy when faced with a barrage of intimidation and harassment.

I will say it again, both huntsman and sabs show a complete recklessness in that video, to their own safety, the safety of others, and the poor horse!

That really is the person who 'snaps' problem. If they are not able to control themselves they really shouldn't be out in public unsupervised.

My point was that, in my opinion, sabs do not simply sab hunts because they are illegal but rather their views on animal rights, and once they have finished with hunting, they will turn their attention on other legal activities.

And?

So is it the intent that matters, rather than the result?

Yes it is - if you plan to murder someone it is called premeditated and is murder, where if something happens and someone dies as a result of a negligent accident then it is manslaughter. Intent does matter.

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.

Only if we can stop pretending that hunts don't do exactly the same!!

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.

Completly legal to film people including children in public places.

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.

It's so ridiculous thet you think someone would deliberatly let a horse land on top of them to make a point.
I'm sat here laughing at how stupid that sounds.

 

[AdorableAlice]

Does sitting on a gate sound like a dangerous thing to do ?

Absolutely, especially when it is not your gate to sit on or your land where the gate is placed and you have no legal right to be sat on said gate.

 

[paddy555]

Absolutely, especially when it is not your gate to sit on or your land where the gate is placed and you have no legal right to be sat on said gate.

so what about when hounds on private land or private garden. That being part of England's green and pleasant land where they have no right to be.

 

[stangs]

These awful sabs! Yes, we may be threatening their lives with our actions but they sat on our gate!

Anyhow, sitting on a gate that you don't have the right to be sitting on is a civil offence. Intentionally injuring someone, as he may well have done, is a criminal offence. The keen-eyed among you just might be able to the spot the difference there.

 

[Millionwords]

Absolutely, especially when it is not your gate to sit on or your land where the gate is placed and you have no legal right to be sat on said gate.

Just shoot folk who sit on your fence and say it was their own fault...

I'm not sure that would wash in court.
This forum both baffles and angers me with its double standards when it comes to sabs (whom I also don't agree with)

 

[Sossigpoker]

Just shoot folk who sit on your fence and say it was their own fault...

I'm not sure that would wash in court.
This forum both baffles and angers me with its double standards when it comes to sabs (whom I also don't agree with)

The lengths people go to trying to justify the actions of blood thirsty thugs never ceases to amaze me.

Driving back from the yard tonight in the dark , I nearly hit someone cycling on an unlit 60 mph Road without any high viz and only a tiny blinking light at the back. Had I not been able to avoid him ,.I guess I could have said that the cyclist shouldn't have been there .

 

[AdorableAlice]

The lengths people go to trying to justify the actions of blood thirsty thugs never ceases to amaze me.

Driving back from the yard tonight in the dark , I nearly hit someone cycling on an unlit 60 mph Road without any high viz and only a tiny blinking light at the back. Had I not been able to avoid him ,.I guess I could have said that the cyclist shouldn't have been there .

yes, you are right, cyclists should not be on any road in the dark without correct and functioning lights. Basic Highway Code. Hardly rocket science is it.

 

[Sossigpoker]

yes, you are right, cyclists should not be on any road in the dark without correct and functioning lights. Basic Highway Code. Hardly rocket science is it.

Had I hit him it still would have been my fault as the driver.

 

[Nancykitt]

Years ago went out with a friend to a canter track within a park on her local patch. The track was sand and there were signs making clear that it was for horses, no pedestrians (there was a footpath away from the track).
As we came round a corner we saw, in the distance, a women with a small child in the middle of the track. We shouted but she didn't move. It was then all about pulling up the horses and fortunately we managed to do this; I was planning to go onto the grass at the side if necessary to avoid hitting the woman and child.
Now of course they shouldn't have been there (apparently the child wanted to play in the sand). But I didn't particularly want to be involved in an accident. When we discussed it with friends afterwards I was told that in such a situation a rider should take all reasonable action to avoid an accident, regardless of who was in the right/wrong place. Had there been a collision, I'm pretty sure that me saying 'well she shouldn't have been there in the first place' would not have been met with a reply along the lines of 'oh well, fair enough, I can see why you made no attempt to stop and ploughed right into them.'

 

[Sandstone1]

So if the sabs were in the way of a shoot for instance? Would it have been ok if, having been warned they were in the way and at risk of being shot would it have been ok for the shooters to continue shooting and possibly kill the sabs?
Sabs were trespassing and were in the way.... So its ok to kill them??
I think not.

 

[Gallop_Away]

Had I hit him it still would have been my fault as the driver.

Yes it would have been your fault but your liability would be reduced by the cyclists own recklessness towards their own safety.

There was a very sad case recently close to where I live. A driver hit and killed a couple on a 50mph road. It was dark, the road is unlit, and the couple were arguing in the middle of the road on a blind bend. The driver was going under the speed limit but didn't see them in time and hit them. The CPS are not bringing a prosecution as it was just an awful accident.

I'm not saying for one second that what the huntsman leaping the gate and knocking the sab down under his horse was an accident, but people do need to take some responsibility for their own safety along with the safety of others.

 

[palo1]

@moosea: 'Completly legal to film people including children in public places.'

It is not illegal to film people, including children but the police do place considerable context around what is acceptable and may take action if they feel intentions are inappropriate (ie may result in harm, distress or illegality). I know this as our own children were filmed (not in a hunting context) and whilst the person filming them was not planning to use those images for any act of indecency they were still cautioned and considerable, serious steps were taken to ensure that they would not continue to film our children. Again the notion of intent is significant here. If the intent of filming is to harass, intimidate or distress (as well as to use those images for other inappropriate purposes) then it does become a police matter and it can be very serious.

 

[Sandstone1]

Yes it would have been your fault but your liability would be reduced by the cyclists own recklessness towards their own safety.

There was a very sad case recently close to where I live. A driver hit and killed a couple on a 50mph road. It was dark, the road is unlit, and the couple were arguing in the middle of the road on a blind bend. The driver was going under the speed limit but didn't see them in time and hit them. The CPS are not bringing a prosecution as it was just an awful accident.

I'm not saying for one second that what the huntsman leaping the gate and knocking the sab down under his horse was an accident, but people do need to take some responsibility for their own safety along with the safety of others.

SO that equally applies to the huntsman... People need to take responsibility for their own safety and those around them. Something the huntsman 100% did not do. He could have killed himself, the sab possibly two and also his horse.

 

[Gallop_Away]

people can protest whatever they want.



That really is the person who 'snaps' problem. If they are not able to control themselves they really shouldn't be out in public unsupervised.



And?







Only if we can stop pretending that hunts don't do exactly the same!!

Going over and over the same thing and constantly having to repeat myself is getting rather tedious so I'll say it again and hope the point finally gets through....

YES people have every right to protest whatever they want. I've not once said otherwise BUT they do not have the right to force their views on others through illegal and violent means .

I completely agree that people should have control over their own actions and should be held accountable for them. However, people are human and make mistakes, and this happens unfortunately when faced with a barrage of harassment and intimidation by sabs. No it isn't right but it happens.

In answer to your oh so polite "and?", the point I was making, clearly lost on some, was that if we excuse the illegal behaviour of sabs because hunting is illegal, what happens if they then turn to other legal pursuits that include animals. Is it right for them to break the law to protest against currently legal activities. I don't personally think that it is and sabs and their "methods" should go along with illegal hunting. I hope that they do, but I doubt it.

I have not once said that some hunts break the law, tresspass, and behave appallingly, I'm simply making the point that sabs also break the law and behave appallingly. I've no respect for either illegal hunts or sabs personally. It doesn't need to be either/or.

 

[palo1]

So if the sabs were in the way of a shoot for instance? Would it have been ok if, having been warned they were in the way and at risk of being shot would it have been ok for the shooters to continue shooting and possibly kill the sabs?
Sabs were trespassing and were in the way.... So its ok to kill them??
I think not.

Thankfully our gun laws and codes of conduct around firearms use are incredibly strict. But that is why it is so incredibly easy for sabs to sab a shoot. You should not show any form of aggression, irritation or even touch your gun if in anything that may be construed as a conflict situation. Shooters absolutely know that, as do sabs.

 

[Sandstone1]

Thankfully our gun laws and codes of conduct around firearms use are incredibly strict. But that is why it is so incredibly easy for sabs to sab a shoot. You should not show any form of aggression, irritation or even touch your gun if in anything that may be construed as a conflict situation. Shooters absolutely know that, as do sabs.

A 600kg horse landing on you could also kill you. Fox hunters have often been seen to use their horses as weapons against sabs.

 

[palo1]

A 600kg horse landing on you could also kill you. Fox hunters have often been seen to use their horses as weapons against sabs.

You probably have me on UI but if you read the sab's own SM content, which I am sure you do, there is so much on there advising people to grab the horses reins, jump out in front of them, do things that may cause a horse to bolt etc (with the clear intent to cause harm to the rider) that for some riders, using their horse may be felt to be self defence. I have had issues with sabs (no physical contact) in the form of filming, aggression, taunting (when not even on a horse but attending a meet) and they are intimidating, and intend to be so. Ordinarily I have no contact with sabs (probably becuase our hunt is not of interest to them) and the monitors we occasionally see cause no issues. It is not as simple as you would like to suggest it is.

 

[Abacus]

[Inappropriate quoted content removed]

Just to clarify, I think the legal perspective here is based on US law - here we don’t have degrees of murder (nor closets). We have murder or manslaughter, and murder can be premeditated which is more serious. But it is still true that intent is important.

 

[Millionwords]

You probably have me on UI but if you read the sab's own SM content, which I am sure you do, there is so much on there advising people to grab the horses reins, jump out in front of them, do things that may cause a horse to bolt etc (with the clear intent to cause harm to the rider) that for some riders, using their horse may be felt to be self defence. I have had issues with sabs (no physical contact) in the form of filming, aggression, taunting (when not even on a horse but attending a meet) and they are intimidating, and intend to be so. Ordinarily I have no contact with sabs (probably becuase our hunt is not of interest to them) and the monitors we occasionally see cause no issues. It is not as simple as you would like to suggest it is.

Itd be good to share screenshots of this "advice" I have never seen it on any sab pages, nor have I seen it on shared on any anti-sab pages.

I have only encountered sabs who stayed out of the way of horses, and had no intention of touching them, they didn't really even speak to the field as they were more interested in catching up with the hounds. They did however say good morning and hold open a gate for the last 3 or 4 of us which someone let swing shut. Which was a surprise.

 

[Sandstone1]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1469592720527051

. Rules of the road do not apply either. Now if I did that in my car I would get a fine.....

 

[Tiddlypom]

Does sitting on a gate sound like a dangerous thing to do ?

Indeed. It puts my teeth on edge to see people do it because all country folk know not to climb over or sit on gates because of the strain on the hinges, but barring the gate collapsing underneath you it is not normally dangerous.

I'm not sure why pro hunt are constantly banging on about the sabs likely trespassing and certainly deliberately obstructing the hunt, of course they were. There is little to no support on this forum for overly disruptive actions by sabs such as false horn calls confusing hounds.

That does not give anyone the right to endanger a sab by a reckless act. The sabs were where they were, it was never safe to jump that gate.

FWIW, I see the female sab turn away and take her attention away from the goings on in the field behind her. She was (unwisely) looking the other way and was taken by surprise by the huntsman carrying out his stated intention to jump the gate. She tried at the last minute to duck for cover but that action contributed to the saint of a horse clipping her.

The huntsman was a reckless idiot. He wasn't aiming to trample a sab but he knowingly carried out a very hazardous course of action with non consenting human obstacles.

 

[Sandstone1]

Indeed. It puts my teeth on edge to see people do it because all country folk know not to climb over or sit on gates because of the strain on the hinges, but barring the gate collapsing underneath you it is not normally dangerous.

I'm not sure why pro hunt are constantly banging on about the sabs likely trespassing and certainly deliberately obstructing the hunt, of course they were. There is little to no support on this forum for overly disruptive actions by sabs such as false horn calls confusing hounds.

That does not give anyone the right to endanger a sab by a reckless act. The sabs were where they were, it was never safe to jump that gate.

FWIW, I see the female sab turn away and take her attention away from the goings on in the field behind her. She was (unwisely) looking the other way and was taken by surprise by the huntsman carrying out his stated intention to jump the gate. She tried at the last minute to duck for cover but that action contributed to the saint of a horse clipping her.

The huntsman was a reckless idiot. He wasn't aiming to trample a sab but he knowingly carried out a very hazardous course of action with non consenting human obstacles.

Exactly this, yes sabs were likely trespassing, they had been asked to move but none of that gave the huntsman the right to put any of the lives involved in danger. This is a big problem with many hunts and supporters. They think the hunt take precedence. Those days are long gone.
The few people on here supporting the huntsman need to give their heads a wobble.
If we are talking trespass there are certainly many many examples of the hunt trespassing on land where they should not be, killing peoples pets, causing mayhem on the roads and railways, punching ponies, whipping horses, stabbing foxes, assaulting sabs, running over sabs with horses, running red lights and releasing bagged foxes. I could go on but I do not have time.

 

[sakura]

Spot on, and it would not have happened had the pair of them decided to stick to a public footpath where they could legally walk without the risk of danger or obstruction across England's green and pleasant land.

Truly the best response yet

 

[ycbm]

I'm not saying for one second that what the huntsman leaping the gate and knocking the sab down under his horse was an accident, but people do need to take some responsibility for their own safety along with the safety of others.

This is true in Civil Law where damages are reduced if the injured person was at fault.

It is not true in criminal law except in very restricted circumstances like self defence.

There is no right whatsoever to put someone else's life in danger because they are in the wrong place or have annoyed you.

I understand the Huntsman has been charged. If convicted, he won't, or shouldn't, get a lesser sentence because he warned them. Quite the reverse, warning them showed that he recognised fully the danger he was about to put them in and did it anyway.
.

 

[sakura]

the point I was making, clearly lost on some, was that if we excuse the illegal behaviour of sabs because hunting is illegal, what happens if they then turn to other legal pursuits that include animals. Is it right for them to break the law to protest against currently legal activities. I don't personally think that it is and sabs and their "methods" should go along with illegal hunting. I hope that they do, but I doubt it.

I understand the point you're raising, but with respect, it's too hypothetical to hold base at the moment. When trail hunting is banned, IF sabs move on in large numbers to disrupt legal activities and break laws in doing so, then yes absolutely lets discuss that. But that's not what's happening right now.

No one's illegal behaviour should, or is, being excused.

 

[Gallop_Away]

This is true in Civil Law where damages are reduced if the injured person was at fault.

It is not true in criminal law except in very restricted circumstances like self defence.

There is no right whatsoever to put someone else's life in danger because they are in the wrong place or have annoyed you.

I understand the Huntsman has beenbm charged. If convicted, he won't, or shouldn't, get a lesser sentence because he warned them. Quite the reverse, warning them showed that he recognised fully the danger he was about to put them in and did it anyway.
.

I understand that (I have worked in the legal profession for the last 10 years) but my post was in reply to an earlier post discussing if someone had hit a cyclist on a dark road. It isn't always so cut and dry as the driver is completely at fault and will be prosecuted. Sometimes things are just accidents and I only mentioned the huntsman/sab/gate incident before someone jumped on my post bleating "THAT WASN'T AN ACCIDENT!!!" to make it clear that I wasn't saying for a minute that it was.

I do stand by my point that both sab and huntsman were completely reckless to their own safety and the others safety, and more importantly the horse's safety.

Ycbm as an aside, I would really appreciate if you read/quote my posts as a whole instead of cherry picking certain points and then taking them out of context. It something you seem to consistently do and it's getting rather tedious.

 

[Gallop_Away]

I understand the point you're raising, but with respect, it's too hypothetical to hold base at the moment. When trail hunting is banned, IF sabs move on in large numbers to disrupt legal activities and break laws in doing so, then yes absolutely lets discuss that. But that's not what's happening right now.

No one's illegal behaviour should, or is, being excused.

I disagree. I've seen it discussed consistently throughout this thread that sabs may break the law, but so do hunts and therefore implying sabs behaviour is ok.

Also as pointed out, sabs existed before the ban, when hunting was still legal. It's not so hypothetical to assume they will also target other legal activities when they are done with hunting as it is something they have done before hunting was banned.

 

[sakura]

I disagree. I've seen it discussed consistently throughout this thread that sabs may break the law, but so do hunts and therefore implying sabs behaviour is ok.

Also as pointed out, sabs existed before the ban, when hunting was still legal. It's not so hypothetical to assume they will also target other legal activities when they are done with hunting as it is something they have done before hunting was banned.

True, but they have always been targeting hunting - where an animal is chased and killed. So we don't know what will happen when hunting goes completely. I would assume they're most likely to move on to shooting if that is the case.

I'm not sure it's enough to say people are excusing illegal behaviour by pointing out that hunts are also breaking the law. It's more likely they are referring to cause and effect.