Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
Yes, the top reason given to trail lay is always 'for the insurance', not what the feck scent would hounds be following if they hadn't laid a trail for them to find...?.
Hunting is in a spot of bother
- Thread starter Tiddlypom
- Start date
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
"Q. Who are our opponents?
A. The Police and the 2004 Hunting Act. "
They were even so brazen as to put it in writing ?
palo1
Well-Known Member
For a different take on trail hounds/hound trailling have a look at this: http://www.houndtrailingassociation.com/about/about-hound-trailing/ This is never in the news nor does any anti acknowledge it's existence. Lots of money raised for charity, complete openness and transparency and a brilliant re-homing programme. I have rehomed one of these fantastic hounds and whilst not entirely/strictly domestic, she was fabulous!! 
I know antis will tell me that this is nothing to do with winter trail hunting but it is definately part of the hunting world/community.
I know antis will tell me that this is nothing to do with winter trail hunting but it is definately part of the hunting world/community.CrunchieBoi
Well-Known Member
It certainly is beginning to look as though trail hunting has had its (brief) day. I've seen some other screenshots where those involved indicated the need for a smooth transition between hunting fox and hunting a scent on the off-chance they need to make a very quick swap on the day.
Trail hunting can surely no longer be viewed as a legitimate, legal activity.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
I don't know, but it does look very much as though it is so widespread, organised and determined that no trail hunt can be trusted to run within the law unless they have active monitoring.
It seems clear that the moment observation is removed, the die-hard hunting fraternity will return to hunting fox. After 16 years, I'm shocked by that, but I don't suppose I should be, because it obviously never actually stopped, did it?
.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
Here's the plan for the day when those pesky antis (or presumably even the police) turn up. You have to hunt legally for the day, which will annoy the purists, apparently ?.
Amirah
Well-Known Member
The "purists"? Arrogant criminals more like.
palo1
Well-Known Member
And hunting organisations are also involved in this: https://www.biodiversityhuntingcountryside.eu/#about. - In spite of Brexit UK organisations are engaged with this.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
The MFHA have taken some positive action. Goodness. Joss Hanbury, senior master of the Quorn hunt and one of the most well known current MFHs has been suspended by the MFHA, along with another master. The police are continuing their investigations into the incident.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...cjga-oTSQnY2uGTRubs80GgmH3PyPF4kl03UpapBaGr3E
Also
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-04-25...DmNc55oOVhWndHRQowCYn8iREY7AIB9VQQjN_UvqP54YE
'The master of one of the nation’s most respected hunts has lost his position after taking to fields during lockdown as part of a 70th birthday “surprise”.
Joss Hanbury, senior hunt master for the Quorn Hunt in Leicestershire, was found to have “seriously damaged the reputation” of the sport after a gathering last month while Covid-19 restrictions on movement were in force.
Footage showed two men on horseback dressed for hunting as hounds dug into what anti-hunting activists believe was a foxhole or badger sett.
The dogs had been driven half an hour to land near Hanbury’s home for what is claimed to have been “hound exercise”. Hunts were given clear guidance that during lockdown hounds should only be exercised from their kennels. The Masters of Foxhounds Association suspended Hanbury for two seasons while another master, Rowan Cope, was suspended for six months. The association said that their actions had not been “responsible”.
A letter to Quorn Hunt members confirmed that neither master would continue their roles, according to ITV News. The police said that the incident was still under investigation. Lee Moon, at the Hunt Saboteurs Association, said: “Whilst it’s pleasing to see action has been taken we do wonder if that’s only because the event became public and was covered by the press.”'
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...cjga-oTSQnY2uGTRubs80GgmH3PyPF4kl03UpapBaGr3E
Also
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-04-25...DmNc55oOVhWndHRQowCYn8iREY7AIB9VQQjN_UvqP54YE
'The master of one of the nation’s most respected hunts has lost his position after taking to fields during lockdown as part of a 70th birthday “surprise”.
Joss Hanbury, senior hunt master for the Quorn Hunt in Leicestershire, was found to have “seriously damaged the reputation” of the sport after a gathering last month while Covid-19 restrictions on movement were in force.
Footage showed two men on horseback dressed for hunting as hounds dug into what anti-hunting activists believe was a foxhole or badger sett.
The dogs had been driven half an hour to land near Hanbury’s home for what is claimed to have been “hound exercise”. Hunts were given clear guidance that during lockdown hounds should only be exercised from their kennels. The Masters of Foxhounds Association suspended Hanbury for two seasons while another master, Rowan Cope, was suspended for six months. The association said that their actions had not been “responsible”.
A letter to Quorn Hunt members confirmed that neither master would continue their roles, according to ITV News. The police said that the incident was still under investigation. Lee Moon, at the Hunt Saboteurs Association, said: “Whilst it’s pleasing to see action has been taken we do wonder if that’s only because the event became public and was covered by the press.”'
paddy555
Well-Known Member
bit surprised today by the hunt. I was informed by someone that my name, address, phone no and fact I have some fields (along with everyone else in a very large geographical area be they pro or anti) is now in the public domain of I guess the entire country really. Certainly in the public domain for anyone who wants to look. Some of those phone numbers are ex directory I expect as mine is.
Seems to be a total failure to protect data. not very pleased
oh and edited to add that my local council appears to have given the hunt a grant along with a 10k covid grant. So as both a council tax payer and income tax payer I seem to have been unknowingly contributing to them as well.
Seems to be a total failure to protect data.
not very pleasedoh and edited to add that my local council appears to have given the hunt a grant along with a 10k covid grant. So as both a council tax payer and income tax payer I seem to have been unknowingly contributing to them as well.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
bit surprised today by the hunt. I was informed by someone that my name, address, phone no and fact I have some fields (along with everyone else in a very large geographical area be they pro or anti) is now in the public domain of I guess the entire country really. Certainly in the public domain for anyone who wants to look. Some of those phone numbers are ex directory I expect as mine is.
Seems to be a total failure to protect data.
If the Hunt did this you need to report them for a GDPR breach, it's an imprisonable crime.
paddy555
Well-Known Member
thanks for the reply. Posted as I wondered what people would think. Considering it. Came as a bit of a shock really but the old brain is now starting to kick into gear.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
It's absolutely indefensible if it was done by a business/organisation, Paddy. Completely illegal, and the penalties are severe to reflect how harmful it is considered to be. The laws were strengthened more recently but I worked on data protection back in the early 80's when that would have been illegal.
.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
Even if the publication of these contact details was not a deliberate act by the hunt, but a malicious act by others, the hunt is required to report the breach pdq to the relevant authorities. There is a lot on line about the legal ramifications of the accidental leaking of insecure personal details.
It's potentially a very serious issue.
Paddy555, I'd be firstly upset about this and then fuming. I would definitely be taking it further than just contacting the hunt and letting them know that you weren't happy.
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
I’d be bloody livid!
On the grant issue I imagine they have as much right to claim it as any other small business. In Scotland I think they prevented anyone associated with field sports from claiming support, that sits wrong with me, there’s lots of individuals and companies I’d choose not to support but where do you stop and start with that.
paddy555
Well-Known Member
absolutely no intention of contacting the hunt direct. (or at least not for a while
)I would however like some info please if anyone can help
some of the people listed who have land and would rather not have the hunt have things such as "difficult fields to avoid" noted.
If you hunt a fox I can understand that you are governed by the fox as to where he runs and that hounds hunting him are going to follow.
If you hunt only a laid trail then to my innocent mind a person decides where the trail goes and could lay it to avoid areas of land where people preferred them not to hunt so there would be no need to have "difficult land to avoid"
If I'm wrong please don't be afraid to say. I would like to be accurate when I contact people
It does concern me that there are some people listed who really don't want the hunt and details are included of discussions/action etc which to my mind should be totally private.
Silver Clouds
Well-Known Member
It is awful the hunt have released your info Paddy; as others have said, GDPR breaches attract some stiff penalties so report it to the ICO rather than the hunt.
And no, I can't see how ANY land/property could be 'difficult to avoid' for a hunt that was actually legally trail hunting, after all they can choose where to lay the trail. The hunts really don't help themselves do they
And no, I can't see how ANY land/property could be 'difficult to avoid' for a hunt that was actually legally trail hunting, after all they can choose where to lay the trail. The hunts really don't help themselves do they
Silver Clouds
Well-Known Member
A hunt about an hour away from me ran a fun ride last weekend and thought Covid rules didn't apply to them (because they're above the law presumably) so it was a mass start, crowded parking, and apparently a bit of a free-for-all. The police turned up mid-morning to put them straight as some of the locals had complained. Many fun rides have been held around here under covid (last autumn and this spring since the last lockdown lifted), and all of the others have managed to implement social distancing and sensible precautions with no problems, so god knows why one hunt thought they would be excused. Again it is an example of (some) hunting people really not caring what the locals/general public think of them, and being too short-sighted to realise that they are only harming themselves in the longrun.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
You are not wrong. Hunts should be careful where they lay trails and should not allow them to stray off piste. They should not lay trails close to areas where they are not invited to be on.
Comments such as (and there are plenty more where these came from):-
A few horse fields next to ****, not keen when hounds get in there, difficult to stop happening.
Hounds can get in the garden, not sure how keen they are, don’t get here that often.
And particularly the comment speaks volumes.
Anti, don’t ring. Hounds like to be in their garden, do what you can to avoid this then I personally ignore.
Just keep the hounds out of people's gardens, and if they do get in, don't then ignore the residents
.Silver Clouds
Well-Known Member
The arrogance is unbelievable TP (not you, some hunting people!)
palo1
Well-Known Member
Hunts have not released anyone's details; hacking done by Hunting Leaks is responsible for the data breach. This issue has been raised in Iceland where the breaches have taken place but so far, no luck in resolving the issue. Twitter and other social media shut down Hunting Leaks in response but HL are still finding ways to release individual's data without penalty.
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
I think the trouble is, as a known issue, the hunts would be expected to tighten their online security.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
The leak was indeed maliciously done by a third party, but the hunt involved are guilty of not protecting the personal information inc phone nos, addresses that they hold on a large number of people. Including all personal remarks on same.
It's a serious breach of the GDPR rules.
It's a serious breach of the GDPR rules.
paddy555
Well-Known Member
to a point however the question arises as to how they were able to access the date in the first place? presumably the hunt failed to protect the data. Is that acceptable? They must be aware that in view of the antis their data is liable to be hacked and must be secured.
HL released the data, the hunt made that possible.
I now have a list of just about all land within around 20 mile radius, names of owners, addresses, phone numbers and basically their views on hunting, something which quite honestly is private. I don't wish people to know my views and I have no right to know theirs. I know a large number of people on that list.
I appreciate that hunts need to have records of landowners, contact details and what areas to avoid. However that information should not be public knowledge.
palo1
Well-Known Member
It is undoubtedly a very serious breach of the law. It is dire for many people. I understand that the hacking happened over a fairly short period of time but the information is being leaked over a longer period of time in order to cause the greatest anxiety and distress amongst those people who may be very concerned about their details being leaked. HL deliberately based their operation in Iceland so that they would be immune to GDPR regs.
Security in hunt organisations has been tightened wherever and however possible I believe too but it is too late for this set of breaches.palo1
Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree. I think that depending on all sorts of things some hunt's online security systems would be better than others but there are definately guidelines/responsibilities which are clear not only via the law but also through the ordinary committees and conventions. The hacking of hunts has been pretty wholesale however and sophisticated with a huge range of information having been 'taken'; I don't think it is at all clear where or how it has been done. Personally speaking I am appalled and unnerved by it as generally, getting information from a hunt/hunt official is virtually impossible and I would say the vast majority of people involved in hunting are totally aware of the sensitivity of personal information and would never do anything to deliberately weaken any security or share information unneccessarily. Very few folk dealing with landowners of any kind would be unaware of the sensitivity around boundaries/access or their views on a whole range of things. Of course I would say this, as a hunting supporter, but Hunting Leaks have no scruples at all, have clearly given no thought to the damage they are doing to individuals that they have no knowledge of and may not realise what a dire own goal this will be. For example, earlier leaks about Glastonbury (Worthy Farm) resulted in the Festival essentially withdrawing work opportunities for local hunt supporters (of which the Festival was clearly aware previously) and Michael Eavis is already under pressure from the same group re: his views and actions in relation to the Badger cull. Yet the local hunting community provides a huge amount of support for the Festival (provision of parking and other things) so neighbourly interactions are going to be interesting. In this particular example the Festival will want to keep rolling with it's usual arrangements. HL is just a really unpleasant and rather sinister group with a clear knowledge of the law and how to break it.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
From the ICO (Information Commissioner's) website
https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/raising-concerns/
[Your full address]
[Phone number]
[The date]
[Name and address of the organisation]
[Reference number (if provided within the initial response)]
Dear [Sir or Madam / name of the person you have been in contact with]
Information rights concern
[Your full name and address and any other details such as account number to help identify you]
I am concerned that you have not handled my personal information properly.
[Give details of your concern, explaining clearly and simply what has happened and, where appropriate, the effect it has had on you.]
I understand that before reporting my concern to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) I should give you the chance to deal with it.
If, when I receive your response, I would still like to report my concern to the ICO, I will give them a copy of it to consider.
You can find guidance on your obligations under information rights legislation on the ICO’s website (www.ico.org.uk) as well as information on their regulatory powers and the action they can take.
Please send a full response within one calendar month. If you cannot respond within that timescale, please tell me when you will be able to respond.
If there is anything you would like to discuss, please contact me on the following number [telephone number].
Yours faithfully
[Signature]
I hope that Paddy555 won't mind me relaying that this is the South Devon Hunt. Anyone who knows anyone who lives in that area and whose details may also be listed could perhaps let them know? Hunting is such an inflammatory subject that people may well not wish to be identified as being very pro or very anti along with their address and phone number.
My brief bit of stalking on anti sites shows that the leak is from at least 6 days ago.
https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/raising-concerns/
[Your full address]
[Phone number]
[The date]
[Name and address of the organisation]
[Reference number (if provided within the initial response)]
Dear [Sir or Madam / name of the person you have been in contact with]
Information rights concern
[Your full name and address and any other details such as account number to help identify you]
I am concerned that you have not handled my personal information properly.
[Give details of your concern, explaining clearly and simply what has happened and, where appropriate, the effect it has had on you.]
I understand that before reporting my concern to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) I should give you the chance to deal with it.
If, when I receive your response, I would still like to report my concern to the ICO, I will give them a copy of it to consider.
You can find guidance on your obligations under information rights legislation on the ICO’s website (www.ico.org.uk) as well as information on their regulatory powers and the action they can take.
Please send a full response within one calendar month. If you cannot respond within that timescale, please tell me when you will be able to respond.
If there is anything you would like to discuss, please contact me on the following number [telephone number].
Yours faithfully
[Signature]
I hope that Paddy555 won't mind me relaying that this is the South Devon Hunt. Anyone who knows anyone who lives in that area and whose details may also be listed could perhaps let them know? Hunting is such an inflammatory subject that people may well not wish to be identified as being very pro or very anti along with their address and phone number.
My brief bit of stalking on anti sites shows that the leak is from at least 6 days ago.
Silver Clouds
Well-Known Member
To comply with GDPR businesses (and charities etc, I presume one of these categories would include hunts) are required to have permission from individuals to store their personal data, and must have clear, justifiable reasons for doing so (and the 'owner' of the data - in this case Paddy - needs to be aware of these reasons). As Paddy's phone number is ex-directory and Paddy isn't a member of the hunt it sounds very unlikely that the hunt in question had permission to hold/store Paddy's personal data. If Paddy gave permission for their personal data to be kept by the hunt (e.g. so that the hunt could notify Paddy if they would be passing close to Paddy's property and likely to upset their livestock) then the hunt keeping it to note the owner's personal feelings about hunting (or to use it for any other reason than the reason Paddy gave them permission for) is a breach of GDPR.
Yes, HL leaked the information, but it sounds as though the hunt may have been breaching GDPR in the first place by storing it and/or using it for reasons the owner was not aware of.
Yes, HL leaked the information, but it sounds as though the hunt may have been breaching GDPR in the first place by storing it and/or using it for reasons the owner was not aware of.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
Unless there has been an adjournment of which I am unaware, Mark Hankinson, Director of the MFHA, is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court tomorrow and the next day, September 20 and 21, charged with intentionally encouraging or assisting others to commit an offence under the Hunting Act 2004, contrary to Section 44 of the Serious Crimes Act 2007.
Sossigpoker
Well-Known Member
Did this not happen back in March ?