Hurrah! I'm not a criminal!

The public wants to see the Hunts prosecuted and we have got away with it so far by targetting the law against them. .
Click to expand...

I think you'll find in most cases the public don't actually care at all, and some, unbelievable as you might find this, would actually like to see an alteration to the legislation to allow licensed hunting.

But don't let facts get in the way of rhetoric, or justifying your activities
 
"The Tony Wright case hinged on whether he took sufficient steps to ensure that the escaping foxes were shot."

The case of the Exmoor One was fundamentally decided on the scrapping of the reversal of the burden of proof. Creatures like Peter Bunce now have to prove hunt staff guilty, rather than the latter having to demonstrate their innocence.

And the dubious quality of the video evidence and expert witness (the now discredited 'Prof' Harris) being commented upon was just the icing on the cake.
 
"the scrapping of the reversal of the burden of proof" that is just another attempt to water down the law.

We are confident that this decision will be reversed and hunters will be guilty until proved innocent.

If it not then more legislation will be needed.
 
I find i tstrange that this law is being suggested as the one which should overturn one of the central tennets of English Law. Innocent until proved guilty.
 
Hello wrighty, yes, the Alliance genuinely thinks I'm retarded to claim that I'm hunting when I shoo deer away with my dogs. Nevertheless I took note of the doubts raised in this thread so emailed the League about this matter. Their reply makes interesting reading:

Dear Mr Busby,

We were all relieved to hear from you again. There had been a lull of 10 hours since your previous missive and we were beginning to worry about you.

It's not often that I can say that I agree with my oppposite number in the Alliance, but on this occasion you have truly united us: I too think you're a retard. There is a breath-taking nature to the enormity of your self-obsession and stupidity. I can honestly say that you have the brain the size of a dung beetle's belly button.

With best wishes,

Ben Thompson
 
Giles you are such an unremittingly sad character it is almost unbelievable.

We campaigned for 70 years to get this law passed and we are not going to have some twerp like you sowing confusion about it.

Can I remind all readers of this forum whether anti or pro that despite what this idiot is trying to make out it is now completely illegal to either flush out or chase wild mammals with more than two dogs.

We are well aware of what Giles Bradshaw does which is to enter woods with four dogs with the intention of flushing out wild deer and when these deer are flushed out to pursue them with his dogs.

There will be a lot more prosecutions this year including, possibly Giles Bradshaw if he does not stop breaking the law.
 
"the scrapping of the reversal of the burden of proof" that is just another attempt to water down the law.

We are confident that this decision will be reversed and hunters will be guilty until proved innocent.

If it not then more legislation will be needed.
Click to expand...

if you really believe that everyone should be guilty until proven innocent then you are a complete arse....
this country has always run the opposite way how can justice be brought forward if bigot minded anti everything people like yourself believe they have the right to change the statute book ..
but one minute you say if we flush wild mammals we should kill them then you say that the law should change and everybody be prosocuted, so until you make your own mind up how the hell do you expect anyone else to know how this stupid law works
 
Bunce, I'm now convinced that simply shooing deer away with dogs doesn't constitute "hunting" and therefore is legal. Most hunters agree with this reading of the Hunting Act as do most antis.
 
Hmmmm....surely 'hunting' involves actively going to look for something. 'Shooing' is merely coming across something and asking it to move aside.

Cant see anything wrong with that.

If you stood by the letter of the law our local dog walker would be out with a gun every morning just in case she startled a local.
 
Well on reading this and chuckling to myself, heaven forbid I take the dogs out tomorrow, they find a deer and I dont have my gun to shoot it...........!!! I'll be locked up by this time next week!!
 
Well on reading this and chuckling to myself, heaven forbid I take the dogs out tomorrow, they find a deer and I dont have my gun to shoot it...........!!! I'll be locked up by this time next week!!
Click to expand...

Thats what I'm thinking. According to this Bunce twerp, if I go out riding in the woods here, on my horse and accompanies by my two whippets - if whilst riding along a bridlepath, we disturb one of the deer and it is "in mortal terror" - I have to shoot it though I don't have a gun, and this is legal within the terms of the hunting act. If I don't shoot it I'm breaking the law and am cruel?

If however, the farmers collie and GSD follow us so I have 4 dogs, and we still put up a deer whilst mooching happily along same said bridle path in the woods, I'm a law breaker and guilty until proved innocent whether I shoot the deer or not? I'll have you know I have every right to be on a bridle path and horses take priority over other "traffic" so surely the deer should give way to me and the nag, not get me locked up?

So yes, the hunting law is an ass when it comes to deer, dear! I'd never shoot deer - I like them and they don't murder 5 kittens then hide!!!
 
Oh we are so lucky over here that we don't have such a stupid Law. Landowners over here are pretty much allowed to do as they please on their own land. I have a fair amount of deer and wolves which live on my farm and my dogs are forever chasing them. I have no intention of killing any deer however any wolves which cause trouble to my livestock or my family, have and will be again, taken out. If my farm were in England then same thing I'm afraid; if my dogs chased out any deer or foxes then they would certainly not be killed by me unless they were causing a nuisance.

When I ride up into my forest, I always have my dogs with me and almost every time I go up there, I come across deer. I like to see the deer. It seems ironic that if I were in England I would have to shoot these deer that I enjoy seeing so much.....then I'd have no deer left on my farm. How is this Law protecting deer when it is written in such a way, as to pretty much sign their death warrant if they dare to jump out in front of you and your dogs?

Nope, I agree with most others on this thread; this Law is poorly thought out and makes a mockery of animal protection.
 
Everyone should have to obey the law.
Click to expand...


The public wants to see the Hunts prosecuted and we have got away with it so far by targetting the law against them. However if we started prosecuting anybody else simply on the grounds that they break the Hunting Act by illegally flushing out wild mammals then it would make the law look ridiculous.

I don't understand this really, so what your saying is that its one rule for one and one for another? If the government made a law that is flawed it's their fault and we should all have to stick to it then members of the public would see how absolutely ridiculous it is.

AARRGGHHH!!! sorry everyone i'm having a bad day at work and everything is really annoying me!! you wanna feel the atmo in my office!!
Click to expand...
 
I am soooo confused.... Bunce is anti hunt... yes?? and yet is happier for a deer to be shot than to survive a slight fright with a dog.

Giles (or whoever it is) is happier to let it run away and learn from its experience and yet he is the criminal... no?

Seems that the hunt monitors have got it as wrong as the government..... The Law is surely an Ass.

skulks back to soapbox....I am soooo confused.... Bunce is anti hunt... yes?? and yet is happier for a deer to be shot than to survive a slight fright with a dog.

Giles (or whoever it is) is happier to let it run away and learn from its experience and yet he is the criminal... no?

Seems that the hunt monitors have got it as wrong as the government..... The Law is surely an Ass.

skulks back to soapbox....:confused:
 
I can't understand why Bunce got so angry with me. The deer eat the leaves on the trees I've coppiced on my land so I use dogs to shoo them away. The concensus is - from pros and antis - that this isn't illegal. So why was Bunce so rude and aggressive? I get enough of that from the Missis. Talking of whom, she's left me with the kids tonight because she's out with the Exford Rugby Ladies. I may have to use the spare room. It's no fun sleeping with a prop forward when she's drunk.
 
Giles you are a very funny man! I'm new here but it is perfectly obvious that you are pretending to be Reginald pretending to be you to make you look stupid!

Bloody funny!!

I love the distinction between legal 'shooing' and illegal 'flushing'! A life and death one for the poor deer of course!

How on earth can one 'shoo' away a deer hiding in a wood without flushing it out! You are a comedy genius! Actually maybe it was the MPs who passed the law that are the real clowns!

What everyone pro and anti does agree on is that this law is a complete mess. Most antis can't bring themselves to admit it though! At least I have the honesty to hold my hand up and admit it. Unlike Bunce who is forced into actually supporting the nonsencial destructiuon of flushed out deer because he is to proud to admit the law is ridiculous.
 
"I love the distinction between legal 'shooing' and illegal 'flushing'! "

Is that what it depends on? Wether you shoo or flush? LOL I'm not sure I have such fine grained control over my dogs to get them to shoo but not to flush :D :D :D

Refreshinbg thoiugh Jessop that some antis are willing to admit what everyone knows that the law is an ass and the Government are completely incompetant.
 
Email from me to CA
"Could you please tell me if Rory Featherstonehaughis a member of your staff as a letter sent to someone has been posted on a forum. Thank you. Jackie."

Reply from CA
"Dear Jackie, No, he is not a member of our staff - what has been said?
Regards, Jill
Jill Grieve
Head of CommunicationsCountryside Alliance"

Come on Giles, tell thee truth for once.
 
I always tell the truth. Everard Busby has nothing to do with me.

Why don't you email them and ask them if the Hunting Act bans peoiple from flushing out wild mammals with dogs unless they are then shot.

They will tell you that it does.

Why don't you then think about wther you agree with such an absurd law.

:D
 
Antiantianti, I'm assuming that you are Giles as well then (Which was mentioned some time ago).

Whoever Busby is (Sounds a lot like Giles to me), I have asked if this person was from CA and they say no, please explain.

Jackie, yep, my name.
 
Well my analysis is that Everard is Reginald pretending to me me pretending to be him. I suspect that Reginald is trying to pretned that the law does not actually make flushing out nanimals illegal even though the law says that flushing out is illegal.

Bunce is a far more interesting character IMO as he is the only anti that I have ever come across who is actually prepared to defend the full absurdity that is the law the Government has passed.

Meanwhile I shall be breaking the Hunting act tomorrow morning by flushing out deer which I shall refuse to shoot. As a rational human being it is my right to break laws passed by incompetant lunatics.
 
"As a rational human being it is my right to break laws passed by incompetant lunatics"
Now that is GILES, do we remember the petition to make it legal to break the law? Hmmmm?

I think you are confusing yourself now, you claim Bunce is saying you are being suspected guilty before being proved innocent but you are admitting you are breaking the law, therefore guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top