Hysterical!

marianne1981

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 September 2013
Messages
56
Visit site
Can you then provide "evidence" of where you have heard about the blinkers? I know nothing of this. Little Roodolphrider - the same question to you - would you call this an accident if a sab was on the horse and ran over the huntsman, and didnt stop? Come on people, I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for you if, instead of trying to defend something like this, you put your hands up and said yes, this was wrong, what can we do about it!!! How can you possibly defend something like this - it's like you are so brainwashed/determined to defend the hunting cause that you cannot step back and see when something is so clearly wrong!!!
 

_GG_

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 August 2012
Messages
9,037
Location
Gloucester
Visit site
Can you then provide "evidence" of where you have heard about the blinkers? I know nothing of this. Little Roodolphrider - the same question to you - would you call this an accident if a sab was on the horse and ran over the huntsman, and didnt stop? Come on people, I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for you if, instead of trying to defend something like this, you put your hands up and said yes, this was wrong, what can we do about it!!! How can you possibly defend something like this - it's like you are so brainwashed/determined to defend the hunting cause that you cannot step back and see when something is so clearly wrong!!!

The only thing "wrong" as you put it was that the rider didn't stop. The actual knocking down of the woman was, I believe, purely accidental. This can be discussed until everyone is blue in the face. Just as one side can say that the rider should have seen the women over the hedge, so the other side can say the women should have seen the rider coming over the hedge. The women closest to the hedge was clearly surprised by the emergence of the horse and her intital reaction was to take a step back, which the other woman also did. The only difference was that the first woman stepped forward in time to get out of the way and the second woman didn't. I do not believe the woman hit stepped into the path of the horse, nor do I believe the rider of the horse intentionally rode to knock her down. If he had, he would have missed as it was her who stepped back...had she not done that, she would not have been hit, but it was not her fault that she stepped back and it was not the riders fault that she did either. It was an accident, of that I am 100% sure.

I believe the rider should have stopped, but I can understand the reasons for him not doing so. I don't like it, but I can understand it.

For the record, I am not pro hunt, nor am I anti hunt. What I am is against ANY form of premeditated or malicious action to cause injury, harm or danger to others. I am fed up of people defending sabs when they are responsible for so many acts of premeditated, malicious and dangerous acts that have caused the death of animals and severe injuries to other people.

Nothing is black and white, but when anyone argues one side so vehemently, it is worth taking a step back and making sure emotions aren't clouding judgement.
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
The only thing "wrong" as you put it was that the rider didn't stop. The actual knocking down of the woman was, I believe, purely accidental. This can be discussed until everyone is blue in the face. ……...

^^^^ Correct. We can only assume, and assumptions are all that we can make, is that there was a reason why the rider failed to stop. Presumably when the rider reported to the Police, he explained his reasons, and they were sufficient to have the Police, with the CPS, deciding that there was no case to answer.

Failing to stop, as clearly the rider continued on his way, whilst we may wonder why, isn't a criminal offence. The woman, placed herself in the path of danger, and whilst as the above poster has pointed out, her reason for stepping back and in to the path of the horse will probably never be clear, believing that there was intent to cause or the wish to receive physical injury, from either party, would be preposterous.

It was, as _GG_ says, and from what is available on film, an accident, nothing more or less.

Alec.
 

LittleRooketRider

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 March 2013
Messages
1,335
Location
Dorset
Visit site
Can you then provide "evidence" of where you have heard about the blinkers? I know nothing of this. Little Roodolphrider - the same question to you - would you call this an accident if a sab was on the horse and ran over the huntsman, and didnt stop? Come on people, I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for you if, instead of trying to defend something like this, you put your hands up and said yes, this was wrong, what can we do about it!!! How can you possibly defend something like this - it's like you are so brainwashed/determined to defend the hunting cause that you cannot step back and see when something is so clearly wrong!!!

The only thing "wrong" as you put it was that the rider didn't stop. The actual knocking down of the woman was, I believe, purely accidental.
This^^

And here is evidence OF their claims..about midway down.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-6d9e-On-the-tail-of-the-fox-hunting-louts
 

Doormouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 February 2009
Messages
1,680
Location
The West Country
Visit site
This^^

And here is evidence OF their claims..about midway down.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-6d9e-On-the-tail-of-the-fox-hunting-louts

Blinkers!!! Dear me, they do have some funny ideas. Who in their right mind would hunt a horse in blinkers?

I did comment a while back on one thread, not sure if this one or the other one that if you look closely at the video, the horse appears to jump the puddle, something many will do. It may be that because the horse did this, Mr Doggrell was unaware he had hit the woman.
 
Top