i could be wrong i could be Wright

[JanetGeorge]

I guess you believe the same is true of IFAW and the RSPCA as I'm sure they'd like a defintive judgement from the High Court on this as well. grin

I doubt if they would. After all, as things stand the chances are that they'll GET convictions at Magistrates Court - and the publicity that goes with them. Of course, chances are those convictions will be over-turned on Appeal but - hey-ho - Appeals never get the same publicity - and can take quite a while.

Once the Law Lords clarify the law (if it CAN be clarified) there might be loads MORE 'not guilty' verdicts at the lower level. :grin:

 

[Eagle_day]

"I wonder how much this latest legal fiasco cost the LACS. £200,000? £300,000? More or less? Perhaps we should make it into a game. That's a lot of tacky little toy foxes to flog."

I couldn't put it better myself, Reggie. Three new office staff, a dozen or so paid vigilantes in the field, 3 or 4 privately funded prosecutions ... and, with this one decision, all your previous victories have turned to ashes, your entire strategy come to naught. No wonder Mike Hobday looked so sh*te in front of the TV camera.

I wonder if the sabs will start getting a lot nastier. Perhaps they were just warming up intimidating children out with the Grove & Rufford 2 or 3 weeks ago.

 

[DingDongScabiousOnHi]

The judgement makes quite fascinating reading. The law states that a person commits and offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog. The judge asks what the definition of hunting contained in the law actually is. Of course the law does not define the term and he is led to conclude that he does not know what the law is.

Remarkable really that they spent so long debating and defining a law and cocked it up to such an extent.

 

[Paul T]

Your rant against the RSPCA has nothing to do with the point, which is there is a pool of funding available to overturn Cottle's judgement in the High Court.

Your comments demonstrate your complete ignorance about the continuing co-operation between LACS, IFAW & the RSPCA. There's little doubt there will be definitive judgements on specific points of the law as this is taken higher. I for one thank the CA and its friends for providing the opportunity for this.

 

[Paul T]

I can understand, from your cynical and twisted perspective, that may seem the case to you, but I'm satistified the prosecutions actually aren't about obtaining publicity, they're about upholding a law which prevents animal cruelty. Viewed from this perspective, a definitive judgement would be very welcome.

 

[Paul T]

Why are you so full of bile and hatred?

 

[peakpark]

If sabs are intimidating children then I would say they are the ones full of bile and hatred.

 

[Paul T]

Unsubstantiated comments about sabs may or may not be true, but I was asking ED why he is so full of bile and hatred. Afterall, we can all see this reflected in his post.

 

[Eagle_day]

Can you? How amazing but probably a reflection of your own. The bile and hatred isn't mine: I don't hate antis, that'd be like hating frost or fog or any other inconvenience that get's in the way of a day's hunting.

But I did think Mike Hobday looked awful on TV - bags under the eyes and that. It must be a heavy cross to bear: the LACS strategy being blown away like chaff in the wind.

As for 'unsubstantiated comments': I heard them from a Grove follower I've known for over 20 years. I believe him.

 

[wurzel]

"they're about upholding a law which prevents animal cruelty."

How does it do that?