antiantianti
Well-Known Member
Hi Sarah....
There is much more about the law that has not been presented here
I can assure you LACS or any animal group in the campaign, do not turn a blind eye to any animal cruelty and certainly do not support the inaction of some sections of the police to enforce parts of the law...
What you have been reading is two opposing sides...
The law should be obeyed and and there are no excuses for that not happening. Those that seek to break the law deliberately are not justified in their actions no matter how much a person may disagree with the law.
There is another agenda going on and it is subtle, but all this talk of flushing deer is all about trying and discredit the hunting ban.
Its gets confusing because its not about really the deer or flushing out or shooting it comes down to some people trying to imply the wording is not clear in law to the point that they want it scrapped.
In affect they are seeking this as they know the ban would have to be lifted on that area of law while it was rewritten and sent back to Parliament. It would allow hunting with dogs back through the back door.
They believe by going to court with a case against Mr Giles Bradshaw (Leader of the League Against The League Against Cruel Sports) an underground shady group who are opposed to the hunting ban and in league with the Countryside Alliance.
That with the current legal wording surrounding flushing out of deer, that the courts would throw out a case after they heard Mr Bradshaw speak.
As he would pretend he was just dog walking and likes to chase the deer without killing. This is all part of their game-plan to try and confuse a jury and the judge.
This is playing with the meaning of the law and not following what the law clearly indicates. As soon as he thinks he's created enough doubt in the minds of the jury and judge. He believes that the judge would throw out the case and hence cause part of the law to need reviewing.
If that happened it would bring the entire legitimacy of the ban into question, but unluckily for them he will not get his day in court and nobody will listen to his whinging...
He will face a court one day however of that I'm sure but it will not be how he expects it. Instead it will be with the charge of hunting and not about flushing out.
But he and his group are really not important in the bigger picture. And there are far more important parts of the ban that need to be dealt with. Namely ensuring the police enforce the ban more rigoursly.
Of course Bradshaw and his group do not know that his scam would work so hes trying to trick animal campaigners to side with him with his distortion of the wording of the law.
He wont succeed as the hunting ban is here to stay and eventually the law section he is trying to abuse will be tightened.
That is the real aim of Giles Bradshaw and his group. Not that they will admit it. But those in the campaign to support the hunting ban are well aware of this deception that's going on.
It has becomes difficult to know who is speaking the truth as many hide out to pretend they are anti hunting at first. It makes it awkward but not impossible to spot them.
The issue of the deers could have been easily have been about foxes, its just part of the excuse.
There is no reason for any person to flush deer for fun....and there are a number of safe humane alternatives that can be used which prevent deer from causing any damage to crops or foliage.
In all my battles in the past few months, not one of those reporting to care about the deer who make the point about flushing & shooting have ever mention humane alternatives.
In fact Bradshaw run a million miles from replying to that challenge.
Reason being its not the argument they are seeking, they do not want people to focus on humane alternatives and certainly not on animal welfare reasons as it neutralises their whole reason for their charade.
The real issue is about the ban is not this small obscure aspect that some are trying to chip away at in order to weaken the ban.
The law is working and 26 convictions have taken place so its not the question that the ban has failed far from it. But there is however is much more the Police could and should be doing.
Animal Groups, MPs, and the public rightly expect those that break the law to be prosecuted. The real issue is about illegal hunting in general and how those that break the law get arrested and prosecuted.
Attitudes are the main problem and not the wording of the law. With some police forces its true to say their has been a problem for many years, long before the ban came in....
The thing is many hunters came from the establishment, Lawyers, Barristers, Judges, Priest, Chief Police Officers.....
And as a result over the years an arrogance has built up that the hunts were untouchable....Now the battle to change attitudes amongst the public and in politics has worked and its why we have a ban...
However the police in some areas have not changed. And have yet to realise that they also have to accept that the hunters are no longer people out for a jolly ride but are indeed criminals if they break the law...
I have no doubt the Police will soon see that they have no choice but to obey parliament and the public's will. And they will have enforce the ban in full which is what they should have done in the first year.
It is the fault of the Police in some areas of the country that the hunters still feel they can get away with illegal hunting. In those areas hunters feel as if nothing has changed so they can openly break the law.
The public are rightly angry that more is not being done to support a law they overwhelmingly back. The Police on this occasion will have to listen.
So there you have it, long, complicated games being played against animal welfare. But the end result the games wont work.
We should also not forget another risk to the hunting ban and that is David Cameron the Conservative leader who has pledged to overturn the ban on hunting and and make it legal again if he bacme Prime Minister.
For those that campaign to protect Fox's, deer, hare & mink from being torn or blasted to death for fun, its another part of the battle. But its one that 73% of the public support us and hundreds of MPs...
We will not just walk away as if the job is done, we're here to ensure the ban stays in place and that its better policed and we're needed made stronger.
To save this going around in circles I do not intend to post any more on this topic, I believe I have given out all the answers to questions in a reasonable way and my position is more then clear from this posting.
Regards
Sarah if you want to ask something further then contact me via e-mail below.
Gary Hills
Campaign Director
Support the Hunting Act (Ban) UK
PO Box 427
Stevenage
SG1 9FD
back.the-hunt-ban@inbox.com
Support the ban sign the Downing St Petition
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ProtectDemocracy/
Campaign cause page
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/causes/54656?recruiter_id=6294415
There is much more about the law that has not been presented here
I can assure you LACS or any animal group in the campaign, do not turn a blind eye to any animal cruelty and certainly do not support the inaction of some sections of the police to enforce parts of the law...
What you have been reading is two opposing sides...
The law should be obeyed and and there are no excuses for that not happening. Those that seek to break the law deliberately are not justified in their actions no matter how much a person may disagree with the law.
There is another agenda going on and it is subtle, but all this talk of flushing deer is all about trying and discredit the hunting ban.
Its gets confusing because its not about really the deer or flushing out or shooting it comes down to some people trying to imply the wording is not clear in law to the point that they want it scrapped.
In affect they are seeking this as they know the ban would have to be lifted on that area of law while it was rewritten and sent back to Parliament. It would allow hunting with dogs back through the back door.
They believe by going to court with a case against Mr Giles Bradshaw (Leader of the League Against The League Against Cruel Sports) an underground shady group who are opposed to the hunting ban and in league with the Countryside Alliance.
That with the current legal wording surrounding flushing out of deer, that the courts would throw out a case after they heard Mr Bradshaw speak.
As he would pretend he was just dog walking and likes to chase the deer without killing. This is all part of their game-plan to try and confuse a jury and the judge.
This is playing with the meaning of the law and not following what the law clearly indicates. As soon as he thinks he's created enough doubt in the minds of the jury and judge. He believes that the judge would throw out the case and hence cause part of the law to need reviewing.
If that happened it would bring the entire legitimacy of the ban into question, but unluckily for them he will not get his day in court and nobody will listen to his whinging...
He will face a court one day however of that I'm sure but it will not be how he expects it. Instead it will be with the charge of hunting and not about flushing out.
But he and his group are really not important in the bigger picture. And there are far more important parts of the ban that need to be dealt with. Namely ensuring the police enforce the ban more rigoursly.
Of course Bradshaw and his group do not know that his scam would work so hes trying to trick animal campaigners to side with him with his distortion of the wording of the law.
He wont succeed as the hunting ban is here to stay and eventually the law section he is trying to abuse will be tightened.
That is the real aim of Giles Bradshaw and his group. Not that they will admit it. But those in the campaign to support the hunting ban are well aware of this deception that's going on.
It has becomes difficult to know who is speaking the truth as many hide out to pretend they are anti hunting at first. It makes it awkward but not impossible to spot them.
The issue of the deers could have been easily have been about foxes, its just part of the excuse.
There is no reason for any person to flush deer for fun....and there are a number of safe humane alternatives that can be used which prevent deer from causing any damage to crops or foliage.
In all my battles in the past few months, not one of those reporting to care about the deer who make the point about flushing & shooting have ever mention humane alternatives.
In fact Bradshaw run a million miles from replying to that challenge.
Reason being its not the argument they are seeking, they do not want people to focus on humane alternatives and certainly not on animal welfare reasons as it neutralises their whole reason for their charade.
The real issue is about the ban is not this small obscure aspect that some are trying to chip away at in order to weaken the ban.
The law is working and 26 convictions have taken place so its not the question that the ban has failed far from it. But there is however is much more the Police could and should be doing.
Animal Groups, MPs, and the public rightly expect those that break the law to be prosecuted. The real issue is about illegal hunting in general and how those that break the law get arrested and prosecuted.
Attitudes are the main problem and not the wording of the law. With some police forces its true to say their has been a problem for many years, long before the ban came in....
The thing is many hunters came from the establishment, Lawyers, Barristers, Judges, Priest, Chief Police Officers.....
And as a result over the years an arrogance has built up that the hunts were untouchable....Now the battle to change attitudes amongst the public and in politics has worked and its why we have a ban...
However the police in some areas have not changed. And have yet to realise that they also have to accept that the hunters are no longer people out for a jolly ride but are indeed criminals if they break the law...
I have no doubt the Police will soon see that they have no choice but to obey parliament and the public's will. And they will have enforce the ban in full which is what they should have done in the first year.
It is the fault of the Police in some areas of the country that the hunters still feel they can get away with illegal hunting. In those areas hunters feel as if nothing has changed so they can openly break the law.
The public are rightly angry that more is not being done to support a law they overwhelmingly back. The Police on this occasion will have to listen.
So there you have it, long, complicated games being played against animal welfare. But the end result the games wont work.
We should also not forget another risk to the hunting ban and that is David Cameron the Conservative leader who has pledged to overturn the ban on hunting and and make it legal again if he bacme Prime Minister.
For those that campaign to protect Fox's, deer, hare & mink from being torn or blasted to death for fun, its another part of the battle. But its one that 73% of the public support us and hundreds of MPs...
We will not just walk away as if the job is done, we're here to ensure the ban stays in place and that its better policed and we're needed made stronger.
To save this going around in circles I do not intend to post any more on this topic, I believe I have given out all the answers to questions in a reasonable way and my position is more then clear from this posting.
Regards
Sarah if you want to ask something further then contact me via e-mail below.
Gary Hills
Campaign Director
Support the Hunting Act (Ban) UK
PO Box 427
Stevenage
SG1 9FD
back.the-hunt-ban@inbox.com
Support the ban sign the Downing St Petition
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ProtectDemocracy/
Campaign cause page
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/causes/54656?recruiter_id=6294415
