Is Otis Ferry fox hunting's worst enemy?

Might I suggest that embarrassing though Ferry may be to some of you, reasoned logic will be of even less use. What on God's earth is the point of fighting biased and ignorant drivel with reason and logic?

If Ferry's of the wall, is that really such a bad thing?

Alec.
 
Absolutely not, I have never met Otis but his attitude and conduct is akin to those who fought in WWII. He stood up to the socialist scum that enacted the Hunting Act 2004.

I believe he, Otis may have picked up a criminal record in the process - I assume that it may now be annulled.

As I have said elsewhere, those who banned hunting in 2004 were no better than Hitler's scum that banned hunting in Nazi Germany in July 1934.

The Gestapo (they were not called Gestapo then) Hitler's Bavarian Henchmen, went to every pack of hounds - into the kennels and ordered the hunt staff to shoot all the hounds.

Any of the staff who refused where threatened with a similar fate, those who still refused were shot by the Hitler's thugs.

If anybody reads the Hunting Act 2004 and the powers given to Police Officers, powers that do not exist in any other statute, will find they are no better than Hitler's ban.

Therefore, all you lilly livered types who think Otis Ferry's stand is bad for hunting, think about all those hounds and hunt staff that were shot in 1934 by the same people who gassed millions of jews, gypsies, and the disabled!
 
Judgemental said:
Absolutely not, I have never met Otis but his attitude and conduct is akin to those who fought in WWII. He stood up to the socialist scum that enacted the Hunting Act 2004.

I believe he, Otis may have picked up a criminal record in the process - I assume that it may now be annulled.

As I have said elsewhere, those who banned hunting in 2004 were no better than Hitler's scum that banned hunting in Nazi Germany in July 1934.

The Gestapo (they were not called Gestapo then) Hitler's Bavarian Henchmen, went to every pack of hounds - into the kennels and ordered the hunt staff to shoot all the hounds.

Any of the staff who refused where threatened with a similar fate, those who still refused were shot by the Hitler's thugs.

If anybody reads the Hunting Act 2004 and the powers given to Police Officers, powers that do not exist in any other statute, will find they are no better than Hitler's ban.

Therefore, all you lilly livered types who think Otis Ferry's stand is bad for hunting, think about all those hounds and hunt staff that were shot in 1934 by the same people who gassed millions of jews, gypsies, and the disabled!
Click to expand...

May I remind all and sundry of the wording of Section 8 of the Hunting Act 2004 subsection 6 " The exercise of a power under this section does not require a warrant".

That is the only legislation, save for the Terrorism Act that does not require a constable to have a warrant in his possession when searching land or premises!


8 Search and seizure .(1)
This section applies where a constable reasonably suspects that a person (“the suspect”) is committing or has committed an offence under Part 1 of this Act. .
(2)
If the constable reasonably believes that evidence of the offence is likely to be found on the suspect, the constable may stop the suspect and search him. .
(3)
If the constable reasonably believes that evidence of the offence is likely to be found on or in a vehicle, animal or other thing of which the suspect appears to be in possession or control, the constable may stop and search the vehicle, animal or other thing. .
(4)
A constable may seize and detain a vehicle, animal or other thing if he reasonably believes that— .
(a)
it may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings for an offence under Part 1 of this Act, or .
(b)
it may be made the subject of an order under section 9. .
(5)
For the purposes of exercising a power under this section a constable may enter— .
(a)
land; .
(b)
premises other than a dwelling; .
(c)
a vehicle. .
(6)
The exercise of a power under this section does not require a warrant.
 
rosiefronfelen said:
god, another bloody history lesson on the war, i thought i'd heard enough from my mother and grandfather.
Click to expand...

Clearly the listening devices were myopic at the time, along with the statutes of the Hunting Act 2004, otherwise I am sure you would have posted these facts long ago, bearing in mind you are listed as a 'Veteran'.

Me thinks you are fundamentally 'riding over hounds', best you go to the back of the field!
 
Judgemental said:
Clearly the listening devices were myopic at the time, along with the statutes of the Hunting Act 2004, otherwise I am sure you would have posted these facts long ago, bearing in mind you are listed as a 'Veteran'.

Me thinks you are fundamentally 'riding over hounds', best you go to the back of the field!
Click to expand...

oh i am ancient-go away.
 
For heavens sake girls, calm down. This is, or should be a debate, and one in which we "consider" the views of others!

I will concede though, JM, that the apparent lack of need for a warrant is strange.

Alec.
 
a1b2c3 said:
For heavens sake girls, calm down. This is, or should be a debate, and one in which we "consider" the views of others!

I will concede though, JM, that the apparent lack of need for a warrant is strange.

Alec.
Click to expand...

Alec you are so right, there are one or two too who are, to be kind, are clearly in need of some relaxation.

That said, the lack of a warrant is a most serious matter and could be remedied via Statutory Instrument, although the latter was incorporated by the previous administration in order to have a tool with which to tighten the act.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040037_en_1

It's all worth a read and I think a large number of hunting folk would benefit from reading the act and understanding it in detail, in the coming weeks and months - nay I don't think so, I know they will.

It's just a question of how to get some folk to relax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top