Springback
Well-Known Member
Soap company Lush are producing a bubble bath which raises money for hunt saboteurs:
I feel a boycott coming on!
Lush bubbles
I feel a boycott coming on!
Lush bubbles
Lush bubble bath for sabs. Oh the irony!
- Thread starter Springback
- Start date
3BayGeldings
Well-Known Member
Post deleted by JustHelen
3BayGeldings
Well-Known Member
"Mark Constantine, the 59-year-old co-founder of Lush, which is based in Poole, Dorset, has previously donated large portions of his profits to human rights groups, animal welfare organisations and environmental protesters such as Plane Stupid, who promote non-violent civil disobedience to opposed airport expansion."
Since when were the hunt sabs non-violent and civil? Looks like Mark Constantine has let his standards drop.
Since when were the hunt sabs non-violent and civil? Looks like Mark Constantine has let his standards drop.
JenHunt
Well-Known Member
they've already had an email from me stating that I won't be buying anything from them in the future.
ucmeicu
Well-Known Member
thanks just put in an order..........
Tharg
Well-Known Member
Nothing from me either!
brighthair
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 August 2008
- Messages
- 4,170
- Location
- Preston, Lancashire
I've posted about this in the soapbox, and also started a massive debate on the Luh forum. I've been on there for about 3,4 years and it appears I am the ONLY pro hunt person
However having explained about hunt sabs, people are now asking questions regarding the violence
However having explained about hunt sabs, people are now asking questions regarding the violence
3BayGeldings
Well-Known Member
(whats 'luh' forum?)
brighthair
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 August 2008
- Messages
- 4,170
- Location
- Preston, Lancashire
PMSL - it's been a long day
Lush forum ;-)
Lush forum ;-)
brighthair
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 August 2008
- Messages
- 4,170
- Location
- Preston, Lancashire
this is the latest argument - any help with facts/figures?
Hunt sabs have died for their cause, but have not caused the death of a huntsman or horse. That's pretty significant given some people's attempts to tar the sabs as "violent".
And Lush is promoting the enforcement of a law, not law-breaking; I think that's reasonable.
Hunt sabs have died for their cause, but have not caused the death of a huntsman or horse. That's pretty significant given some people's attempts to tar the sabs as "violent".
And Lush is promoting the enforcement of a law, not law-breaking; I think that's reasonable.
camilla4
Well-Known Member
Quite apart from the gyropcopter case being discussed on another thread, hunt sabs have directly caused the death of many hounds over the years. I can remember one year when one hunt (if I remember correctly, it was the Portman) lost nine hounds as a DIRECT resuilt of saboteur action. Sabs are nothing to do with law enforcement and never have been.
brighthair
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 August 2008
- Messages
- 4,170
- Location
- Preston, Lancashire
thank you. I am actually getting somewhere now - I have basically turned the argument away from pro and anti, and instead asked how people would feel if their money funded violence, and how Lush are going to ensure it doesn't
camilla4
Well-Known Member
Well done Brighthair - and best of luck with that! I had no idea this was where their money was going - thanks for bringing it to our attention.
3BayGeldings
Well-Known Member
Of course they are violent.. there's so many stories of them hurting or killing hounds, and throwing things at horses. There was a story on here last season about someone who had a stone (or was it half a brick?) chucked at their horse, which cut its leg quite badly. Can't remember who it was?? Think it was HHO though. Lush are being ridiculously ignorant in my opinion. By all means, donate it to some animal welfare thing, but to say they actually support hunt sabs?? Wtf?!
camilla4
Well-Known Member
I'd second the violence issue - I've have seen myself the way sabs treat hounds and horse and it ain't pretty - sheer hypocrisy considering they claim they are acting in the name of animal welfare!
brighthair
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 August 2008
- Messages
- 4,170
- Location
- Preston, Lancashire
I've actually suggested it goes to an animal welfare charity
This person is anti hunting but she has said
"Trying to say that hunt sabs are all ok because they have a code of conduct is ludicrous. Some hunt sabs are violent. They hurt people, they hurt animals. Not all, but some. What some of us here are saying is we think Lush should be explicit that they will not be giving money to any hunt sab group which uses violence against people or animals."
camilla4
Well-Known Member
she does at least sound like a reasonable "anti", which is something. I think an alternative animal welfare charity would be a good idea - there are certainly plenty to choose from!
Eagle_day
Well-Known Member
Look on the bright side. As antis hardly ever wash, they're not going to raise an awful lot of money, are they?
JenHunt
Well-Known Member
I'm another one to second the violence issue... a girl I was in PC with (but who hunted elsewhere) had fireworks set off in the faces of them and their horses, and her pony was knifed by a sab. the knife did only do superficial damage to the pony, but had it been 6 inches in any direction it could have done more damage to the poor pony or got becci's leg. The poor pony was literally scarred for life, but also went very shy of loud noises and strange men. not much good for a pony club pony any more!!
Ashgrove
Well-Known Member
snigger
I'll be getting my soap else where in future.
Tharg
Well-Known Member
Just got a reply from them:
Thank you for your recent email. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why we are supporting the Hunt Saboteurs Association, who will directly receive the proceeds from our Fabulous Mrs Fox bubble bar up until and including Boxing Day.
In February 2005, hunting with hounds was made illegal in England and Wales (Scotland having done so a number of years previously). Sadly, despite being supported by more than 80% of the population and after more than 5 years of this ban being in place, hunts right across the country continue to illegally cause untold suffering to animals in the name of sport.
When we first met The Hunt Saboteurs Association, we were very touched when they told us that when the legislation had been passed they had felt huge relief that they would finally be able to retire from the field now that the law would now be protecting our wildlife, but that the sad reality was that they had seen hunts continue in much the same numbers because police forces seemed reluctant to attend and enforce the ban. So they have had to continue to go out week after week, collecting evidence and filming the hunts. They tell us that as long as the Law is not enforced through the courts, they will be out on the fields of Britain, monitoring the hunts and using tried and tested non-violent tactics to get between the fox and the hounds whenever they can. They don't want to be there, but they can see that nobody else is doing the job.
We feel that it is disgraceful that the Hunt Saboteurs Association, a volunteer organisation, are the only people trying to enforce a ban that was passed into Law not just by a majority in Parliament, but with overwhelming support from the majority of the British public. We also believe that this majority think that hunting has ceased now that it is against the law. Sadly this is not the case and we believe the public should have the right to know.
Lush is proud to be associated with the Hunt Saboteurs Association who show the tenacity and bravery to uphold a law that our own police force and government seem reluctant to enforce, despite strong and continued support for the ban from the British public.
We welcome and value feedback from all our customers, so thank you for getting in touch with us. I will be sure to pass your comments on to our Campaigns team for future consideration.
My reply:
It is not the place of aggressive vigilantes to enforce the law. If you research sabs in the real world (avoiding extreme/propaganda websites) you will find that they on the whole are not as wholesome as you may think. It is foolish and shows up social preconceptions to listen to one side alone. There are many incidences where horses and hounds have been injured and people including children intimidated which hardly shows 'tenacity and bravery'. If sabs cared for animals than why does this happen? There are many people who do not like hunting with dogs (or any type of hunting) who do not support saboteurs due to their aggressive non law abiding nature ( including trespass and damage to property).
Hunting is not outlawed, people are legally working within the parameters of an absurd law that wasted too much tax payers money and time in parliament.
You have not addressed the connection to animal rights activism which is a form of terrorism. Again I reiterate my point, I support animal welfare not animal rights.
Thank you for your recent email. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why we are supporting the Hunt Saboteurs Association, who will directly receive the proceeds from our Fabulous Mrs Fox bubble bar up until and including Boxing Day.
In February 2005, hunting with hounds was made illegal in England and Wales (Scotland having done so a number of years previously). Sadly, despite being supported by more than 80% of the population and after more than 5 years of this ban being in place, hunts right across the country continue to illegally cause untold suffering to animals in the name of sport.
When we first met The Hunt Saboteurs Association, we were very touched when they told us that when the legislation had been passed they had felt huge relief that they would finally be able to retire from the field now that the law would now be protecting our wildlife, but that the sad reality was that they had seen hunts continue in much the same numbers because police forces seemed reluctant to attend and enforce the ban. So they have had to continue to go out week after week, collecting evidence and filming the hunts. They tell us that as long as the Law is not enforced through the courts, they will be out on the fields of Britain, monitoring the hunts and using tried and tested non-violent tactics to get between the fox and the hounds whenever they can. They don't want to be there, but they can see that nobody else is doing the job.
We feel that it is disgraceful that the Hunt Saboteurs Association, a volunteer organisation, are the only people trying to enforce a ban that was passed into Law not just by a majority in Parliament, but with overwhelming support from the majority of the British public. We also believe that this majority think that hunting has ceased now that it is against the law. Sadly this is not the case and we believe the public should have the right to know.
Lush is proud to be associated with the Hunt Saboteurs Association who show the tenacity and bravery to uphold a law that our own police force and government seem reluctant to enforce, despite strong and continued support for the ban from the British public.
We welcome and value feedback from all our customers, so thank you for getting in touch with us. I will be sure to pass your comments on to our Campaigns team for future consideration.
My reply:
It is not the place of aggressive vigilantes to enforce the law. If you research sabs in the real world (avoiding extreme/propaganda websites) you will find that they on the whole are not as wholesome as you may think. It is foolish and shows up social preconceptions to listen to one side alone. There are many incidences where horses and hounds have been injured and people including children intimidated which hardly shows 'tenacity and bravery'. If sabs cared for animals than why does this happen? There are many people who do not like hunting with dogs (or any type of hunting) who do not support saboteurs due to their aggressive non law abiding nature ( including trespass and damage to property).
Hunting is not outlawed, people are legally working within the parameters of an absurd law that wasted too much tax payers money and time in parliament.
You have not addressed the connection to animal rights activism which is a form of terrorism. Again I reiterate my point, I support animal welfare not animal rights.
HeWasGeeBee
Well-Known Member
Well done Tharg
Tharg
Well-Known Member
Thank you HeWasGeeBee
3BayGeldings
Well-Known Member
well done Tharg, a good letter.
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
lol lol You mean of course what a wonderful strong reply from Lush. Well done them!
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
As has just been pointed out on another forum, there was no parliamentary majority for the act, otherwise they wouldn't have needed to be ultra vires and pass it through with the Parliament Act....
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
My reply to the generic e-mail:
Dear Ms Jansson,
Thank you for your generic e-mail which completely failed to answer any of the points raised in my complaint. If I sent correspondence like that in my line of work, I would probably be fired but that is bye the bye.
I take issue with the fact that Lush feel they have to support a group that employs violent, para-military style tactics against law abiding people. You seem certain that hunts are illegally hunting, yet the CPS does not appear to share this view - since the Hunting Act was passed in February 2005 there have been a handful of hunts charged with offences under the Act. Of these only two cases secured a conviction, one of which was later overturned on appeal. Since then the case against the Devon & Somerset Stag hounds, The Isle of Wight Hunt, The Heythrop, The Ullswater and the Percy have all been thrown out due to lack of evidence. This rather suggests to me that hunts are working within the law.
Yet despite this hunting people continue to be harassed by self-styled hunting vigilantes. We have nothing to hide - but just imagine how you would feel if I believing that you might be about to start shoplifting, followed you around every Saturday morning, videoing you 'just in case you broke the law' - this is the intrusion that hunting people have had to deal with. The Hunt Saboteurs claim that they do not employ violent tactics - I beg to differ - hounds have been sprayed with citronella causing great distress to these animals, our vehicles have been damaged and hate campaigns launched against people and businesses known to support hunting. One website I came across even incited hate mail to be sent to parents of those working for hunts.
You also claim that the Hunting Act was passed by a majority in parliament, again I beg to differ. If the Act had majority support in parliament then there would have been no need to utilise the Parliament Act to force the law through against the will of the House of Lords who claimed the Act was an unworkable bodge. I think also that it would be more accurate to state that the majority of the UK population don't really give a damn about hunting one way or the other.
It amuses me that you claim the Hunt Saboteurs Association are brave, do brave people cover their faces at protests?? Do brave people hide behind letter campaigns and false bomb threats? Do brave people beat up anglers and terrorise someone who had stopped their vehicle at traffic lights and happened to display a pro-hunting sticker? If this is your definition of brave, then I would be interested to know what you defined cowardly behaviour as. The police in rural areas are massively overstretched and do a brilliant job in allocating scarce resources - every time the hunt monitors phone in a spurious accusation of illegal hunting, the police must turn out to satisfy themselves that we are indeed trail hunting or flushing to a bird of prey. This takes officers away from other real crimes.
I am sorry to say that I will no longer be purchasing any products from Lush. I had been intending to buy the bulk of my Christmas gifts from you, but this will no longer be the case. You have chosen to support an organisation which alienates a large group within the UK, where a more general animal charity, such as the Animal Health Trust would have allowed those of us who enjoy country sports to continue to support your shops.
Your sincerely
Dear Ms Jansson,
Thank you for your generic e-mail which completely failed to answer any of the points raised in my complaint. If I sent correspondence like that in my line of work, I would probably be fired but that is bye the bye.
I take issue with the fact that Lush feel they have to support a group that employs violent, para-military style tactics against law abiding people. You seem certain that hunts are illegally hunting, yet the CPS does not appear to share this view - since the Hunting Act was passed in February 2005 there have been a handful of hunts charged with offences under the Act. Of these only two cases secured a conviction, one of which was later overturned on appeal. Since then the case against the Devon & Somerset Stag hounds, The Isle of Wight Hunt, The Heythrop, The Ullswater and the Percy have all been thrown out due to lack of evidence. This rather suggests to me that hunts are working within the law.
Yet despite this hunting people continue to be harassed by self-styled hunting vigilantes. We have nothing to hide - but just imagine how you would feel if I believing that you might be about to start shoplifting, followed you around every Saturday morning, videoing you 'just in case you broke the law' - this is the intrusion that hunting people have had to deal with. The Hunt Saboteurs claim that they do not employ violent tactics - I beg to differ - hounds have been sprayed with citronella causing great distress to these animals, our vehicles have been damaged and hate campaigns launched against people and businesses known to support hunting. One website I came across even incited hate mail to be sent to parents of those working for hunts.
You also claim that the Hunting Act was passed by a majority in parliament, again I beg to differ. If the Act had majority support in parliament then there would have been no need to utilise the Parliament Act to force the law through against the will of the House of Lords who claimed the Act was an unworkable bodge. I think also that it would be more accurate to state that the majority of the UK population don't really give a damn about hunting one way or the other.
It amuses me that you claim the Hunt Saboteurs Association are brave, do brave people cover their faces at protests?? Do brave people hide behind letter campaigns and false bomb threats? Do brave people beat up anglers and terrorise someone who had stopped their vehicle at traffic lights and happened to display a pro-hunting sticker? If this is your definition of brave, then I would be interested to know what you defined cowardly behaviour as. The police in rural areas are massively overstretched and do a brilliant job in allocating scarce resources - every time the hunt monitors phone in a spurious accusation of illegal hunting, the police must turn out to satisfy themselves that we are indeed trail hunting or flushing to a bird of prey. This takes officers away from other real crimes.
I am sorry to say that I will no longer be purchasing any products from Lush. I had been intending to buy the bulk of my Christmas gifts from you, but this will no longer be the case. You have chosen to support an organisation which alienates a large group within the UK, where a more general animal charity, such as the Animal Health Trust would have allowed those of us who enjoy country sports to continue to support your shops.
Your sincerely
ucmeicu
Well-Known Member
went to get some.......... sold out!
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
Ahh but you see for the sake of a few thousand pounds made on this range; they have alienated a section of the population who will never buy anything from any of the LUSH ranges in future. I hope they think it was worth it.
ucmeicu
Well-Known Member
or you could say they have gained alot of new customers ........ the percentage against hunting far outweighs those for... might be a great marketing move.