Meynell Hunt prosecuted

[Boxers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-19187798


Just caught a news item and I think they said the two have today been prosecuted for hunting with dogs. The link I have given just says that they are going to Court and doesn't give the outcome, but I'm sure that's what I heard on the news.

 

[happyhunter123]

Have they been prosecuted? Do we know for sure yet? I do hope not . Haven't heard much about this case, only found out about it the other day.

 

[Judgemental]

From the link:

Two hunt monitors filmed members of the Meynell and South Staffordshire Hunt at Sutton on the Hill, Derbyshire, last October.

Fox expert Professor Stephen Harris told the court that, on the video, the excited squeals of fox hounds could be heard inside the wood.

He said: "That sound is, they've found a fox, it's fresh, they're on top of it."

To suggest a noise in a covert by a hound or hounds - any noise is evidence of hounds hunting a live fox is about as thin as it gets.

Hounds make all sorts of noises for all sorts of reasons.

A fox or indeed anything could have passed through the covert crossing the trail just before the trail was laid through the wood.

Similarly hounds would speak to the trail in the covert would they not

Where is the evidence as to exactly what the hounds were speaking to?

How this Professor can say: "they've found a fox, it's fresh, they're on top of it" when clearly he was not there and is merely an expert witness, it the most remarkable evidential feature I have seen or heard of since the Hunting Act 2004.

How does this Professor know hounds were on top of a fox, they could have encountered anything.

Clearly the Professor is making an assumption and is being paid to make that assumption.

 

[Judgemental]

A DAYS FOXHUNTING BY ALASTAIR JACKSON

For a considerable number of years I have had on my office shelf, two tapes entitled A Days Foxhunting by Alastair Jackson.

The tape is fairly long and has on one side what is the most excellent recording of hounds speaking, indeed I believe it is a recording of the Cattistock in 1984.

I can guarantee that that tape if played on say a vehicle cassette player in any covert, would 'fool' any hunt monitor and so called expert witness.

The tapes were produced under Copyright of by K.G. Engineering Ltd, of Newton Abbot, Devon.

Whether they still exist, I don't know.

Nevertheless I bet Alastair Jackson can still supply the tapes.

Every hunt in every part of the country should have a supply of the tapes and carry them in appropriate 4 x 4s to be played in covert's and where ever suitable when so called 'Hunt Monitors' are present.

I will guarantee that no expert witness will be able to distinguish between hounds speaking to a trail, a live fox or the recording.

Indeed a great deal of amusement can be gained from 'hunt monitor' confusion.

I once played the tape over a loudspeaker and a considerable number of horses, became shall we say, very excited. The sound could be heard at a distance of two miles.

From my experience this could become a very effective 'hunt monitor' deterrent and means of leading them up the 'garden path'.

Of course there is no reason why the tape or original could not be digitally remastered for DVDs and modern in-car facilities.

 

[Boxers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-19198527

They have been found guilty

 

[WestCoast]

Perhaps it might occur to them in future that the laws of the land apply to all of us.

Judgmental - what you are suggesting is aiding and abetting a crime. If the law is obeyed by drag huting this would not be necessary.

Forum moderator - why has this post suggesting this not been removed immediately.

 

[Judgemental]

Perhaps it might occur to them in future that the laws of the land apply to all of us.

Judgmental - what you are suggesting is aiding and abetting a crime. If the law is obeyed by drag huting this would not be necessary.

Forum moderator - why has this post suggesting this not been removed immediately.

LOL So playing a 1984 recording of hounds hunting in a covert is aiding and abetting a crime, when the real hounds are miles away hunting a trail.

Me thinks I have touched upon an interesting ruse because it sounds Paulag if you are against hunting and you recognise, how you and your compatriots will be fooled by such tactics.

I have not for one moment suggested any pack of hounds would be hunting illegally, perish the very thought.

I also get the impression you are familiar with the tape and know how effective it is, otherwise you would not want the post which is full of innocent suggestions removed?

 

[combat_claire]

Of course it was okay for the antis to play recordings of the Fitzwilliam Huntsman to attempt to wrest control of the pack from him, with no thought as to the welfare of the hounds. The first ever injunction against a group rather than a named individual was granted to the Fitzwilliam Hunt using an obscure tort of 'Trespass of Goods'.

 

[Judgemental]

Hello Combat, looks as if we have opened the season on this forum with an outing of an anti - Paulag

The more I hear, the more I realise just how potent such recordings are, in order to give so called Hunt Monitors the maximum 'run around'.

 

[combat_claire]

TALLY HO OVER!!!

(Can we still holloa antis!?)

 

[WestCoast]

Hello Combat, looks as if we have opened the season on this forum with an outing of an anti - Paulag

The more I hear, the more I realise just how potent such recordings are, in order to give so called Hunt Monitors the maximum 'run around'.

Nope not a hunt monitor, but was emotionally mature enough to drag hunt rather than need to torture the wildlife for my own entertainment 30 years ago when we didn't need tapes because we weren't breaking the law. You are a complete disgrace to all horse people, giving us a bad name by thinking you are above the laws of the land. And terminally up yourself to think anyone who disagrees with you must belong to a campaigning organisation - I was simply browsing and accidentally clicked on the wrong link. Remember that those guys that suggested a riot and didn't attend got jail sentences before you suggest law breaking again. Someone else might report you to the police rather than just report your post.

Paula

 

[combat_claire]

In my favourite book Atticus Finch tells his children that 'You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view-until you climb into his skin and walk around in it'.

This is something that those who fall on the anti-hunting side of the debate would do well to think about before criticising Judgemental for a flippant comment.

I am an amateur member of hunt staff, I also regular follow with other packs - some who have been constantly targeted by self-styled hunt monitors and others who have been relatively left alone.

The pressure that we are under to obey the auspices of this crazy law; which has serious welfare implications that the antis prefer to ignore whilst facing spurious prosecutions from so-called charities is immense. Everybody now seems to have a camera or a video recorder on their phone and legal trail hunting to the uninitiated can look very much like illegal pre-ban hunting (this is after all what we are trying to replicate).

A favoured tactic of the monitors is to leave prosecutions until just before the time expires to bring a prosecution. Can you remember exactly what you were doing 6 months ago? I can barely say what I was doing 6 weeks ago. This makes it nigh on impossible to properly defend a case.

Finally how Stephen Harris can claim to be able to tell the difference between hounds hunting a pre-laid trail and hounds hunting quarry is ridiculous and I hope that the Meynell will appeal.

 

[happyhunter123]

Am I right in thinking that this is the sixth successful prosecution against a hunt (correct me if I am wrong)? I can list : Minehead Harriers, Quantock Staghounds (x2), Fernie, Crawley & Horsham, Meynell & South Staffs. Six (against five different hunts) isn't disastrous, we just don't want it growing much bigger really. After all five hunts represent just 1.8 (about) % of all packs of hounds in Britian. Does anyone know which other hunts (excluding the Heythrop) are facing potential prosecution at the moment?

 

[happyhunter123]

Perhaps it might occur to them in future that the laws of the land apply to all of us.

Judgmental - what you are suggesting is aiding and abetting a crime. If the law is obeyed by drag huting this would not be necessary.

Forum moderator - why has this post suggesting this not been removed immediately.

The laws of the land do, of course apply to all of us. I would not suggest breaking the Hunting Act, but only because of the damage it does to the image of hunting, which therefore lessens our chances of repeal. The question is-is it ever OK to break the law? The answer is yes, sometimes, if you believe that the law is unjust. Many people believe that the Hunting Act is an unjust law. If there was a law that prevented you from doing something you loved that you believe is harmless, and you felt that the law only came about because of prejudice and ignorance, and lies being spread about it, maybe you would believe that it was morally acceptable to break it. You may not agree that the law is unjust, but can you see it from a hunting person's point of view?

 

[combat_claire]

Very roughly there are 300 packs of hounds in the UK. If on average they go out 72 times a season (for an average 2 day a week pack) that equates to 21,600 hunting days per year. Multiply that by 7 years of the Hunting Ban equals 151,200 hunting days taken.

6 prosecutions out of that = 0.003% of hunts found guilty breaking the law. So hysterical cries of widespread law breaking look even more stupid than they did before...

 

[Judgemental]

Nope not a hunt monitor, but was emotionally mature enough to drag hunt rather than need to torture the wildlife for my own entertainment 30 years ago when we didn't need tapes because we weren't breaking the law. You are a complete disgrace to all horse people, giving us a bad name by thinking you are above the laws of the land. And terminally up yourself to think anyone who disagrees with you must belong to a campaigning organisation - I was simply browsing and accidentally clicked on the wrong link. Remember that those guys that suggested a riot and didn't attend got jail sentences before you suggest law breaking again. Someone else might report you to the police rather than just report your post.

Paula

I have never read such drivel.

So what's illegal about leading 'Hunt Monitors' a merry dance and what's illegal about sitting in one's 4 x 4 with the doors open and a tape or DVD blaring forth with a 1984 recording of a pack of hounds in full cry? Indeed from a distance it's very convincing that it might just be a real pack! Are they on a trail LOL
It could of course be used to train young entry, now there's a thought.

Upon reflection I think it is an excellent idea to mislead hunt monitors as much as possible.

 

[Judgemental]

Finally how Stephen Harris can claim to be able to tell the difference between hounds hunting a pre-laid trail and hounds hunting quarry is ridiculous and I hope that the Meynell will appeal.

Or the 1984 tape of the Cattistock hounds being played in some spinny or covert by such as myself, with a flask of coffee a sandwich or two, innocently looking at the wildlife through the glasses.

Can you imagine, a bunch of hunt monitors rocking up with the local constabulary, "look officer he's sitting in his vehicle playing a tape of a live pack of hounds hunting a fox, arrest him, he has mislead us" LOL

 

[combat_claire]

Or the 1984 tape of the Cattistock hounds being played in some spinny or covert by such as myself, with a flask of coffee a sandwich or two, looking at the wildlife through the glasses.

Presumably the only discernible difference will be the cursing from you as you rewind the cassette with a pencil to save draining your battery!

 

[happyhunter123]

Very roughly there are 300 packs of hounds in the UK. If on average they go out 72 times a season (for an average 2 day a week pack) that equates to 21,600 hunting days per year. Multiply that by 7 years of the Hunting Ban equals 151,200 hunting days taken.

6 prosecutions out of that = 0.003% of hunts found guilty breaking the law. So hysterical cries of widespread law breaking look even more stupid than they did before...

Sorry I don't understand your maths here . 0.003% of hunts would equal 0.84 hunts prosecuted successfully. And it is 6. Anyway the point is, the numbers of hunts successfully prosecuted for hunting wild mammals with hounds is low compared to number of hunts. My worry is that there are more prosecutions to come, especially as the League have hired all these new 'monitors' for this coming season. It's a worry.

 

[happyhunter123]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUX3uaD-uUw

Here is the video they used to gain this conviction. I haven't had time to watch any of it, its rather long

 

[Boxers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUX3uaD-uUw

Here is the video they used to gain this conviction. I haven't had time to watch any of it, its rather long

At about 15.20 is where a fox break out and they shout it back in. The camamn got a bit excited and his camera wobbled like mad so goodness knows how he got the footage!

Didn't watch whole vid so there may be more.

 

[PaulT]

The pressure that we are under to obey the auspices of this crazy law; which has serious welfare implications that the antis prefer to ignore whilst facing spurious prosecutions from so-called charities is immense.

Oh Claire, don't. You'll have me welling up if you carry on.

Seriously, you really should get help for that victim mentality. No one forces you to devise whacky ways to try and circumvent the law. On the one hand you openly delight in playing games with the police and the courts, and on the other whinge about the difficulties of obeying the law.

Before the Hunting Act was passed your friends were queuing up to sign a declaration that they would break any legislation which interfered with their 'right' to hunt. Since 2005 they have consistently stuck two fingers up at the law. There is a big difference between not happening to like a particular law and actively seeking ways to circumvent it (at best) or break it (at worst). The way they have gone about their activities attracts suspicion, and you really have no grounds to play the victim. Take responsibility for, and live with the consequences of, your collective actions.

A favoured tactic of the monitors is to leave prosecutions until just before the time expires to bring a prosecution.

So it’s the fault of monitors? Incredible, see what I mean!

 

[combat_claire]

Sorry I don't understand your maths here . 0.003% of hunts would equal 0.84 hunts prosecuted successfully. And it is 6. Anyway the point is, the numbers of hunts successfully prosecuted for hunting wild mammals with hounds is low compared to number of hunts. My worry is that there are more prosecutions to come, especially as the League have hired all these new 'monitors' for this coming season. It's a worry.

Sorry I meant 0.003% of hunting days have ended in prosecution. Long day and maths was never my forte...

 

[MerrySherryRider]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-19198527

Oh dear, another hunt guilty of breaking the law. They are embarrassing, its a shame.

 

[combat_claire]

Oh Claire, don't. You'll have me welling up if you carry on.

Seriously, you really should get help for that victim mentality. No one forces you to devise whacky ways to try and circumvent the law. On the one hand you openly delight in playing games with the police and the courts, and on the other whinge about the difficulties of obeying the law.

Before the Hunting Act was passed your friends were queuing up to sign a declaration that they would break any legislation which interfered with their 'right' to hunt. Since 2005 they have consistently stuck two fingers up at the law. There is a big difference between not happening to like a particular law and actively seeking ways to circumvent it (at best) or break it (at worst). The way they have gone about their activities attracts suspicion, and you really have no grounds to play the victim. Take responsibility for, and live with the consequences of, your collective actions.



So it’s the fault of monitors? Incredible, see what I mean!

Not at all about circumventing the law, but obeying the law as it is written. It must have been very disappointing for the antis to wake up on the 19th February 2005 and find that contrary to expectations - not only had the hunts not disbanded en masse but were as strong, if not stronger than ever before.

My issue is with the spurious prosecutions that are brought by the anti-hunting brigade, who hide under the mantra of a charitable status and when the prosecution is dropped expect the taxpayer to foot the bill.

You continue to claim that there is mass law breaking, yet just 0.003% hunting days and 6 registered packs of hounds have been found guilty of any offence. Despite a vast sum of money invested in monitors. The League/RSPCA/IFAW have been forced to bolster the stats with poaching offences so it doesn't look like such a ridiculous waste of their patrons' money.

I wish to see this law that has had no positive benefit for animal welfare and creates a great deal of pressure and stress on law abiding citizens removed from the statute book once and for all.

One only has to look at the footage that regularly comes out of Baronsdown to realise that the anti-hunting brigade haven't got the first clue about animal welfare or wildlife management.

 

[Boxers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-19198527

Oh dear, another hunt guilty of breaking the law. They are embarrassing, its a shame.

Erm, this is the same article I already posted in here.

 

[happyhunter123]

Not at all about circumventing the law, but obeying the law as it is written. It must have been very disappointing for the antis to wake up on the 19th February 2005 and find that contrary to expectations - not only had the hunts not disbanded en masse but were as strong, if not stronger than ever before.

My issue is with the spurious prosecutions that are brought by the anti-hunting brigade, who hide under the mantra of a charitable status and when the prosecution is dropped expect the taxpayer to foot the bill.

You continue to claim that there is mass law breaking, yet just 0.003% hunting days and 6 registered packs of hounds have been found guilty of any offence. Despite a vast sum of money invested in monitors. The League/RSPCA/IFAW have been forced to bolster the stats with poaching offences so it doesn't look like such a ridiculous waste of their patrons' money.

I wish to see this law that has had no positive benefit for animal welfare and creates a great deal of pressure and stress on law abiding citizens removed from the statute book once and for all.

One only has to look at the footage that regularly comes out of Baronsdown to realise that the anti-hunting brigade haven't got the first clue about animal welfare or wildlife management.

Exactly right! Not that LACS will ever tell you that just six have been prosecuted-they quote 185 or something. Then they claim that offences were committed, if not by hunts by 'people connected with hunting'. Utter nonsense, a desperate attempt to make the Act seem like a success. But then then League were never very good at telling the public the truth. They contradict themselves really-they accuse nearly every hunt of breaking the law, while claiming the Act is successful. Can't have it both ways, sorry.

 

[oakash]

Coming across this thread, I find the most appalling thing about it is the acceptance by the court of Prof Stephen Harriss' 'evidence'. The man is widely known to be a virulent anti-hunting spokesman - I honestly do not believe he could bring an unbiased mind to this case.
As has rightly been pointed out, people with any real concern for conservation and wildlife would HAVE to be on our side, and the attempt to repeal the Hunting Act which has been so damaging for animal welfare. Any anti-hunter with a vestige of morals should be out there campaigning alongside pro - hunters for the repeal of a wicked law.

 

[M_G]

My thoughts for what its worth:

Any hunt caught DELIBERATLY breaking the law should be prosecuted however it should be proven without a shadow of a doubt that they SET OUT with the INTENTION of breaking the law rather than just having a nauty hound or two who go deaf once in a while.

I am sure we all know how hard it can be to call off 1 domestic dog when they get an idea to go chase for instance a cat or squirrel, it (I imagine) will be slightly harder to successfully call back a full pack who have been bred over many hundreds of years to hunt and as animals do have minds of their own..

 

[combat_claire]

Well said MG