Meynell Hunt prosecuted

[sonicgold]

Agree with MG

 

[Alec Swan]

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

They have been found guilty

Just why Greenall elected to not speak in his own defence, is a mystery, at the very least. If by offering no defence, he was found guilty, then it would seem unlikely that an appeal will be forthcoming.

How any of the evidence offered could have been accepted, by a Court, is a mystery. The rabid Harris, a self styled expert, offered opinions which couldn't have come from a stable or balanced mind, and video footage where no one could be recognised, were offered and accepted by a court.

How anyone could have been found guilty with such a lack of sustainable evidence, is beyond me.

Alec.

 

[oakash]

Yes: One other thing that disturbs me is that in the early part of the video, a hunt supporter at the covert- side turns and waves at the antis' camera. So the hunt KNEW the antis were skulking in the wood. And yet we are asked to believe that they then went ahead and broke the law??!! Hmm..

I have to say that I don't know enough about this particular case, but it does seem mighty strange.

Another point about the morality of law-breaking - IF it happened in this particular case, is that, as Tony Benn once pointed out, " ...all human progress is made by people breaking absurd laws..". Food for thought indeed..or don't antis think at all?

 

[M_G]

Another point about the morality of law-breaking - IF it happened in this particular case, is that, as Tony Benn once pointed out, " ...all human progress is made by people breaking absurd laws..". Food for thought indeed..or don't antis think at all?

and if I find it absurd to travel at 30mph through a village does this mean its fine for me to break that law?

sorry the law is the law. Hunts lost the right to hunt the old way and all the hunts I know go out of their way to make sure they are hunting WITHIN the law.

If you cant do the time dont do the crime

 

[happyhunter123]

and if I find it absurd to travel at 30mph through a village does this mean its fine for me to break that law?

sorry the law is the law. Hunts lost the right to hunt the old way and all the hunts I know go out of their way to make sure they are hunting WITHIN the law.

If you cant do the time dont do the crime

30mph speed limits are there to prevent the deaths of pedestrians in villages! In no way could that be considered absurd or unjust. Like I said, you shouldn't break the Hunting Act (unless you really have to) because it damages the image of hunting, and, I think, the more prosecutions the less easy it is to demonstrate how awful the law is. This would lessen our chance of repeal. But there is nothing, in my view morally wrong about breaking an unjust law. If following a certain religion was outlawed by a country,and people broke it and were punished because they believed that that law was unfair, and based on bigotry and prejudice, who's side would you be on? No reasonable person would be saying 'the law applies to everyone', 'these people think they're above the law' etc. Now of course, restricting religious beliefs is a lot more serious than restricting the method in which you kill a fox, but many still believe that it would be acceptable to break the law, not only because it is absurd (making illegal a humane method of killing the quarry species) but more importantly because it is unjust, in that the law came in to being because of prejudice, ignorance of the facts and hatred of the people who practiced it.

 

[Starbucks]

Interesting. I hunt with these guys, I've hunted all my life (only recently with the Meynell) and it very much feels like they've layed a trail, rather than proper hunting, all the days I've been out. I'm more of a hedge hopper than a hound wacther though.

I'm in Thailand at the moment, on a little Island with lots of poorly stray dogs. Why can't these people come and do some good here? Or even better go somewhere less fun to help the thousands of suffering animals in the rest of the world instead of picking on us!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! It makes me very sad.

 

[ester]

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..

absolutely but this is certainly not the case of a hound going deaf or huntsman struggling to call hounds off

I think its certainly an interesting video to use for a conviction as it does very much relies upon the supposition of hunting (ie no hounds and fox seen in the same frame so it cannot be viewed actually taking place)

I'm not actually sure what they could use as defence in this instance tbh.. and perhaps why they didn't.. If they weren't hunting fox why would a guy on foot be chasing one back into cover? It would rather be expected he would know the difference between fox and hound.

 

[soggy]

I have never read such drivel.

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

Judge

With you 100% on both points.
I have never heard an anti spout anything but drivel. I think its all part of their warped view of reality.

I'm all for leading HM up the proverbial garden path. The further the better IMO

 

[Alec Swan]

and if I find it absurd to travel at 30mph through a village does this mean its fine for me to break that law?

.......

There's a world of difference between a law which protects the lives of other humans, and a law which attempts to steer our perceived morality, and one which would have one section of society follow the conditions which you, and those of your ilk would dictate.

30mph speed limits are there to prevent the deaths of pedestrians in villages! In no way could that be considered absurd or unjust. Like I said, you shouldn't break the Hunting Act (unless you really have to) because it damages the image of hunting, and, I think, the more prosecutions the less easy it is to demonstrate how awful the law is. This would lessen our chance of repeal. But there is nothing, in my view morally wrong about breaking an unjust law. If following a certain religion was outlawed by a country,and people broke it and were punished because they believed that that law was unfair, and based on bigotry and prejudice, who's side would you be on? No reasonable person would be saying 'the law applies to everyone', 'these people think they're above the law' etc. Now of course, restricting religious beliefs is a lot more serious than restricting the method in which you kill a fox, but many still believe that it would be acceptable to break the law, not only because it is absurd (making illegal a humane method of killing the quarry species) but more importantly because it is unjust, in that the law came in to being because of prejudice, ignorance of the facts and hatred of the people who practiced it.

Good points, and well made too. For as long as we accept injustice, then that injustice will continue. Does anyone remember the fuss over "The Sunday Trading laws"? When it became obvious that they weren't working, then many of the larger department stores decided to get their heads together, and as they described it, "Test the Law". I'd suggest that the time has come when the Hunting Law has been suitably "Tested" and found to be ineffectual and pointless. Time for repeal.

Alec.

 

[lagartijamick]

Only a 3k fine? Hardly seems worth all the effort.

As for the footage, looks pretty clear to me what was going on.

If people break the law then they should be punished.

Whether the law is right or wrong is another question entirely.

 

[combat_claire]

If people break the law then they should be punished.

On that note I'm off to report my neighbour's grandson - he is over 14 and repeatedly fails to practise his longbow skills at weekends...

 

[lagartijamick]

On that note I'm off to report my neighbour's grandson - he is over 14 and repeatedly fails to practise his longbow skills at weekends...

Maybe he couldn't find a willing clergyman to supervise him.

 

[M_G]

30mph speed limits are there to prevent the deaths of pedestrians in villages! In no way could that be considered absurd or unjust. Like I said, you shouldn't break the Hunting Act (unless you really have to) because it damages the image of hunting, and, I think, the more prosecutions the less easy it is to demonstrate how awful the law is. This would lessen our chance of repeal. But there is nothing, in my view morally wrong about breaking an unjust law. If following a certain religion was outlawed by a country,and people broke it and were punished because they believed that that law was unfair, and based on bigotry and prejudice, who's side would you be on? No reasonable person would be saying 'the law applies to everyone', 'these people think they're above the law' etc. Now of course, restricting religious beliefs is a lot more serious than restricting the method in which you kill a fox, but many still believe that it would be acceptable to break the law, not only because it is absurd (making illegal a humane method of killing the quarry species) but more importantly because it is unjust, in that the law came in to being because of prejudice, ignorance of the facts and hatred of the people who practiced it.

But a law is still a law and if each of us chose to break what we considered to be unjust or absurd laws then it would be total caos.

I really couldnt care less if hunters kill foxes or not however if they go out with intent to hunt a fox with hounds they are breaking the law and should not expect sympathy when caught and punished

 

[Dogfox04]

30mph speed limits are there to prevent the deaths of pedestrians in villages! In no way could that be considered absurd or unjust. Like I said, you shouldn't break the Hunting Act (unless you really have to) because it damages the image of hunting, and, I think, the more prosecutions the less easy it is to demonstrate how awful the law is. This would lessen our chance of repeal. But there is nothing, in my view morally wrong about breaking an unjust law. If following a certain religion was outlawed by a country,and people broke it and were punished because they believed that that law was unfair, and based on bigotry and prejudice, who's side would you be on? No reasonable person would be saying 'the law applies to everyone', 'these people think they're above the law' etc. Now of course, restricting religious beliefs is a lot more serious than restricting the method in which you kill a fox, but many still believe that it would be acceptable to break the law, not only because it is absurd (making illegal a humane method of killing the quarry species) but more importantly because it is unjust, in that the law came in to being because of prejudice, ignorance of the facts and hatred of the people who practiced it.

I'm sure most people believe some law or another to be wrong or injust in some way, and consider it their right in a democratic society to protest against it, or even break it. Isn't this what hunt sabs were doing pre-ban?

 

[combat_claire]

Maybe he couldn't find a willing clergyman to supervise him.

Our local priest is still serving time for eating a mince pie on Christmas Day...

 

[Alec Swan]

I'm sure most people believe some law or another to be wrong or injust in some way, and consider it their right in a democratic society to protest against it, or even break it. Isn't this what hunt sabs were doing pre-ban?

No, not really. Pre ban the Sabs and Monitors (or what ever daft names have been given them) infringed upon the rights of others, trespassed and caused untold damage and inconvenience, on one memorable and to be regretted occasion, caused the death of a Hunt Supporter, and continue to break the laws of our land, whenever the mood seems to take them, and apparently, it's all in the name of justice.

As a matter of interest, and considering that you're apparently new to this forum, are you, or were you a Hunt Saboteur?

Alec.

 

[happyhunter123]

But a law is still a law and if each of us chose to break what we considered to be unjust or absurd laws then it would be total caos.

I really couldnt care less if hunters kill foxes or not however if they go out with intent to hunt a fox with hounds they are breaking the law and should not expect sympathy when caught and punished

Yes, but thankfully we don't have that many absurd or unjust laws in this country so there probably wouldn't be complete chaos. And of course they should expect sympathy-they are the victims of this terrible piece of legislation.

I can see why some packs may have to revert to conventional style hunting to keep going, in areas where trail hunting isn't welcomed, that being said I wouldn't advise it.

 

[lagartijamick]

Our local priest is still serving time for eating a mince pie on Christmas Day...

lol.

Do the crime, serve the time.