Scratchline
Well-Known Member
You should see me when I forget to take my medication!
Minority Pastime trailer on youtube
- Thread starter Scratchline
- Start date
You should see me when I forget to take my medication!
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
2004 was a great year wasnt it.
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
I wrote to Hilary Benn about whether it should be illegal or not to flush and chase deer
tbh he does not give a ****
funny how he can't bring himself to even use the word flush lol
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30446717&l=e4cda5949e&id=1559808200
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30437298&l=baad29cca8&id=1559808200
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
I agree with what you say VS. Problem is we have many silly people admitting to breaking the law and in the end the simple way a government will deal with the problem is ban the packs full stop. Even I dont wish for this and fully support drag hunting etc but it will come sadly.
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
Total rubbish SL
They absolutely do not want to revisit the law
The Government wanted different legislation anyhow and said it would not work the way it was done.
Their proposals were defeated.
They absolutely do not want to revisit the law
The Government wanted different legislation anyhow and said it would not work the way it was done.
Their proposals were defeated.
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
And it is very rare to find anyone who admits to breaking the law.
The stag hunting I described was 100% legal.
The stag hunting I described was 100% legal.
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
I think pretty much everybody agrees the deer shouldnt be killed, I certainly think the law on this point is a mess. But it was tory peers trying to screw up the bill that put you in this position wasnt it?
After May 6th we will tighten it all up and straighten it all out for you lol
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
Haven;t you read the letter SL they don;t give a **** about deer being flushed and chased and they don't plan to amend the law.
You aren't suggesting he is lieing are you?
You aren't suggesting he is lieing are you?
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
I copied this to Benn too. There really is no problem with flushing and chasing deer with over two dogs. I am sure if he objected he would make it plain. You don;t think he would just stand by and allow the law to be broken do you?
Stephen Otter
Chief Constable
Devon & Cornwall Constabulary
Middlemoor HQ
Exeter
EX2 7HQ
20 April 2010
Dear Mr Otter,
As you are aware I use my three dogs to flush deer out of cover. You will know that the
Government have previously advised that flushing out of cover with dogs is only legal subject to
strict conditions in the law.
I have recently contacted the RSPCA regarding my activities and they have advised me that they
think they are legal. They now advise that by flushing out of cover the law only means driving to
guns and not just flushing out of cover.
On that basis I am continuing to use my dogs to flush deer out both on my land and on the moor.
The courts have ruled that flushing out while distinct from chasing can include an element of
chasing so I am also chasing deer with dogs if I feel like it.
Personally I think this law is appallingly drafted and absurd and I do not think anybody in reality
has a clue what it is. The Government have advised that it is illegal and legal at different times. I
feel therefore I might as well pick whatever interpretation suits me.
The RSPCA have stated with respect to my actions that 'It may seem unlikely that any offence is
being commited here' and 'Flushing is the act of driving an animal from cover for the purpose of
shooting'.
I also want my local hunt to carry out these activities and intend to write to them giving them
permission on my land.
My prospective labour MP Mark Cann has backed the RSPCA's interpretation of the law. I would
expect him to encourage you to adopt it if elected.
I feel it is only fair to copy this letter to various interested people and organisations in order to give
them an opportunity to object. If none of them nor you do so I hope it will strengthen both mine
and the hunts case if we were ever prosecuted for the deliberate use of out dogs to flush deer or
other wild mammals.
I am in the meantime continuing to use my dogs as detailed both on my own l;and and in the wider
countryside.
Yours sincerely,
Giles Bradshaw
cc RSPCA, LACS, Countryside Alliance, Mark Cann, POWA
Stephen Otter
Chief Constable
Devon & Cornwall Constabulary
Middlemoor HQ
Exeter
EX2 7HQ
20 April 2010
Dear Mr Otter,
As you are aware I use my three dogs to flush deer out of cover. You will know that the
Government have previously advised that flushing out of cover with dogs is only legal subject to
strict conditions in the law.
I have recently contacted the RSPCA regarding my activities and they have advised me that they
think they are legal. They now advise that by flushing out of cover the law only means driving to
guns and not just flushing out of cover.
On that basis I am continuing to use my dogs to flush deer out both on my land and on the moor.
The courts have ruled that flushing out while distinct from chasing can include an element of
chasing so I am also chasing deer with dogs if I feel like it.
Personally I think this law is appallingly drafted and absurd and I do not think anybody in reality
has a clue what it is. The Government have advised that it is illegal and legal at different times. I
feel therefore I might as well pick whatever interpretation suits me.
The RSPCA have stated with respect to my actions that 'It may seem unlikely that any offence is
being commited here' and 'Flushing is the act of driving an animal from cover for the purpose of
shooting'.
I also want my local hunt to carry out these activities and intend to write to them giving them
permission on my land.
My prospective labour MP Mark Cann has backed the RSPCA's interpretation of the law. I would
expect him to encourage you to adopt it if elected.
I feel it is only fair to copy this letter to various interested people and organisations in order to give
them an opportunity to object. If none of them nor you do so I hope it will strengthen both mine
and the hunts case if we were ever prosecuted for the deliberate use of out dogs to flush deer or
other wild mammals.
I am in the meantime continuing to use my dogs as detailed both on my own l;and and in the wider
countryside.
Yours sincerely,
Giles Bradshaw
cc RSPCA, LACS, Countryside Alliance, Mark Cann, POWA
Eagle_day
Well-Known Member
My my, hasn't Scratchy had a lot of time on his hands? Perhaps it wasn't his turn to wear the fox suit.
"OMG of course you havent seen or heard any coverage. The Tory's and CA are desperate not to let anybody focus on the planned repeal vote. They will not discuss it, claim it isnt an election issue even though on their own manifesto."
Is that an admission and indeed frustration that the antis' PR has been useless, completely unreported and a total waste of money? Why should we provide you with a platform for you to trot out your anti-hunting, and in contravention of the spirit if not the word of charity law, your anti-Conservative propaganda? Far better to deny you the oxygen of publicity.
"If my backing British law causes offence ..."
Would that be Scottish law or the law as it applies in England and Wales? There's no such thing as 'British law'.
"OMG of course you havent seen or heard any coverage. The Tory's and CA are desperate not to let anybody focus on the planned repeal vote. They will not discuss it, claim it isnt an election issue even though on their own manifesto."
Is that an admission and indeed frustration that the antis' PR has been useless, completely unreported and a total waste of money? Why should we provide you with a platform for you to trot out your anti-hunting, and in contravention of the spirit if not the word of charity law, your anti-Conservative propaganda? Far better to deny you the oxygen of publicity.
"If my backing British law causes offence ..."
Would that be Scottish law or the law as it applies in England and Wales? There's no such thing as 'British law'.
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
To be honest Giles hasnt it sunk in yet that they dont give a **** about you and what you are doing as it really is upsetting nobody whatsoever. FFS you have told everybody you possibly can. It takes up much of your life yet still nobody gives a stuff. Your desire to make a huge issue about you flushing deer etc has been a waste of time, your time and no they have no need to ammend the law which relates to what you are discussing buddy. Give up, you have failed in your attempt.
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
Exactly SL they don't actually give a toss if people break the law.
And you accept that the law is flawed and think it is fine for people to break it.
I don't give a toss if I break the law either.
If you don't like a law just break it.
Everything is cool
We are after all in agreement. It's a badly drafted law and should not be obeyed.
And you accept that the law is flawed and think it is fine for people to break it.
I don't give a toss if I break the law either.
If you don't like a law just break it.
Everything is cool
We are after all in agreement. It's a badly drafted law and should not be obeyed.
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
haha and two posts ago you were saying the law needs to be tightened up lol.
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
Funny thing is that when I went hunting they were doing just that flushing, chasing and killing deer 
It's hard to have it both ways. If I can do it so can anybody and you acknowledge that I can and don't think the law should be changed.
It's hard to have it both ways. If I can do it so can anybody and you acknowledge that I can and don't think the law should be changed.
isee
New User
If people can still flush animals with dogs legally surely the law does need to be changed.
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
Can't you read what SL is saying - this was put in by Tory pro hunt peers and does not have to be changed because no one gives a toss if animals are still being flushed and chased legally or illegally.
What's the point of changing a law if no one gives a toss if it is broken or not because no one actually thinks it should have to be obeyed?
"I think pretty much everybody agrees the deer shouldnt be killed, I certainly think the law on this point is a mess"
It seems to me my little campaign has gone pretty well if I have managed to persuade pretty much everyone that the law is a mess and that the deer I flush should not have to be shot for the flushing to be legal.
Whether people give a toss that the law is a mess is another matter of course.
Does it actually matter if laws don't make sense if people can just break them? That is an interesting philosophical question.
Last edited:
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
No, no, no. Each case can be taken on its own merits. Dont put words into my mouth. In YOUR case I would support you. I havent mentioned anything else. Do not misrepresent what I say please!
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
Regarding the law Giles it will not be changed and certainly not given the lame excuses of fox hunters which none of you can deny. I will not discuss the rest of my post any further but will allow you all to digest it.
The Lame Claims File
The fox-lovers handbook of answers to lame claims as to why its acceptable to torture foxes to death.
Lame Claim Answer
1. Its a BAD law... Baa-aad! Unenforceable... confusing... we dont understand it. Read it more carefully! Improve it, tighten it up, monitor violations more rigorously, enforce it more diligently. If the law against child molestation was found to be unenforceable, what would we do? Repeal the law? I dont think so.
2. It took up too much parliamentary time. No it didnt. This law was introduced by proper parliamentary process in accordance with the will of the majority of the British public, who consider hunting with dogs barbaric and unacceptable, and see this law as a flagship move towards better treatment of ALL animals wild animals, farm animals, and laboratory animals. The fact that Tim Bonner of the Countryside Alliance boasts that the Tories could smash this law in a day is proof that these people care nothing for the will of the people. God help us all if they seize power.
3. Foxes are vermin; if we didnt hunt them, wed be overrun with them. So... how come the Hunts construct artificial earths to encourage the breeding of foxes, and, when foxes become scarce in a particular area, the hunts re-introduce them? Hunt supporters have elsewhere actually claimed that if there were no foxhunting, foxes would have been extinct by now. Surely there must be more humane ways to save an endangered species?
By the way... DEFRA defines which animals are classed as vermin in the UK. The fox is not among them. Foxes are NOT vermin. This is in fact a very old argument only now heard from hunting advocates who have not kept up. Its so obviously a lie, that it has been replaced in the mouths of most Countryside Alliance members with this next (pretty much opposite) argument.
4. We dont persecute foxes - we love them... we conserve them... we preserve a balance - we even enoble them by hunting them - and we strengthen the breed by picking off the weakest. Well, make up your minds - just now, they were vermin - pests - to be controlled. Now suddenly they are precious - and I bet they enjoy being enobled by being pursued and dismembered alive by dogs. Yes, folks, if there were no foxes, the foxhunters would have no fun. So they make sure there are enough to hunt and the numbers go down in a particular area, they import them. (Oh, and by the way, if being hunted is good for the species... perhaps wed better instigate the hunting of humans... itll improve the strength of our species too... goody!) If we really want to get technical, my ecology advisor adds, This whole savannah theory of maintaining balance by removing predators only applies when those species have coevolved together and are infact in a delicate balance. We did not co-evolve predating foxes in this manner, so this argument is ecologically unsound.
5. Its traditional - traditions are good - they are our birth-right. Oh, really? So the traditions of wife beating, bear baiting, slave whipping, burning of supposed witches, birching of schoolchildren (and so many more atrocities)... were all traditions that ought to have been preserved... right?! Just because something has been done for years does not make it right. If traditions were always upheld, women would still not have a vote. Traditions my ass.
6. Foxes are vicious and cruel - havent you seen what they do to a chicken coop if they get in? They kill all the birds for pleasure. Not true - its another bit of outdated propaganda. If a hungry animal suddenly finds food, it will eat it... just like we do... but the foxes kill extra chickens with the purpose of burying them for future use, when the pickings are slim. Left to themselves they will come back and bury those chickens... but they are not completely stupid; if there is a farmer with a gun waiting to shoot him, Mr. Fox is not going to come back and collect the food supplies. Killing for pleasure? Make no mistake... there is only one animal that does this... MAN.
7. Foxes are dirty. Nope - theyre not... our rescued foxes spend at least as much time grooming themselves as the average domestic cat; in fact they are very cat-like in many ways... this is something I never realised until I spent time with these delightful animals. They dont cover up their poo, but neither do any of our domestic dogs. Its not the end of the world, and certainly not a good enough reason to persecute them.
The Lame Claims File
The fox-lovers handbook of answers to lame claims as to why its acceptable to torture foxes to death.
Lame Claim Answer
1. Its a BAD law... Baa-aad! Unenforceable... confusing... we dont understand it. Read it more carefully! Improve it, tighten it up, monitor violations more rigorously, enforce it more diligently. If the law against child molestation was found to be unenforceable, what would we do? Repeal the law? I dont think so.
2. It took up too much parliamentary time. No it didnt. This law was introduced by proper parliamentary process in accordance with the will of the majority of the British public, who consider hunting with dogs barbaric and unacceptable, and see this law as a flagship move towards better treatment of ALL animals wild animals, farm animals, and laboratory animals. The fact that Tim Bonner of the Countryside Alliance boasts that the Tories could smash this law in a day is proof that these people care nothing for the will of the people. God help us all if they seize power.
3. Foxes are vermin; if we didnt hunt them, wed be overrun with them. So... how come the Hunts construct artificial earths to encourage the breeding of foxes, and, when foxes become scarce in a particular area, the hunts re-introduce them? Hunt supporters have elsewhere actually claimed that if there were no foxhunting, foxes would have been extinct by now. Surely there must be more humane ways to save an endangered species?
By the way... DEFRA defines which animals are classed as vermin in the UK. The fox is not among them. Foxes are NOT vermin. This is in fact a very old argument only now heard from hunting advocates who have not kept up. Its so obviously a lie, that it has been replaced in the mouths of most Countryside Alliance members with this next (pretty much opposite) argument.
4. We dont persecute foxes - we love them... we conserve them... we preserve a balance - we even enoble them by hunting them - and we strengthen the breed by picking off the weakest. Well, make up your minds - just now, they were vermin - pests - to be controlled. Now suddenly they are precious - and I bet they enjoy being enobled by being pursued and dismembered alive by dogs. Yes, folks, if there were no foxes, the foxhunters would have no fun. So they make sure there are enough to hunt and the numbers go down in a particular area, they import them. (Oh, and by the way, if being hunted is good for the species... perhaps wed better instigate the hunting of humans... itll improve the strength of our species too... goody!) If we really want to get technical, my ecology advisor adds, This whole savannah theory of maintaining balance by removing predators only applies when those species have coevolved together and are infact in a delicate balance. We did not co-evolve predating foxes in this manner, so this argument is ecologically unsound.
5. Its traditional - traditions are good - they are our birth-right. Oh, really? So the traditions of wife beating, bear baiting, slave whipping, burning of supposed witches, birching of schoolchildren (and so many more atrocities)... were all traditions that ought to have been preserved... right?! Just because something has been done for years does not make it right. If traditions were always upheld, women would still not have a vote. Traditions my ass.
6. Foxes are vicious and cruel - havent you seen what they do to a chicken coop if they get in? They kill all the birds for pleasure. Not true - its another bit of outdated propaganda. If a hungry animal suddenly finds food, it will eat it... just like we do... but the foxes kill extra chickens with the purpose of burying them for future use, when the pickings are slim. Left to themselves they will come back and bury those chickens... but they are not completely stupid; if there is a farmer with a gun waiting to shoot him, Mr. Fox is not going to come back and collect the food supplies. Killing for pleasure? Make no mistake... there is only one animal that does this... MAN.
7. Foxes are dirty. Nope - theyre not... our rescued foxes spend at least as much time grooming themselves as the average domestic cat; in fact they are very cat-like in many ways... this is something I never realised until I spent time with these delightful animals. They dont cover up their poo, but neither do any of our domestic dogs. Its not the end of the world, and certainly not a good enough reason to persecute them.
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
8. “It’s NATURAL for men to hunt foxes, just like Lions hunt antelope.” Well, the flaw in this argument is blindingly obvious. Lions kill for food... but humans do not eat foxes. There is only one reason to hunt down and murder a fox... for fun... for ‘sport’. It’s not in any way justifiable. It’s barbaric, and it’s cruel - it’s also clearly a crime, as defined by the 1909 Cruelty to Animals act. By the way, have we not noticed that it is NOT the hunters who manage to pull off this great ‘sporting achievement’ - it’s the hounds?
9. “Ah well, yes - it's natural for DOGS to kill foxes.” Rubbish. It is in no way natural. We’ve already published pictures of our local dogs playing with the rescued foxes... along with deer and various birds. The fox is a naturally, delightfully gentle creature – timid, and built for running. The average dog, when decently looked after, is also playful, gentle and peaceful. The only way to make dogs vicious - ready to tear apart Foxes, Stags, Hares, or even Humans - is to brutalise them - half-starve them - deprive them of affection, and house them in such wretched conditions that they go berserk when allowed out to run. The Hunts test the hound puppies on fox cubs. It’s the charming practice of ‘cubbing’, wherein, once the parent fox has been slaughtered, the tiny fox-cubs are poked out or dug out from their homes, and forced into the path of the young hounds - already ‘toughened up’ and ready to mutilate. The young hounds eat the fox pups alive. If the young dogs are not vicious enough, the Huntsmen shoot them - another nice piece of ‘natural selection’ designed to make the pack not only healthy but also as vicious as possible. Even leaving aside this abhorrent cruelty to foxes, in a decent society it ought to be illegal to raise a dog for the sole purpose of killing. (In fact, as noted in LC 11, currently it IS illegal to breed dogs for dog-fighting... we logically we need to bring things into line... so that what is law for the yobs is law for the toffs too.
It’s interesting that perhaps the foxhunting community of people have been in a sense brutalised, too – brought up in a way that has desensitised them to the cruelty around them.
10. “By hunting we eliminate the weakest animals, so we strengthen the species. The foxes are either killed, or get away if they are strong. Just like in Africa.” Good try. But this is just another sly (yes, it’s the humans who are sly – not the dear old foxes) attempt to bend the truth. In fact, the appallingly cruel methods used in the Hunt ensure that the chances survival of a fox in no way depend on its natural strength. Foxes are routinely imported, kept in bags so they are weakened and disoriented when they are let out in front of a pack of brutalised hounds. And the truth is that the occasional fox who actually does manage to elude the dogs is usually ‘accounted for’, by digging out and being shot anyway. No-one should be allowed to treat animals this way.
11. “It’s all about class! The middle and working classes are jealous of the toffs, and want to deprive them of their rights - among them, the right to treat any animal on their land any way they see fit.” Nonsense. It is nothing to do with class. Decent people are equally outraged if a young thug in Yorkshire goes out with his pit-bull terrier and encourages it to savage wild animals, or if a rich land-owner in Berkshire goes out with HIS brutalised dogs and commits an atrocity on a fox, or rabbit, or otter. None of us care a jot about class. We care about animals. Brutal behaviour is brutal behaviour. There is no excuse.
12. “You people who live in towns don’t understand the ways of the countryside. Leave us alone and mind your own business!” This is a good one... so glib... so ALMOST convincing. The Countryside Alliance is very keen to tell the ‘townie’ politicians how to run the whole of Britain - and has managed to make farming the most heavily subsidised industry in the land. Yet these same people deny the towns people the right to protect animals in the countryside... as if ‘country people’ OWNED our wildlife. Imagine land-owners insisting that, if child-abuse happened on their land, nobody in town had the right to try to stop it. We’d all say... ‘these children might be on your land, but they still have rights - we reserve the right to monitor your behaviour and stop the cruelty where we find it.’ Yet these Countryside Alliance stalwarts would have us accept that wild animals straying on to their land legitimately become subject to their every whim. It’s a vile conceit.
13. “You are taking away our human right to socialise in our traditional way.” Not at all. We absolutely defend your right to meet up on a crisp country morning, dressed up in pinks, and scamper about on your horses. What we dispute is your right to trample everything in your path, endangering people’s property, children, pets and livestock. And we dispute your right to kill animals for your pleasure, in a hideously cruel manner.
Drag hunting, with the hounds following a scent other than fox, gives you all the socialising you need, and all the exercise; and it has the huge advantage that the path of the hunt can be pre-planned, so that your neighbours are not threatened by invasion. If you refuse to accept this as a decent alternative, it can only be that you need the thrill of killing, and that you actually crave the feeling of wanton disregard for anyone around you... that feeling of superiority, perhaps – “Lords of the Manor” and all that? It’s time to come into the 21st century.
14. “If we are prevented from killing foxes using dogs, farmers have to control these pests by shooting them. Farmers are poor marksmen, so many foxes die a lingering death from gunshot wounds - which is inhumane.” Inhumane? Excuse me?!!! Given the choice of being pursued until your muscles are paralysed and then ripped apart by hounds; or shot with a bullet, with the chance of an instant death, which would you choose? I asked this question to the man who would be the new head of DEFRA (the Department of the Environment and Farming and Rural Affairs) if the Tories were elected in May. He at least had the decency to say he wasn’t entirely sure. But many of the Countryside Alliance propagandists continue to insist that being killed by hounds is a desirable option. Sorry, but... simply not believable. We always come back to the same conclusion... the only reason to be indulging in this filthy blood sport is that you enjoy causing unnecessary pain to animals.
Own up, guys. You are cornered – and about to be run to Earth!
Thankyou to brian may for his kind permission to use this piece.
9. “Ah well, yes - it's natural for DOGS to kill foxes.” Rubbish. It is in no way natural. We’ve already published pictures of our local dogs playing with the rescued foxes... along with deer and various birds. The fox is a naturally, delightfully gentle creature – timid, and built for running. The average dog, when decently looked after, is also playful, gentle and peaceful. The only way to make dogs vicious - ready to tear apart Foxes, Stags, Hares, or even Humans - is to brutalise them - half-starve them - deprive them of affection, and house them in such wretched conditions that they go berserk when allowed out to run. The Hunts test the hound puppies on fox cubs. It’s the charming practice of ‘cubbing’, wherein, once the parent fox has been slaughtered, the tiny fox-cubs are poked out or dug out from their homes, and forced into the path of the young hounds - already ‘toughened up’ and ready to mutilate. The young hounds eat the fox pups alive. If the young dogs are not vicious enough, the Huntsmen shoot them - another nice piece of ‘natural selection’ designed to make the pack not only healthy but also as vicious as possible. Even leaving aside this abhorrent cruelty to foxes, in a decent society it ought to be illegal to raise a dog for the sole purpose of killing. (In fact, as noted in LC 11, currently it IS illegal to breed dogs for dog-fighting... we logically we need to bring things into line... so that what is law for the yobs is law for the toffs too.
It’s interesting that perhaps the foxhunting community of people have been in a sense brutalised, too – brought up in a way that has desensitised them to the cruelty around them.
10. “By hunting we eliminate the weakest animals, so we strengthen the species. The foxes are either killed, or get away if they are strong. Just like in Africa.” Good try. But this is just another sly (yes, it’s the humans who are sly – not the dear old foxes) attempt to bend the truth. In fact, the appallingly cruel methods used in the Hunt ensure that the chances survival of a fox in no way depend on its natural strength. Foxes are routinely imported, kept in bags so they are weakened and disoriented when they are let out in front of a pack of brutalised hounds. And the truth is that the occasional fox who actually does manage to elude the dogs is usually ‘accounted for’, by digging out and being shot anyway. No-one should be allowed to treat animals this way.
11. “It’s all about class! The middle and working classes are jealous of the toffs, and want to deprive them of their rights - among them, the right to treat any animal on their land any way they see fit.” Nonsense. It is nothing to do with class. Decent people are equally outraged if a young thug in Yorkshire goes out with his pit-bull terrier and encourages it to savage wild animals, or if a rich land-owner in Berkshire goes out with HIS brutalised dogs and commits an atrocity on a fox, or rabbit, or otter. None of us care a jot about class. We care about animals. Brutal behaviour is brutal behaviour. There is no excuse.
12. “You people who live in towns don’t understand the ways of the countryside. Leave us alone and mind your own business!” This is a good one... so glib... so ALMOST convincing. The Countryside Alliance is very keen to tell the ‘townie’ politicians how to run the whole of Britain - and has managed to make farming the most heavily subsidised industry in the land. Yet these same people deny the towns people the right to protect animals in the countryside... as if ‘country people’ OWNED our wildlife. Imagine land-owners insisting that, if child-abuse happened on their land, nobody in town had the right to try to stop it. We’d all say... ‘these children might be on your land, but they still have rights - we reserve the right to monitor your behaviour and stop the cruelty where we find it.’ Yet these Countryside Alliance stalwarts would have us accept that wild animals straying on to their land legitimately become subject to their every whim. It’s a vile conceit.
13. “You are taking away our human right to socialise in our traditional way.” Not at all. We absolutely defend your right to meet up on a crisp country morning, dressed up in pinks, and scamper about on your horses. What we dispute is your right to trample everything in your path, endangering people’s property, children, pets and livestock. And we dispute your right to kill animals for your pleasure, in a hideously cruel manner.
Drag hunting, with the hounds following a scent other than fox, gives you all the socialising you need, and all the exercise; and it has the huge advantage that the path of the hunt can be pre-planned, so that your neighbours are not threatened by invasion. If you refuse to accept this as a decent alternative, it can only be that you need the thrill of killing, and that you actually crave the feeling of wanton disregard for anyone around you... that feeling of superiority, perhaps – “Lords of the Manor” and all that? It’s time to come into the 21st century.
14. “If we are prevented from killing foxes using dogs, farmers have to control these pests by shooting them. Farmers are poor marksmen, so many foxes die a lingering death from gunshot wounds - which is inhumane.” Inhumane? Excuse me?!!! Given the choice of being pursued until your muscles are paralysed and then ripped apart by hounds; or shot with a bullet, with the chance of an instant death, which would you choose? I asked this question to the man who would be the new head of DEFRA (the Department of the Environment and Farming and Rural Affairs) if the Tories were elected in May. He at least had the decency to say he wasn’t entirely sure. But many of the Countryside Alliance propagandists continue to insist that being killed by hounds is a desirable option. Sorry, but... simply not believable. We always come back to the same conclusion... the only reason to be indulging in this filthy blood sport is that you enjoy causing unnecessary pain to animals.
Own up, guys. You are cornered – and about to be run to Earth!
Thankyou to brian may for his kind permission to use this piece.
Last edited:
isee
New User
TOTAL nonsense! People care about such loopholes in the law. The Labour Party will be returned to Government on May 6th and at that point they will bring forward changes to the law.
Now is not the time for them to discuss such changes publicly but I can assure you that Labour ministers are very well aware of the law's flaws and are privately committed to changing it.
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
Don't you think the same law should apply to everyone then? The law makes specific actions illegal such as refusing to kill animals that you deliberately flush out. Are you suggesting that I should be allowed not to kill animals but other people should have to kill them?
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
I am merely telling to what Benn has told me as confirmed by SL. They don't give a toss if people are flushing and chasing deer so it really does not matter if it is illegal or not so there is no point debating it or amending the law.
Benn wrote to me to say he doesn't care and won't change the law and there is no point discussing it. Are you calling him a liar?
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
Oh now he is saying they will amend it!
isee
New User
The law is going to be amended however the important thing currently is to get labour back in so this will be possible. An election campaign is not the time to complicate matters by acknowledging flaws. Doing this would strengthen the pro argument that it is a bad law.
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
Giles, I believe and always have that the law should be used with common sense. In your case it is yet because of your desire to go on and on about this purely to try and get the hunting act repealed you alienate absolutely everybody you come into contact with. I dont get you. You are doing in your mind the right thing. If you find you are getting away with it without consequence why dont you shut the **** up about it because you are making a fool of yourself tbh.
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
I see (lol) so it is acknowledged that the law is flawed and far from 'not giving a toss' the real situation is that Labour are lying when they say it is not, don't want to admit the truth until after the election.
Surely the election is the time to allow the people a say on how this flawed law should be modified or repealed and our politicians should be frank open and honest about the situation?
Surely the election is the time to allow the people a say on how this flawed law should be modified or repealed and our politicians should be frank open and honest about the situation?
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
Can I just get this totally right. You admit the law is a mess and you think that people should able to break it as long as 'they are doing in their mind the right thing' and that if there are no consequences to breaking the law then it is fine to do so?
And when people point out the flaws in the law - which you too acknowledge the sum total of your argument on the issue is to tell them to shut the **** up?
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz However they ammend the law I dont for one second think they will change the flushing part because there is obviously no problem with it. Dont bother coming back with your case Giles because you really are not a problem to anybody and you know it. Thats what ****** you off so much! lol Thats why you cannot shut up about it.
Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
There's no problem with it? But you just said "I certainly think the law on this point is a mess."
Is it not a problem if it is a mess?
and what bit will they change? I thought the whole argument was that they are going to tighten the exemptions? The flushing exemption is the part around which most of the cases involving hunts have centred.
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
No I do not think the law is a mess. I think it works well and 137 convictions so far proves so. Can it be improved, absolutey just as many many laws are. I do not believe anybody should be allowed to break it as in their mind it is the right thing to do. If you choose to break a law then the police/cps/ and courts will deal with you if it is in the public interest to do so. Every crime everywhere is down to a matter of interpritation of the law and the level of crime by the person responsible for law enforcement. In your case they leave you be. I am happy for you.