combat_claire
Well-Known Member
I'd quite like to know what gives you the right (without knowing anything about me) judge me in this way. Despite severe provocation I have tried to be courteous and answer your questions as honestly as possible.
person charged with murder
- Thread starter the watcher
- Start date
I'd quite like to know what gives you the right (without knowing anything about me) judge me in this way. Despite severe provocation I have tried to be courteous and answer your questions as honestly as possible.
EstherSupporter
Well-Known Member
I must say...........I find this attitude very very disturbing!
Do you think so highly of yourself that you above the law?
But sadly this seems to be the general attitude in favour of hunting.
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
The law states that dogs may be used to flush deer from woods to be shot, therefore if Hebegebe does not shoot the deer on his farm after flushing them, he is breaking the law.
That is the context of the posting that you are quoting.
This shows just how absurd the Hunting Act 2004 actually is. Yet in 4 years there has been just one conviction that has not been successfully appealed and overturned. This rather suggests to me that the majority of hunts within the UK are staying within the law. After all it is rather tricky to hide 30 hounds, 4 men in red coats and 50 plus mounted followers, not to mention the others following on foot and car!!
That is the context of the posting that you are quoting.
This shows just how absurd the Hunting Act 2004 actually is. Yet in 4 years there has been just one conviction that has not been successfully appealed and overturned. This rather suggests to me that the majority of hunts within the UK are staying within the law. After all it is rather tricky to hide 30 hounds, 4 men in red coats and 50 plus mounted followers, not to mention the others following on foot and car!!
EstherSupporter
Well-Known Member
It's the attitude of......
" it may be illegal but that wont stop me"
I find disturbing.
" it may be illegal but that wont stop me"
I find disturbing.
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
So you are saying that Hebegebe should be shooting the deer on his land because that is what the law says?? Regardless of any animal welfare concerns...
If I have summarised your position correctly then it is your attitude that I find disturbing.
If I have summarised your position correctly then it is your attitude that I find disturbing.
EstherSupporter
Well-Known Member
So your telling me that someone who makes a statement .....
"it may be illegal but that wont stop me"
Is the correct attitude to have in life?
And by the way combact clare DO NOT start getting personal towards me............I am mearly questioning the attitude of someone who makes the statement shown above.......no matter in what context it is used.......so your telling me that should young lads on the street making this statement it would be fine?
"it may be illegal but that wont stop me"
Is the correct attitude to have in life?
And by the way combact clare DO NOT start getting personal towards me............I am mearly questioning the attitude of someone who makes the statement shown above.......no matter in what context it is used.......so your telling me that should young lads on the street making this statement it would be fine?
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
Have you read Civil Disobedience by David Thoreau?? If not go away and do so.
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
So let me get this right, it is okay for you to get personal with Hebegebe and call their attitude disturbing, but if anyone turns that statement around onto you then you'll throw your toys out of the pram and tell them not to get personal with you. Oh please....
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
It has taken me three attempts to try and work out what on earth that last paragraph was trying to get at. A bit of punctuation and a quick spell check might not go amiss.
Life is not black and white, it never has been and never will be. There is law (such as the laws relating to murder, ABH & GBH) and there is bad law. In my opinion and in the opinion of several eminent legal commentators the Hunting Act 2004 is bad law. It was passed using the Parliament Act 1929, itself needing the earlier Parliament Act to get it on the statute books. As such they argue that it is ultra vires. The Parliament Act was originally only intended for the passing of financial budgets, not controversial legislation relating to War Crimes, Hunting and the Age of Homosexual Consent.
The Upper House sits for a reason, to scrutinise law coming from the commons and ensure that we have good law. The commons couldn't accept that what they were passing was a dog's breakfast and continued to use the Parliament Act.
Just read what Nicholas Mostyn QC writes in this month's edition of The Field. P31 if you want to flick to that page in the supermarket. He demonstrates the sheer illogicality of the Act.
Incidentally 700 hours was spent arguing this law, 7 hours took us to war into Iraq.
Yet despite the spitefulness and bizarre content of such a law, we still obey it - over 300 hunts have been out on hundreds of hunting days and worked with the exemptions that have been allowed. It would probably have been easier and cheaper to stick two fingers up and carry on before. However being law abiding people, we didn't. Instead we made major investments of both time and money to ensure we stayed on the right side of the law. A move that has shown just how ridiculous this law is.
Just as a quick reminder of some of the main points. This is a law which allows terriers to be used underground to protect game birds, but not lambs; it allows a fox to be killed by a bird of prey but not by hounds; it states that quarry can be flushed but only to be shot; that allows mink to be shot out of trees and one that allows you to hunt rats and rabbits with hounds, but not hares and foxes.
Life is not black and white, it never has been and never will be. There is law (such as the laws relating to murder, ABH & GBH) and there is bad law. In my opinion and in the opinion of several eminent legal commentators the Hunting Act 2004 is bad law. It was passed using the Parliament Act 1929, itself needing the earlier Parliament Act to get it on the statute books. As such they argue that it is ultra vires. The Parliament Act was originally only intended for the passing of financial budgets, not controversial legislation relating to War Crimes, Hunting and the Age of Homosexual Consent.
The Upper House sits for a reason, to scrutinise law coming from the commons and ensure that we have good law. The commons couldn't accept that what they were passing was a dog's breakfast and continued to use the Parliament Act.
Just read what Nicholas Mostyn QC writes in this month's edition of The Field. P31 if you want to flick to that page in the supermarket. He demonstrates the sheer illogicality of the Act.
Incidentally 700 hours was spent arguing this law, 7 hours took us to war into Iraq.
Yet despite the spitefulness and bizarre content of such a law, we still obey it - over 300 hunts have been out on hundreds of hunting days and worked with the exemptions that have been allowed. It would probably have been easier and cheaper to stick two fingers up and carry on before. However being law abiding people, we didn't. Instead we made major investments of both time and money to ensure we stayed on the right side of the law. A move that has shown just how ridiculous this law is.
Just as a quick reminder of some of the main points. This is a law which allows terriers to be used underground to protect game birds, but not lambs; it allows a fox to be killed by a bird of prey but not by hounds; it states that quarry can be flushed but only to be shot; that allows mink to be shot out of trees and one that allows you to hunt rats and rabbits with hounds, but not hares and foxes.
lastrebel
Well-Known Member
claire, I'm not going over all the post but I thought you came across as a bit of a militant pro.
I may be wrong but I guess the easiest way to answer is would you;
scap the law and tough to anyone who doesnt like it
or find a way to try to keep everyone happy (if possible).
I may be wrong but I guess the easiest way to answer is would you;
scap the law and tough to anyone who doesnt like it
or find a way to try to keep everyone happy (if possible).
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
I won't deny that I would like to see this law repealed, but I am also in favour of a revised piece of legislation, as has been mooted by several prominent commentators that would enshrine within it good wildlife management. After all when this act was originally passed, legislators were very quick to say what shouldn't be done, but had no realistic solutions for how things should be done.
Let us be realistic, there is unlikely to be a solution that keeps everyone happy, but I believe the law as it stands is a bad law (see above), but I will continue to obey it as best I can - both in my capacities as follower and amateur hunt staff.
Let us be realistic, there is unlikely to be a solution that keeps everyone happy, but I believe the law as it stands is a bad law (see above), but I will continue to obey it as best I can - both in my capacities as follower and amateur hunt staff.
lastrebel
Well-Known Member
Claire I think thats a fair comment, I also believe there is a better middle ground, no you cant keep everyone happy but at least try and keep the poor old fox central to it.
I shall continue to er um monitor.
I shall continue to er um monitor.
Doormouse
Well-Known Member
It would obviously be very hard to create a law that completely satisfied the extremes of each side but I suspect that the majority of people would be happy with a sensible compromise. You would have to think that licensing hunting (as was suggested before the ban) would stop the inhumane aspects but enable efficient and reliable pest control measures.
It is interesting that by your own admission you had a preconceived idea of all hunting people and horse people too and I am delighted that by being on this forum you have come to see most of us in a different light. As we have said time and time again to people, come and see what we do, come and meet us and then make your decision, don't tar us all with the same brush through 1 bad experience or be swayed by other people and their opinions. Maybe if some more anti hunting people were to join this forum they might find we are not all monsters, not militant, not bloodthirsty but simply reasonable people who love the countryside, appreciate country ways and above all have huge respect for mother nature.
It is interesting that by your own admission you had a preconceived idea of all hunting people and horse people too and I am delighted that by being on this forum you have come to see most of us in a different light. As we have said time and time again to people, come and see what we do, come and meet us and then make your decision, don't tar us all with the same brush through 1 bad experience or be swayed by other people and their opinions. Maybe if some more anti hunting people were to join this forum they might find we are not all monsters, not militant, not bloodthirsty but simply reasonable people who love the countryside, appreciate country ways and above all have huge respect for mother nature.
guido16
Well-Known Member
OK, not posted here before but felt I should, just to allow us all to take stock.
No matter what side of the fence any of us are sitting on, a man has died and another now has the prospect of spending a long time in jail. 2 lifes have been wasted, not to mention the families and friends of those involved.
I hope that we all take heed and realise that this has gone to far. This argument has now reached a level where I`m sure none of us wanted to be, death, murder, however you dress it up it needs to stop.
Surely nobody can say they are happy with the point we have all reached. mindless and NEEDLESS loss of human life (both through death and imprisonment)
No matter what side of the fence any of us are sitting on, a man has died and another now has the prospect of spending a long time in jail. 2 lifes have been wasted, not to mention the families and friends of those involved.
I hope that we all take heed and realise that this has gone to far. This argument has now reached a level where I`m sure none of us wanted to be, death, murder, however you dress it up it needs to stop.
Surely nobody can say they are happy with the point we have all reached. mindless and NEEDLESS loss of human life (both through death and imprisonment)
lastrebel
Well-Known Member
I only based my opinions on what I have seen, more than one bad experience I'm afraid.Though I will admit I probably should not catergorise everyone.
I've seen things that I now think would make many of you feel in part as I do.
Again though a good post.
I've seen things that I now think would make many of you feel in part as I do.
Again though a good post.
guido16
Well-Known Member
Hunting is a hot topic like religion, politics etc, best kept away from dinner party tadles (so to speak...)
We just need to stay focussed on the losses that have occurred, no matter who is to blame I think we can be sure that two grown men acting out of character on this occasion and its resulted in a tragic situation.
We just need to stay focussed on the losses that have occurred, no matter who is to blame I think we can be sure that two grown men acting out of character on this occasion and its resulted in a tragic situation.
JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
Bad law NEEDS to be challenged - bycivil disobedience if necessary. If people had not been prepared to break the law and risk prison - or worse - women would not have the vote, South Africa would still have apartheid - do I need to go on??
Hunting people have - in the main part - obeyed this flawed law - but it is only by challenging it (and - as part of that challenge occasionally breaking it!) that it can be exposed for the farce that it is.
The deer parts of the law highlighted by hebegebe are particularly farcical. It has always been the case that deer can be dispersed with the use of hounds/dogs to prevent damage to forestry, crops etc. If a herd of hinds - for example - is disturbed it will usually break up into smaller groups and spread out; thus the damage to any one area is minimised, with no killing required. To do that now is illegal - if youwant to use dogs to move deer out of an area in which they are congregating and doing damage, you have to shoot them all to stay within the law!! How ANYONE who cares about wildlife can support, respect or obey THAT!!!!!!
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
Yeap
The judge ruled in the case against the quantock staghounds that you need TEN guns in case there is an entire herd so as to make sure they all die.
Previously the hunt would only have shot at the most one and if one is merely dispersing then none.
How does that make sense?
The judge ruled in the case against the quantock staghounds that you need TEN guns in case there is an entire herd so as to make sure they all die.
Previously the hunt would only have shot at the most one and if one is merely dispersing then none.
How does that make sense?
Girlracer
Well-Known Member
That is ridiculous (not you, the whole 10 guns bit), just sums the whole thing up really.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
Quite!
and the thing is they preach at everyone about how we all have to respect the ;law and then they knowingly allow thois rubbish to remain on the statute book.
No one in their right mind could possibly expect me to obey the Hunting Act.
It's absurd.
and the thing is they preach at everyone about how we all have to respect the ;law and then they knowingly allow thois rubbish to remain on the statute book.
No one in their right mind could possibly expect me to obey the Hunting Act.
It's absurd.
lastrebel
Well-Known Member
Hunting people have - in the main part - obeyed this flawed law - but it is only by challenging it (and - as part of that challenge occasionally breaking it!) that it can be exposed for the farce that it is.
or from a sab point of view :
Hunt sabs - in the main part - obeyed this flawed law - but it is only by challenging it (and - as part of that challenge occasionally breaking it!) that it can be exposed for the farce that it is.
or from a sab point of view :
Hunt sabs - in the main part - obeyed this flawed law - but it is only by challenging it (and - as part of that challenge occasionally breaking it!) that it can be exposed for the farce that it is.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
I don't think the law against murder is a farce though, do you?
I think the difference with the Hunting Acvt5 is everyone knows it is a farce including those that passed it.
I think the difference with the Hunting Acvt5 is everyone knows it is a farce including those that passed it.
the watcher
Well-Known Member
I can see the potential for hunts breaking this law, whether by accident or design.
Can't quite see how sabs could do so, however imagine it is quite possible they could breach the Public Order Act or the Protection from Harassment Act. However both these pieces of legislation are well established and no amount of civil disobedience is going to significantly change them, nor can it be easily justified.
lastrebel
Well-Known Member
Hebegebe
I think the law was designed to try to keep everyone happy and kept no one happy
I think the law was designed to try to keep everyone happy and kept no one happy
lastrebel
Well-Known Member
Mother hen
{quote}I can see the potential for hunts breaking this law, whether by accident or design.Can't quite see how sabs could do so, however imagine it is quite possible they could breach the Public Order Act or the Protection from Harassment Act. However both these pieces of legislation are well established and no amount of civil disobedience is going to significantly change them, nor can it be easily justified.
From my point of view I'm a law abiding citizen, however if to save a life it means breaking the I will do so without hesitation. I take this a moral law higher than the law of the land.
{quote}I can see the potential for hunts breaking this law, whether by accident or design.Can't quite see how sabs could do so, however imagine it is quite possible they could breach the Public Order Act or the Protection from Harassment Act. However both these pieces of legislation are well established and no amount of civil disobedience is going to significantly change them, nor can it be easily justified.
From my point of view I'm a law abiding citizen, however if to save a life it means breaking the I will do so without hesitation. I take this a moral law higher than the law of the land.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
So broadly speaking if you don't agree with a lw it's fine to break it?
the watcher
Well-Known Member
I agree, sometimes unusual circumstances call for unusual actions and in order to save a human life (certainly) or animal life (depending on circumstances) I would hope we would all act first and deal with the fallout later. Whether I would extend that willingness to a wild animal is another matter - on balance I think I would just prefer it to have a quick end to any suffering.
Mind you, this is from the person who took a deer with a broken leg from the roadside to the Blue Cross and in spite of their horror at being confronted with something that was not clearly a pet, insisted that it could be fixed, and since they were an animal welfare charity they couldn't be fussy. It duly was healed and released after the next rutting season. I couldn't have just left it and it wasn't so badly injured to require shooting.
Mind you, this is from the person who took a deer with a broken leg from the roadside to the Blue Cross and in spite of their horror at being confronted with something that was not clearly a pet, insisted that it could be fixed, and since they were an animal welfare charity they couldn't be fussy. It duly was healed and released after the next rutting season. I couldn't have just left it and it wasn't so badly injured to require shooting.
lastrebel
Well-Known Member
Hebegebe,
lets put it another way, you are being mugged, your lay on the floor being stamped on and I walk past.
shall I shout at them and call the police, walk on by or try to save you I'm not a black belt so I need some assistance I pick up a stick I'm about to break the law, its your call what shall I do.
lets put it another way, you are being mugged, your lay on the floor being stamped on and I walk past.
shall I shout at them and call the police, walk on by or try to save you I'm not a black belt so I need some assistance I pick up a stick I'm about to break the law, its your call what shall I do.
lastrebel
Well-Known Member
I guess it all depends on value we put on life. I struggle sometimes to differenciate (?) between the 3
Puppy
Well-Known Member
Haven't read the whole thread, but no, having studied criminal law I can tell you that purposely unseating someone can constitute assault.