weebarney
Well-Known Member
Well thanks for that, was beginning to think i was the victim of identity theft, phew!
Please post your comments on
- Thread starter majicmoment
- Start date
perfect11s
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
First of all i do not support any one getting hurt human or animal, but
if the hunt monitors are out legally gathering evidence on illegal hunting then good on them. If people in towns and cities can set up cctv on their house to gather evidence of yobs living in a neighbourhood then why not do the same in the country? The laws apply to people in the country the same as people in the cities
How many huntsmen said that if foxhunting were banned then they will carry on regardless? No wonder there is a need for hunt monitors.
[/ QUOTE ] The so called ban stinks it was very little to do with animal welfare and everything to do with spite and envy the destruction of englishness and hate of independant country people and traditions, oh and a good way of burying bad news while we were arguing about the hunting ban.... labour were wrecking the country and the economy..
First of all i do not support any one getting hurt human or animal, but
if the hunt monitors are out legally gathering evidence on illegal hunting then good on them. If people in towns and cities can set up cctv on their house to gather evidence of yobs living in a neighbourhood then why not do the same in the country? The laws apply to people in the country the same as people in the cities
How many huntsmen said that if foxhunting were banned then they will carry on regardless? No wonder there is a need for hunt monitors.
[/ QUOTE ] The so called ban stinks it was very little to do with animal welfare and everything to do with spite and envy the destruction of englishness and hate of independant country people and traditions, oh and a good way of burying bad news while we were arguing about the hunting ban.... labour were wrecking the country and the economy..
weebarney
Well-Known Member
there are always going to be peaks and troughs in the economy, its the banks who have done the real damage.
Foxhunting has had its time, people have moved forward and realised that animals feel pain and fear just like people do, that is why its banned. I'm sure people were kicking a fuss when badger baiting was banned as well.
Foxhunting has had its time, people have moved forward and realised that animals feel pain and fear just like people do, that is why its banned. I'm sure people were kicking a fuss when badger baiting was banned as well.
perfect11s
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
there are always going to be peaks and troughs in the economy, its the banks who have done the real damage.
Foxhunting has had its time, people have moved forward and realised that animals feel pain and fear just like people do, that is why its banned. I'm sure people were kicking a fuss when badger baiting was banned as well.
[/ QUOTE ] Thanks, yes the banks have caused problems but its not going to have the long term efects that the goverment's mis management will, IE selling gold reserves, taxing the pensions and spraying money at a wastefull public sector, we will be paying for that for years, as for fox hunting I would say its cruelty pales to insignicance beside Halal slaugter and some of the live export issues...
there are always going to be peaks and troughs in the economy, its the banks who have done the real damage.
Foxhunting has had its time, people have moved forward and realised that animals feel pain and fear just like people do, that is why its banned. I'm sure people were kicking a fuss when badger baiting was banned as well.
[/ QUOTE ] Thanks, yes the banks have caused problems but its not going to have the long term efects that the goverment's mis management will, IE selling gold reserves, taxing the pensions and spraying money at a wastefull public sector, we will be paying for that for years, as for fox hunting I would say its cruelty pales to insignicance beside Halal slaugter and some of the live export issues...
the watcher
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Store detectives aren't police officers but they have training, door supervisors have training - these are people who work with the law and who may be required to give evidence. If hunt monitors wish to have the same credibility perhaps they should be a bit more professional.
[/ QUOTE ]
They could do with the training offered in self defence classes considering all your and other peoples threats of violence no doubt.
[/ QUOTE ]
Threats of violence? Are you nuts? I don't see anywhere I have made a 'threat of violence' except to point out that if indiviuals continue to intrude into my privacy and harass me when i am not even connected with hunting they will find that next time I might object quite forcefully.
You really have no room in your tiny mind for anything other than your twisted perspective, do you?
Store detectives aren't police officers but they have training, door supervisors have training - these are people who work with the law and who may be required to give evidence. If hunt monitors wish to have the same credibility perhaps they should be a bit more professional.
[/ QUOTE ]
They could do with the training offered in self defence classes considering all your and other peoples threats of violence no doubt.
[/ QUOTE ]
Threats of violence? Are you nuts? I don't see anywhere I have made a 'threat of violence' except to point out that if indiviuals continue to intrude into my privacy and harass me when i am not even connected with hunting they will find that next time I might object quite forcefully.
You really have no room in your tiny mind for anything other than your twisted perspective, do you?
the watcher
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
i think you will find that a huge amount of people who give evidence in court have absolutely no training in giving evidence or whatever as they are just Joe Bloggs off the street who have witnessed a crime.
You dont need any sort of training as far as film making goes either which is why mobile phone footage could be used as evidence.
If the video evidence is good enough to go to court than it doesnt matter who was behind the lense.
[/ QUOTE ]
Joe Bloggs off the street doesn't set himself up as somebody who persistantly follows and harasses others at their place of work or leisure time, week in, week out. And then claim to be there in some quasi- official role to capture evidence of offences which may or may not be occurring.
i think you will find that a huge amount of people who give evidence in court have absolutely no training in giving evidence or whatever as they are just Joe Bloggs off the street who have witnessed a crime.
You dont need any sort of training as far as film making goes either which is why mobile phone footage could be used as evidence.
If the video evidence is good enough to go to court than it doesnt matter who was behind the lense.
[/ QUOTE ]
Joe Bloggs off the street doesn't set himself up as somebody who persistantly follows and harasses others at their place of work or leisure time, week in, week out. And then claim to be there in some quasi- official role to capture evidence of offences which may or may not be occurring.
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Foxhunting has had its time, people have moved forward and realised that animals feel pain and fear just like people do, that is why its banned.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you read the Middle Way Group's book called Rural Rites: Hunting & The Politics of Prejudice? A useful little book and well worth a read if you can get hold of it. In this he exposes just how scientific studies into the welfare issues regarding hunting were badly flawed, even Lord Burns didn't find that hunting was any more cruel than other methods of fox control.
Foxhunting has had its time, people have moved forward and realised that animals feel pain and fear just like people do, that is why its banned.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you read the Middle Way Group's book called Rural Rites: Hunting & The Politics of Prejudice? A useful little book and well worth a read if you can get hold of it. In this he exposes just how scientific studies into the welfare issues regarding hunting were badly flawed, even Lord Burns didn't find that hunting was any more cruel than other methods of fox control.
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
Threats of violence? Are you nuts? I don't see anywhere I have made a 'threat of violence' except to point out that if indiviuals continue to intrude into my privacy and harass me when i am not even connected with hunting they will find that next time I might object quite forcefully.
It is rather funny that you have been forced to change your wording from "get a bit forcefull", to " might object a bit forcefully", to make any sort of defence. I am sure you meant your original threat of violence, just how it sounded lol lol
You really have no room in your tiny mind for anything other than your twisted perspective, do you?
[/ QUOTE ] I just picked up on your original threat of violence. The one you made before YOU had to change the wording! PMSL
It is rather funny that you have been forced to change your wording from "get a bit forcefull", to " might object a bit forcefully", to make any sort of defence. I am sure you meant your original threat of violence, just how it sounded lol lol
You really have no room in your tiny mind for anything other than your twisted perspective, do you?
[/ QUOTE ] I just picked up on your original threat of violence. The one you made before YOU had to change the wording! PMSL
the watcher
Well-Known Member
Scratchline - I really have no idea what you are talking about - could you abandon cryptic code and snide accusations and have the bottle to say what you have to say in plain english?
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
You posted that you would be tempted to get a bit forcefull yourself. If you didnt mean it or now wish to step back from your post, then perhaps you shouldnt have posted it in the first place. It would have saved you now suggesting that I am being cryptic, snide or dont have the bottle to address you.
the watcher
Well-Known Member
And what does forceful mean to you? Assertive, using firm language, aggressive, assaultive, murderous?
I could mean any of those - I would suggest you have assumed the higher end of the scale.
I have never 'assaulted' anybody in my life - I imagine it is very unlikely I will start now, in fact I never been anything but unfailingly polite to the POWA knitting circle - in spite of their intrusive rudeness. Even telling them to go away or to get out of my face would be a significant escalation in force from my perspective.
However, it will make you happy to imagine that I meant something far worse - I don't need to step back from my original comments
I could mean any of those - I would suggest you have assumed the higher end of the scale.
I have never 'assaulted' anybody in my life - I imagine it is very unlikely I will start now, in fact I never been anything but unfailingly polite to the POWA knitting circle - in spite of their intrusive rudeness. Even telling them to go away or to get out of my face would be a significant escalation in force from my perspective.
However, it will make you happy to imagine that I meant something far worse - I don't need to step back from my original comments
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
Not at all. It makes me far happier knowing how nice you are and that violence isnt in your nature, even when provoked as you have explained. On both sides of the hunting debate their has already been far too much violence IMHO.
YorksG
Over the hill and far awa
May I ask a question here, when the self styled hunt monitors are folowing hounds and the field, do they cross private land, and if so, do they do so with the permission of the landowner, avoiding breaking fences etc, or even maybe sticking to the footpaths?
the watcher
Well-Known Member
Good question.
I understand they do trespass on private land - although to give it some balance some hunts have been known do so too.
I understand they do trespass on private land - although to give it some balance some hunts have been known do so too.
YorksG
Over the hill and far awa
Indded, but surely not those who are following a set trail? I am somewhat confused about how self styled hunt monitors are describing themselves/being described as law abiding, when they are harassing people who are guests on private land, when they themseves are not invited to be there. I would have thought that if I invited people to my yard and a group of stangers then came onto my land, to take photo's, record private conversations, impede my guests from moving about freely, then I would be within my rights to expectt the police to respond and remove them from my property?
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
May I ask a question here, when the self styled hunt monitors are folowing hounds and the field, do they cross private land, and if so, do they do so with the permission of the landowner, avoiding breaking fences etc, or even maybe sticking to the footpaths?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not if they are in a gyrocopter
Beyond that your question is far to broad to answer by someone who isnt a hunt monitor. I think you need to ask the individuals, deal with individual cases and also ask the concerned landowner. I hope that helps.
May I ask a question here, when the self styled hunt monitors are folowing hounds and the field, do they cross private land, and if so, do they do so with the permission of the landowner, avoiding breaking fences etc, or even maybe sticking to the footpaths?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not if they are in a gyrocopter
Beyond that your question is far to broad to answer by someone who isnt a hunt monitor. I think you need to ask the individuals, deal with individual cases and also ask the concerned landowner. I hope that helps.
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Indded, but surely not those who are following a set trail?
A set trail, through fox country, by the nice people and their dogs who enjoyed hunting foxes before the ban with many stating they would ignore the law and continue to hunt foxes.
The hounds so far have not commented on how they feel about the ban, prefering to go on their instinct no doubt.
They are as confused as you say you are.
Problem is, many hunts were not law abiding before the ban.
Maybe monitors rightly think nothing has changed and some hunters have not changed their ways. Upholding the law is the responsibility of everyone is this country, not just the police.
As for your 'yard'. If you were suspected by your neighbours of breaking the law lets say holding dog fighting bouts there ( suspected but as yet unproven)...........the police wouldnt come to save you from any intrusion, would they
Indded, but surely not those who are following a set trail?
A set trail, through fox country, by the nice people and their dogs who enjoyed hunting foxes before the ban with many stating they would ignore the law and continue to hunt foxes.
The hounds so far have not commented on how they feel about the ban, prefering to go on their instinct no doubt.
They are as confused as you say you are.
Problem is, many hunts were not law abiding before the ban.
Maybe monitors rightly think nothing has changed and some hunters have not changed their ways. Upholding the law is the responsibility of everyone is this country, not just the police.
As for your 'yard'. If you were suspected by your neighbours of breaking the law lets say holding dog fighting bouts there ( suspected but as yet unproven)...........the police wouldnt come to save you from any intrusion, would they
Scratchline
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
self styled hunt monitors
[/ QUOTE ]
We allow ''self appointed", experts to give verbal evidence to courts in this country and their word IS taken as gospel, often leading to conviction and jail terms. Much more worrying than those attemting to gather and provide actual physical evidence of lawbreaking which the police and courts can view and consider in their own time.
self styled hunt monitors
[/ QUOTE ]
We allow ''self appointed", experts to give verbal evidence to courts in this country and their word IS taken as gospel, often leading to conviction and jail terms. Much more worrying than those attemting to gather and provide actual physical evidence of lawbreaking which the police and courts can view and consider in their own time.
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
May I ask a question here, when the self styled hunt monitors are folowing hounds and the field, do they cross private land, and if so, do they do so with the permission of the landowner, avoiding breaking fences etc, or even maybe sticking to the footpaths?
[/ QUOTE ]
The case of the Crawley & Horsham will be one to watch with interest, here a number of landowners, fed up with trespass by those attempting to monitor activities by the hunt have applied for an injunction to prevent them.
Not if they are in a gyrocopter
Beyond that your question is far to broad to answer by someone who isnt a hunt monitor. I think you need to ask the individuals, deal with individual cases and also ask the concerned landowner. I hope that helps.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
May I ask a question here, when the self styled hunt monitors are folowing hounds and the field, do they cross private land, and if so, do they do so with the permission of the landowner, avoiding breaking fences etc, or even maybe sticking to the footpaths?
[/ QUOTE ]
The case of the Crawley & Horsham will be one to watch with interest, here a number of landowners, fed up with trespass by those attempting to monitor activities by the hunt have applied for an injunction to prevent them.
Not if they are in a gyrocopter
Beyond that your question is far to broad to answer by someone who isnt a hunt monitor. I think you need to ask the individuals, deal with individual cases and also ask the concerned landowner. I hope that helps.
[/ QUOTE ]
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Beyond that your question is far to broad to answer by someone who isnt a hunt monitor. I think you need to ask the individuals, deal with individual cases and also ask the concerned landowner. I hope that helps.
[/ QUOTE ]
The case of the Crawley & Horsham will be one to watch with interest, here a number of landowners, fed up with trespass by those attempting to monitor activities by the hunt have applied for an injunction to prevent them.
Beyond that your question is far to broad to answer by someone who isnt a hunt monitor. I think you need to ask the individuals, deal with individual cases and also ask the concerned landowner. I hope that helps.
[/ QUOTE ]
The case of the Crawley & Horsham will be one to watch with interest, here a number of landowners, fed up with trespass by those attempting to monitor activities by the hunt have applied for an injunction to prevent them.
YorksG
Over the hill and far awa
The people you are describing as self styled experts are usually people who have published peer reviewed work in scientific journals etc. or who are acknowleged by their peers to be experts. If people suspect that I am committing offences on my property, then they should inform the police, not trespass on my land. The only people who have a right of entry to my land, without a warrant are the poice and certain representatives of the utility companies. Any other person (even those with the right to apply to the court for a warrant) must apply to the court for a warrant to enter. This includes environmental health officers, AMHP's etc. These warrants are issued on the basis of evidence and the courts have a strict policy on how they must be executed, always with a police presence. I hope that clears that up for you.