Pro in "sensible post" shock

[Reginald]

From another hunting site:
_____________________

"Pursuing this case to the ECHR is a complete waste of time and money.

In a country governed by representative democracy, Parliament's sovereignty in matters of legislation will not be interfered with lightly by the Courts.

In my view, the approach of the House of Lords was correct. However misconceived the Hunting Act may be, Parliament was perfectly entitled to enact it.

The only correct approach to overturning this particular piece of legislation is to elect a government that will take it off the statute book (although ignoring it can also be rewarding).

We have already pissed about £5m up against the wall of the High Court. Don't let's waste any more money on lawyers."

_____________________________

I couldn't agree more. I'd only add that for the Countryside Alliance to choose as one of the appellants to take this case to Europe a person banned by this very site for repeated offensive and intolerant behaviour merely compounds the lunacy.

 

[wurzel]

But don't you think his behaviour is insignificant compared to Summersgill ?

Giles seems to weigh on your mind. he is no more wind up merchant than you are.

 

[Reginald]

I've no idea who this "Summersgill" is.

Piss away another couple of million quid if you like, it's your dosh.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

I've no idea who this "Summersgill" is.

Piss away another couple of million quid if you like, it's your dosh.

Do you think that HHO online will be relevant to the European case?

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

It does seem strange that you bring up Giles.

From what i understand you don't think that what he does is or should be illegal at all.

In the Human rights case the Government argued that it is and it should be.

It strikes me Reginald that you agree with this Giles chap!

 

[Reginald]

I don't think HHO online will be relevant to the court case no. I think the anti PR machine may have fun with the fact that one of the appellants was banned from the online site of the hunting establishment for repeated offensive and intolerant behaviour.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Really? You think anyone actually cares?

Ha ha and you think this is the 'online site of the hunting establishment'????

It's almost like you think that by being on here you are actually making a difference to something!

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

I don't think HHO online will be relevant to the court case no. I think the anti PR machine may have fun with the fact that one of the appellants was banned from the online site of the hunting establishment for repeated offensive and intolerant behaviour.

But just to get this right, you agree with Giles that what he does shouldn't be illegal and you think it is fine for him to carry on.

Is that your view?

 

[Reginald]

- "From what i understand you don't think that what he does is or should be illegal at all."

Giles can't be convicted of hunting wild mammals with dogs if he's not hunting wild mammals with dogs.

- "In the Human rights case the Government argued that it is and it should be."

Firstly, has the human rights case been heard? I thought it hadn't. But anyway you're wrong again: the Government hasn't argued that people who don't hunt mammals with dogs should be convicted of hunting mammals with dogs.

What Giles and his wannabe friends are actually going to Europe for is to establish as a human right the practice of chasing a deer to the point of exhaustion (on average a three hour period) then when it's surrounded by baying hounds pump a bullet into it. He wants to establish this as a RIGHT even though far more humane methods of killing the deer exist i.e. stalking and shooting it with dogs on hand in case it escapes injured. He is also wishing to establish as a RIGHT the practice you agree with Bob: namely hunts artificially boosting fox numbers and then killing them in the name of pest control. something which most decent people find at best immoral.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

"Firstly, has the human rights case been heard? I thought it hadn't. But anyway you're wrong again: the Government hasn't argued that people who don't hunt mammals with dogs should be convicted of hunting mammals with dogs"

The Government have argued with specific reference to Giles Bradshaw's activities that they are and should be illegal under the Hunting Act.

they have made this argument in the High Court, the court of appeal and in the House of Lords.

I think I am right in saying that your view is that deliberately searching for, flushing out and chasing wild deer with dogs is NOT in fact hunting and is NOT illegal under the Hunting Act.

Is that right?

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Do you think it should be legal for someone to flush out deer with dogs from a woodland?

 

[Reginald]

" think I am right in saying that your view is that deliberately searching for, flushing out and chasing wild deer with dogs is NOT in fact hunting and is NOT illegal under the Hunting Act.

Is that right?"

No, that's not right. I'm saying that in order to be convicted of hunting with dogs you have to be hunting. In the specific case of Giles no hunting takes place. I refer again to DEFRA's guide on interpreting the Act:

"For the purposes of the Act, the word ‘hunting’ has its ordinary English meaning, which includes searching for wild mammals, chasing them, or pursuing them FOR THE PURPOSE OF CATCHING OR KILLING." [my caps]

Since Giles isn't trying to catch or kill the deer he's not hunting for the purposes of the Hunting Act 2004. I've now explained this to you twice. Please don't make me do it a third time.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

So if they aren't trying to catch or kill the deer hunts can chase them as far and for as long as they like? Is that your position?

I'm kind of wondering if that was the point that Giles was trying to make.

If that is in fact the law do you think it is a bit of a flaw that hunts can still chase as many animals as they like as far as they like for sport with full packs of hounds?

 

[Reginald]

"So if they aren't trying to catch or kill the deer hunts can chase them as far and for as long as they like? Is that your position?"

But hunts ARE trying to catch or kill deer - that's what makes them "hunts" i.e. they are hunt-ing. Giles, on the other hand, isn't a hunter. Get it now?

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

not quite.

What you are sating is that I can get a bunch of people together and a pack of hounds and chase deer all over the countryside for as long as I want dressed in a red coat tooting a horn and as long as I don't actually intend to kill the deer then my actions are completely legal,

I just can't believe that your interpretation of the law can be right.

If it is then it seems to me to be a pretty useless law. I'm trying to get my head around why the staghounds don't do this. Just don't have the guy with a gun to kill the deer and they can hunt it all they like.

 

[Reginald]

"What you are sating is that I can get a bunch of people together and a pack of hounds and chase deer all over the countryside for as long as I want dressed in a red coat tooting a horn and as long as I don't actually intend to kill the deer then my actions are completely legal"

No, I'm not stating this. One of the reasons why you're getting so confused is that you asked me about the very specific actions of one person i.e. Giles, and then apply my answer to a complete different set of circumstances i.e. a pack of hounds and a hunt.

As I've now said twice before, Giles isn't "hunting" for the purposes of the Hunting Act 2004. Therefore he isn't committing an offence under that Act. It's really not difficult to understand.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

So just to get this right.

It IS legal to go out with dogs and chase deer as long as you don't intend to catch them. Merely intentionally searching for, flushing out and chasing deer with dogs isn't hunting. This in spite of the common English meaning of the word hunt including to search and to chase.

The Government is wrong to claim in court that Giles is breaking the Hunting Act and the courts are wrong to accept that claim.

"Reginald" has a better understanding of the law than the Government, LACS and the CA.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

This link might help you see that Defra clearly advise that chasing away wild mammals is illegal:

http://www.foxhuntingvoices.org.uk/definition_hunting


Initially, DEFRA has stated that a landowner who uses his four dogs to frighten foxes and deer off his land would be committing an offence under the Hunting Act. These animals attack his livestock and damage his woodland and he has been undertaking this effective, but non-lethal, form of pest control for the past six years. However, the Act makes it an offence for anyone to hunt a wild mammal with a dog unless it is ‘exempt hunting’ (which permits the flushing to guns of an animal by 2 dogs only). This obliged the landowner to use only two of his four dogs at any one time. It also put him in the ridiculous position of being legally obliged to purchase a high-powered rifle and to shoot any animal ‘flushed’ by his dogs.

Faced with the landowners complaint about this ridiculous situation, a DEFRA lawyer then advised that he was merely ‘chasing away unwanted animals’ from his land and that this was not, in fact, hunting as described in the Hunting Act 2004. Therefore, this was not an offence.

Following numerous media reports on this apparently enormous loophole in the Act, DEFRA officials have changed theirs minds yet again. Despite the landowner clearly stating in numerous e-mails and telephone conversations that his four dogs ‘chase’ away the foxes and deer, DEFRA have written to him saying that they were under the impression that there was no chase involve and that dogs were only barking at the wild mammals. The landowner is naturally exasperated at this latest view and disputes that DEFRA did not know that his dogs were involved in a chase.

By any normal use of the word ‘chase’, one would understand this to mean a pursuit of some kind (dictionary definitions: pursue, run after, hunt, hound, follow, trail, track, look for, search for, go after, go in pursuit of).

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Here's another link where defra consider if 'the deliberate use of dogs to chase a wild mammal, even if there is no intention of catching it' is hunting:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/hunting_qa_a.htm#5


Is hunting different from chasing away?

The Act deliberately does not define hunting with dogs because the term should be understood in its ordinary English meaning, which includes using dogs to search for wild mammals, chase them, or pursue them with the intention of catching or killing them. The deliberate use of dogs to chase a wild mammal, even if there is no intention of catching it, is hunting and as such is prohibited by the Act. This may include the wilful failure to prevent dogs from chasing wild mammals.

 

[feather_blue]

The length of the pursuit defines if it is hunting or not. If you pursue something for 5 f*cking hours, it's hunting. If you are merely scaring something off, you only need to pursue for a few minutes at most.

Are you so thick you need it spelling out to you?

 

[Reginald]

"Are you so thick you need it spelling out to you?"

LMFBO!

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Ah right. So just flushing out a deer isn't actually hunting then even though Defra say it is and the Hunting Act says it is?

How far does Giles have to chase the deer for for it to be hunting?

Why do the Government says something is hunting when it is not?

Are they thick too?

 

[Reginald]

Do you agree with Giles that Chernobyl was a "god send" to the environment, Bob? I know it's slightly off-theme, but I'm curious for your take on this.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

"Are you so thick you need it spelling out to you?"

LMFBO!

Reginald, is this right then? That it is legal to chase wild deer with as many dogs as you like for a little bit but not a lot?

Can you show me the defra guidance on that one? Because Defra say that chasing wild mammals with dogs is illegal period.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Reginald. Is it illegal to deliberately chase a wild mammal with a dog?

Apparently it is! As long as one doesn't chase it for too long. LOL!!!!!

 

[feather_blue]

Go back to school and learn something, so we no longer have to be subjected to your innane witterings for attention.

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

The length of the pursuit defines if it is hunting or not. If you pursue something for 5 f*cking hours, it's hunting. If you are merely scaring something off, you only need to pursue for a few minutes at most.

Are you so thick you need it spelling out to you?

Tell you what. I will go out with my dogs this weekend and chase any deer that I find as far and as fast as I like. There is nothing you can do to prevent me doing this because it is ridiculous to make chasing deer with dogs illegal.

You can shove the law right up your back end xxxxxxxxx

 

[Reginald]

*****hissy fit warning!*******

 

[Bobcats_Livid_Issue]

Go back to school and learn something, so we no longer have to be subjected to your innane witterings for attention.

hahaha you CAN chase wild mammals but as long as you don't intend to kill them!!!!

lol you can chase them as long as it's not tooooo far!!!

LOL what else CAN you do then?

You are profoundly stupid and ignorant people.

I can and I do chase wild mammals as far and as fast as I like. You will never stop me.

 

[Reginald]

Is "I Will Survive" playing in the background, Bob? Crank up the volume: you go for it girl!!!