spaniel
Well-Known Member
Both guilty. No details yet.
Quantocks Court Case....
- Thread starter spaniel
- Start date
southgate1975
Well-Known Member
wrighty
Well-Known Member
Details from BBC news
Two men have been found guilty of illegally hunting deer with hounds.
Huntsman Richard Down, 44, and whipper-in Adrian Pillivant, 36 of the Quantock Staghounds were convicted at Bristol Magistrates' Court.
Anti-hunt campaigners filmed two hounds chasing deer on Exmoor. The League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) said the deer were chased for more than an hour.
Both men had denied contravening the Hunting Act, which came into force in February 2005.
The LACS said it launched the prosecution because no attempt was made to shoot the deer humanely or call off the hounds during the hunt.
Spokesman Douglas Batchelor, said: "Justice has prevailed today (Thursday) in what was a clear-cut case of blatant law-breaking by hunters who believe themselves to be above the law.
"The hunting fraternity must grasp what the British public have understood ever since the ban was introduced - chasing and slaughtering stags for pleasure is totally unacceptable in a civilised society.
"To do so is a criminal act as these two gentlemen have discovered today."
Down, 44, of Bagborough, Somerset, and Pillivant, 36, of Willand, Devon had argued throughout the trial that they had been hunting the deer within the law.
District Judge David Parsons said their argument was "disingenuous" and fined both men £500 and ordered them to pay £1,000 each as a contribution towards costs.
He said: "Neither defendant has established on the balance of probability that he reasonably believed the hunting was exempt.
Video evidence
"The defendants were hunting for sport and recreation to continue their way of life and are disingenuous in attempting to deceive me into believing that they were exempt from hunting."
The LACS had played the court video evidence of 20 deer being chased with dogs at a hunt meet at Longstone Hill, Somerset, last February.
Richard Furlong, representing the League, had told the court: "They made no attempt to call the dogs off.
"The facts of this case are that no reasonable person could have believed this was exempt from the Hunting Act.
"They made no attempt to control the dogs."
Robbie Marsland, UK director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), welcomed the decision.
He said: "This is the second time that the league has taken and won a private prosecution and IFAW congratulates them for that.
"In the light of this ruling it is very difficult to see how anyone could go out stag hunting in the belief that they are acting lawfully.
"The Hunting Act is showing its teeth. There have been a number of prosecutions under the Act and more are in the pipeline, including one being taken by Avon and Somerset Police against the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, expected later this summer."
Two men have been found guilty of illegally hunting deer with hounds.
Huntsman Richard Down, 44, and whipper-in Adrian Pillivant, 36 of the Quantock Staghounds were convicted at Bristol Magistrates' Court.
Anti-hunt campaigners filmed two hounds chasing deer on Exmoor. The League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) said the deer were chased for more than an hour.
Both men had denied contravening the Hunting Act, which came into force in February 2005.
The LACS said it launched the prosecution because no attempt was made to shoot the deer humanely or call off the hounds during the hunt.
Spokesman Douglas Batchelor, said: "Justice has prevailed today (Thursday) in what was a clear-cut case of blatant law-breaking by hunters who believe themselves to be above the law.
"The hunting fraternity must grasp what the British public have understood ever since the ban was introduced - chasing and slaughtering stags for pleasure is totally unacceptable in a civilised society.
"To do so is a criminal act as these two gentlemen have discovered today."
Down, 44, of Bagborough, Somerset, and Pillivant, 36, of Willand, Devon had argued throughout the trial that they had been hunting the deer within the law.
District Judge David Parsons said their argument was "disingenuous" and fined both men £500 and ordered them to pay £1,000 each as a contribution towards costs.
He said: "Neither defendant has established on the balance of probability that he reasonably believed the hunting was exempt.
Video evidence
"The defendants were hunting for sport and recreation to continue their way of life and are disingenuous in attempting to deceive me into believing that they were exempt from hunting."
The LACS had played the court video evidence of 20 deer being chased with dogs at a hunt meet at Longstone Hill, Somerset, last February.
Richard Furlong, representing the League, had told the court: "They made no attempt to call the dogs off.
"The facts of this case are that no reasonable person could have believed this was exempt from the Hunting Act.
"They made no attempt to control the dogs."
Robbie Marsland, UK director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), welcomed the decision.
He said: "This is the second time that the league has taken and won a private prosecution and IFAW congratulates them for that.
"In the light of this ruling it is very difficult to see how anyone could go out stag hunting in the belief that they are acting lawfully.
"The Hunting Act is showing its teeth. There have been a number of prosecutions under the Act and more are in the pipeline, including one being taken by Avon and Somerset Police against the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, expected later this summer."
Ravenwood
Well-Known Member
It makes me furious - nowhere else in England is there such quality herds of red deer than on Exmoor that have been preserved by hunting. It is far worse now hunting with two hounds, its very difficult to flush or separate a deer with just two hounds and in my opionion it is much crueller for the deer the way things are carried out now. I am pretty sure that there are statistics to show that when hunting stopped during the first world war the fabulous red deer became almost extinct. I just cannot understand the antis wanting to ban hunting deer without suggesting a proper culling method to replace it.
I hope everyone realises that now the National Trust have banned hunting on their land they actually train wardens and provide them with high calibre rifles to shoot over 100 deer a year, thats just on their land. One warden sits on a high tower at night whilst others drive the deer past it and the marksmen just shoots what he can to achieve the target. I don't call that a good culling management plan do you?
I hope everyone realises that now the National Trust have banned hunting on their land they actually train wardens and provide them with high calibre rifles to shoot over 100 deer a year, thats just on their land. One warden sits on a high tower at night whilst others drive the deer past it and the marksmen just shoots what he can to achieve the target. I don't call that a good culling management plan do you?
wrighty
Well-Known Member
There are lots of different arguments about the best way to control (or not) wild animals but this court case shows that people will be prosecuted if they break the law.
I am happy that these 2 were found guilty and I hope that they don't do it again, if they do and go to court again I hope they are given a spell in prison so people will see that it isn't worth breaking the law.
I think the fine/costs was a bit soft but we can't be filling the jails up with hunters yet.
I am happy that these 2 were found guilty and I hope that they don't do it again, if they do and go to court again I hope they are given a spell in prison so people will see that it isn't worth breaking the law.
I think the fine/costs was a bit soft but we can't be filling the jails up with hunters yet.
Eagle_day
Well-Known Member
Rumpole of the Bailey speaks!
Go away and read the Hunting Act again: it's not an offence that carries a jail sentence, just a maximum £5,000 fine.
Go away and read the Hunting Act again: it's not an offence that carries a jail sentence, just a maximum £5,000 fine.
wurzel
Well-Known Member
"There are lots of different arguments about the best way to control (or not) wild animals but this court case shows that people will be prosecuted if they break the law."
Do you know any of the arguments?
"I am happy that these 2 were found guilty and I hope that they don't do it again, if they do and go to court again I hope they are given a spell in prison so people will see that it isn't worth breaking the law."
I am 100% sure they will do it again.
Have you got the slightest clue what is going on?
I know you are shy but tell us one thing.....where do you live?
Do you know any of the arguments?
"I am happy that these 2 were found guilty and I hope that they don't do it again, if they do and go to court again I hope they are given a spell in prison so people will see that it isn't worth breaking the law."
I am 100% sure they will do it again.
Have you got the slightest clue what is going on?
I know you are shy but tell us one thing.....where do you live?
wrighty
Well-Known Member
"Do you know any of the arguments?"
Hunters say hunting is the best way, others say shooting but hunters disagree and some say leave the wild animals alone to control themselves ("But they'll eat our crops!!!")
There's 3 for you.
"just a maximum £5,000 fine"
Ooops, my mistake. Please forgive me for missing out on that one. (Plenty of ammunition there for people to have a dig)
"I am 100% sure they will do it again."
OK, I hope they get a £5000 fine next time. (Thanks for that Eagle)
"I know you are shy but tell us one thing.....where do you live?"
Sorry to disapoint you but I'm not a city dwelling tree hugger, born and bred int Yorkshire Dales/Vales and living in Herefrodshire.
Does living somewhere away from where you want to do your hunting mean I know less about it? NO.
Hunters say hunting is the best way, others say shooting but hunters disagree and some say leave the wild animals alone to control themselves ("But they'll eat our crops!!!")
There's 3 for you.
"just a maximum £5,000 fine"
Ooops, my mistake. Please forgive me for missing out on that one. (Plenty of ammunition there for people to have a dig)
"I am 100% sure they will do it again."
OK, I hope they get a £5000 fine next time. (Thanks for that Eagle)
"I know you are shy but tell us one thing.....where do you live?"
Sorry to disapoint you but I'm not a city dwelling tree hugger, born and bred int Yorkshire Dales/Vales and living in Herefrodshire.
Does living somewhere away from where you want to do your hunting mean I know less about it? NO.
Paul T
Well-Known Member
Wrighty, you have to remember old Tom Faggot thinks the only people who are entitled to an opinion about hunting have descendents who've lived on Exmoor since the Doomsday Survey (and preferably are married to their siblings). I'm afraid you don't count as you're an 'outsider'.
Paul T
Well-Known Member
For descendants read ancestors in the above post!!
Eagle_day
Well-Known Member
"Thanks for that Eagle"
Not at all.
Correcting antis of their misapprehensions is my pleasure.
It happens a lot.
Not at all.
Correcting antis of their misapprehensions is my pleasure.
It happens a lot.
vicijp
Well-Known Member
'"Do you know any of the arguments?"
Hunters say hunting is the best way, others say shooting but hunters disagree and some say leave the wild animals alone to control themselves ("But they'll eat our crops!!!")'
But this is stag hunting, they are shot????
Hunters say hunting is the best way, others say shooting but hunters disagree and some say leave the wild animals alone to control themselves ("But they'll eat our crops!!!")'
But this is stag hunting, they are shot????
wurzel
Well-Known Member
"Wrighty, you have to remember old Tom Faggot thinks the only people who are entitled to an opinion about hunting have descendents who've lived on Exmoor since the Doomsday Survey (and preferably are married to their siblings). I'm afraid you don't count as you're an 'outsider'."
Yup !
Thats just about it.
Keep fining us a couple days pay. What good is it going to do?
The only way to stop us hunting is to put us in prison.
Good Luck !
Yup !
Thats just about it.
Keep fining us a couple days pay. What good is it going to do?
The only way to stop us hunting is to put us in prison.
Good Luck !
wurzel
Well-Known Member
"Does living somewhere away from where you want to do your hunting mean I know less about it? NO."
'Fraid it does my little friend !!
Want a competition ?
I will take any stag hunting test.
'Fraid it does my little friend !!
Want a competition ?
I will take any stag hunting test.
wrighty
Well-Known Member
Have I got to live 500yrds from you to have an opinion on or knowledge of hunting?
Don't talk daft.
Don't talk daft.
wrighty
Well-Known Member
"The only way to stop us hunting is to put us in prison."
Don't pay your fines and we'll see what happens
Don't pay your fines and we'll see what happens
wurzel
Well-Known Member
"Have I got to live 500yrds from you to have an opinion on or knowledge of hunting?
Don't talk daft."
OK. Tell me what you know about Stag hunting.
Don't talk daft."
OK. Tell me what you know about Stag hunting.
wurzel
Well-Known Member
"Don't pay your fines and we'll see what happens"
The simpler way is to pay the fines and carry on hunting.
How many people go to prison if they can't afford pay fines anyway?
Do you know how much a whipper in earns?
£1 a week for 6 years? Whatever !!!
Good luck with your ban
)
The simpler way is to pay the fines and carry on hunting.
How many people go to prison if they can't afford pay fines anyway?
Do you know how much a whipper in earns?
£1 a week for 6 years? Whatever !!!
Good luck with your ban
)Paul T
Well-Known Member
Faggot, you're getting yourself all confused again. Earlier you said £500 was a couple of day's pay, now you're claiming whipper-ins are paid a pittance.
I bet it's so comforting for Down and Pillivant to know you're so casual about their convictions on their behalf! I doubt very much if you'll be one of those at the barricades when push comes to shove. You'll probably be sat in your hovel posting on the H&H forum when the arrests are made!
I bet it's so comforting for Down and Pillivant to know you're so casual about their convictions on their behalf! I doubt very much if you'll be one of those at the barricades when push comes to shove. You'll probably be sat in your hovel posting on the H&H forum when the arrests are made!
wurzel
Well-Known Member
Confused. Not me.
£500 is a couple days pay to many. Maybe me. But then I am not a whipper in.
You miss the point. Fining people £1000 means nothing.
What do you think it means? 100 people chipping in a tenner?
Or...oh no I can't afford to pay !
I am completely casual about their convictions, as they are. What do you think they will be doing in mid-August?
And I am not sure what you are on about with barricades?
I don't expect a revolution but you keep dreaming. I'll keep hunting.
I am looking forward to Wrighty's stag hunting test. Care to help him?
£500 is a couple days pay to many. Maybe me. But then I am not a whipper in.
You miss the point. Fining people £1000 means nothing.
What do you think it means? 100 people chipping in a tenner?
Or...oh no I can't afford to pay !
I am completely casual about their convictions, as they are. What do you think they will be doing in mid-August?
And I am not sure what you are on about with barricades?
I don't expect a revolution but you keep dreaming. I'll keep hunting.
I am looking forward to Wrighty's stag hunting test. Care to help him?
wrighty
Well-Known Member
You seem to be missing the point (as usual)
I would never say that I know more about hunting than someone who does it BUT it does not mean I don't know anything.
Pro's have assumed that because I am against any form of hunting I am a towny and therefore no right to have an opinion on it.
As stated before I was born and bred in the country, worked on the land for years and experienced hunting and its effects on animals and the countryside. I have shot, skinned, prepared and eaten animals and would again if I needed to.
Just because I don't mention that stags are chased by hounds until they either escape or stand their ground ("Standing at bay" to some people) and are shot at close range by the "hunter".
The problem now seems to be the chasing of the stag, you can flush the stag out but it must be shot as soon as possible, the problem comes when the hounds chase the stag while there isn't anyone there to shoot it. (Evidence given in theQuantocks case if I remember rightly)
I would never say that I know more about hunting than someone who does it BUT it does not mean I don't know anything.
Pro's have assumed that because I am against any form of hunting I am a towny and therefore no right to have an opinion on it.
As stated before I was born and bred in the country, worked on the land for years and experienced hunting and its effects on animals and the countryside. I have shot, skinned, prepared and eaten animals and would again if I needed to.
Just because I don't mention that stags are chased by hounds until they either escape or stand their ground ("Standing at bay" to some people) and are shot at close range by the "hunter".
The problem now seems to be the chasing of the stag, you can flush the stag out but it must be shot as soon as possible, the problem comes when the hounds chase the stag while there isn't anyone there to shoot it. (Evidence given in theQuantocks case if I remember rightly)
sturgo
Well-Known Member
hm... I dont know hardly anything about stag hunting...
peakpark
Well-Known Member
Wrighty, have you posted on this forum before under a different alias? Just wondering......
Paul T
Well-Known Member
"£500 is a couple days pay to many. Maybe me. But then I am not a whipper in."
No, I know you're not. As I said, I bet it's so comforting for Down and Pillivant to know you're so casual about their convictions on their behalf! What's that about armchair generals?
"You miss the point. Fining people £1000 means nothing.
What do you think it means? 100 people chipping in a tenner?
Or...oh no I can't afford to pay !"
The consequences of a criminal record go well beyond the fine. In any case, other people will be paying the fines for these criminals. The amount of the fine really isn't the point.
"I am completely casual about their convictions, as they are. What do you think they will be doing in mid-August?"
Why go through the hassle of appealing if everyone's so cool about it all?
"I am looking forward to Wrighty's stag hunting test. Care to help him?"
Haven't the foggiest what you're on about - you're slipped back into gibberish again.
No, I know you're not. As I said, I bet it's so comforting for Down and Pillivant to know you're so casual about their convictions on their behalf! What's that about armchair generals?
"You miss the point. Fining people £1000 means nothing.
What do you think it means? 100 people chipping in a tenner?
Or...oh no I can't afford to pay !"
The consequences of a criminal record go well beyond the fine. In any case, other people will be paying the fines for these criminals. The amount of the fine really isn't the point.
"I am completely casual about their convictions, as they are. What do you think they will be doing in mid-August?"
Why go through the hassle of appealing if everyone's so cool about it all?
"I am looking forward to Wrighty's stag hunting test. Care to help him?"
Haven't the foggiest what you're on about - you're slipped back into gibberish again.
Paul T
Well-Known Member
"I would never say that I know more about hunting than someone who does it BUT it does not mean I don't know anything."
Using old Faggot's logic, you'd have to be a member of the South African police force over twenty years ago to know anything about apartheid. It's a very twisted logic.
Using old Faggot's logic, you'd have to be a member of the South African police force over twenty years ago to know anything about apartheid. It's a very twisted logic.
southgate1975
Well-Known Member
Just between ourselves, I dont so much think it's twisted logic as evasive logic. It means that Tom can evade the real points of the issue.
wurzel
Well-Known Member
"The consequences of a criminal record go well beyond the fine. In any case, other people will be paying the fines for these criminals. The amount of the fine really isn't the point."
So what is the point then? What is the deterrent to this non crime?
"Why go through the hassle of appealing if everyone's so cool about it all?"
Presumably they believe they were hunting within the law. Still no one knows. Hunting starts again in August.
So what is the point then? What is the deterrent to this non crime?
"Why go through the hassle of appealing if everyone's so cool about it all?"
Presumably they believe they were hunting within the law. Still no one knows. Hunting starts again in August.
wurzel
Well-Known Member
So what are the real points of the issue?
Paul T
Well-Known Member
"So what is the point then? What is the deterrent to this non crime?"
It's a crime alright, and all right-minded people prefer not to get a criminal record.
""Why go through the hassle of appealing if everyone's so cool about it all?"
Presumably they believe they were hunting within the law. Still no one knows."
You're confused again. Earlier you said: "The only way to stop us hunting is to put us in prison", now you're trying to claim they believed they were hunting within the law.
Only you could spout such garbage.
It's a crime alright, and all right-minded people prefer not to get a criminal record.
""Why go through the hassle of appealing if everyone's so cool about it all?"
Presumably they believe they were hunting within the law. Still no one knows."
You're confused again. Earlier you said: "The only way to stop us hunting is to put us in prison", now you're trying to claim they believed they were hunting within the law.
Only you could spout such garbage.
southgate1975
Well-Known Member
You tell me, then I'll know you're not evading.