Repeal or No Repeal of The Acting Act 2004

[Judgemental]

I predicted the exact number of seats that the SNP would have in Westminster in another thread on this Forum.

I now confidently predict that the SNP will stand aside from a vote and therefore Repeal will happen and very shortly too.

The big question to be resolved; will the Repeal Legislation include a new offence of interfering with a Registered Hunt. Hopefully with a hefty fine and custodial sentence.

Herewith a piece from today's Daily Mail,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tories demand a Commons vote on scrapping hunting ban to be staged within weeks
Senior backbenchers want repeal of hunting ban in Queen's Speech
Vote could be lost if SNP breaks vow to miss debate on hunting in England

By Jason Groves for the Daily Mail

Published: 15:05, 17 May 2015 | Updated: 16:01, 17 May 2015

Tories are demanding a Commons vote to scrap the controversial hunting ban within weeks – despite fears the move could be blocked by the SNP.

David Cameron pledged that MPs would be given a free vote on whether to repeal the Hunting Act if the Conservatives won the election.

Senior Tories want the move to be included in this month’s Queen’s Speech, despite concerns in Downing Street that it would send out the wrong message.

Pro-hunting campaigners warn the result of the vote would be ‘tight’ – and could be lost if the SNP break their pre-election vow to sit out any debate on hunting in England.

Former environment secretary Owen Paterson, who pushed for a relaxation of the ban while in office, said: ‘The hunting ban is bad legislation, bad for animal welfare and bad for the liberty of people in the countryside.

'A repeal of this law is a clear manifesto commitment and I am confident we will see it in the Queen’s Speech on May 27.’

Tory MP Simon Hart said there was a groundswell of opinion in rural areas that Labour’s 10-year-old hunting ban was a mistake.

Mr Hart, a former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: ‘We need to get on with this and I am sure the Government will want to resolve the matter quickly and efficiently.

'The commitment to a vote on repeal has been in the manifesto since 2005 and we now have the opportunity to deliver that and get rid of a law that has been a running sore in the countryside for over 10 years.


‘The vast majority of my colleagues understand that this whole debate was never really about hunting or animal welfare, but about Labour MPs having a go at what they thought was an easy Conservative target.

'The recent election result has shown once and for all that Labour’s obsession with fighting a class war has rendered them unelectable, so it is only right that we remove laws based on this prejudice from the statute book.’

Downing Street sources played down the prospects of action on hunting being included in the Queen’s Speech, which will focus instead on major priorities like legislating for a tax lock to prevent rises in VAT, income tax and National Insurance.

But the Government’s agenda is not limited to the Queen’s Speech and sources have not ruled out an early vote.

One Tory source said: ‘There is no point in delaying this – I would expect it sooner rather than later.’

Pro-hunting campaigners believe that close to 300 Tory MPs will vote in favour of repealing the Hunting Act.

Ministers are also considering bringing in new animal welfare protections if hunting is scrapped to make it easier for wavering Tory MPs to back repeal.

The fate of the ban would then depend on the SNP, which has repeatedly said it will not vote on an issue that is wholly devolved.

As recently as February this year, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon side: ‘The SNP have a longstanding position of not voting on matters which purely affect England – such as fox-hunting south of the border, for example – and we stand by that.’

But some observers believe SNP MPs – who are overwhelmingly against hunting – may find the idea of halting the Tories on a totemic issue irresistible.

Mr Cameron promised a free vote on hunting in his 2010 manifesto, and it was included in the coalition agreement with the Lib Dems. But the vote was never held because of fears it would be lost.

The Prime Minister said in March that he believed in the ‘freedom to hunt’, adding: ‘The Hunting Act has done nothing for animal welfare. A Conservative Government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government Bill in government time.’

 

[MiJodsR2BlinkinTite]

Mmmmm...... wish I shared your optimism OP.

No doubt the issue will continually get shelved with the excuse of "not enough parliamentary time".

In which case all the good Tory voters will have been thoroughly sold down the river.

I'd be willing to bet a notional £50, nay I'd put £100 on the table, that we won't see repeal in this parliament

 

[Judgemental]

Mmmmm...... wish I shared your optimism OP.

No doubt the issue will continually get shelved with the excuse of "not enough parliamentary time".

In which case all the good Tory voters will have been thoroughly sold down the river.

I'd be willing to bet a notional £50, nay I'd put £100 on the table, that we won't see repeal in this parliament

MiJodsR2BlinkinTite, I just love your nom de plume - LOL. Have no fear repeal will happen and you had better take a pull as you "slop along a Devon lane" when the D and S scream across the horizon.

Be bold and positive.

Oh how wonderful the whole pack in full cry. Life will be worth living again

 

[Countryman]

Mmmmm...... wish I shared your optimism OP.

No doubt the issue will continually get shelved with the excuse of "not enough parliamentary time".

In which case all the good Tory voters will have been thoroughly sold down the river.

I'd be willing to bet a notional £50, nay I'd put £100 on the table, that we won't see repeal in this parliament

I will take you up on that bet!

Repeal will be fantastic, but I do think it will need two other pieces of legislation;

1 - some sort of animal cruelty law such as that proposed by Lord Donoughue, that will take hunting with hounds off the political landscapeand reassure people, making it less controversial. After all, there is no point in repeal if every 5 years it gets banned again, then 5 years ater repealed etc.

2- As JM suggested - some sort of offence of interfering with a registered hunt, perhaps in a similar way to the aggravated trespass law but not require somebody to be trespassing for it to occur. It should also include a harassment section - following people around filming them is harassment and ought to be dealt with as such.
Crucially though it should come with the power to confiscate all equipment and vehicles used knowingly or unknowingly to facilitate the offence, powers which the police have used very effectively against poachers and which would really help hunts.

 

[Cinnamontoast]

Never hinted, never will, but I hope there is new legislation to deal with the sabs who strike me as pure PITAs. Gofundmethis, gofundmethat, ruddy trauma!

Do people really think the Hunting Act is such a biggy and should be dealt with ASAP? I was absolutely horrified to see people saying how they would away from the Cons purely due to this one issue. I feel that there are bigger, more important issues as to why one should vote for any particular party.

 

[Judgemental]

Never hinted, never will, but I hope there is new legislation to deal with the sabs who strike me as pure PITAs. Gofundmethis, gofundmethat, ruddy trauma!

Do people really think the Hunting Act is such a biggy and should be dealt with ASAP? I was absolutely horrified to see people saying how they would away from the Cons purely due to this one issue. I feel that there are bigger, more important issues as to why one should vote for any particular party.

This is a very important issue and was clearly set out by The Prime Minister verbally on a least four occasions, during the Election Campaign, notwithstanding discussing the matter on the Andrew Marr show.

Coupled to the crystal clear statement in The Conservative Manifesto that The Hunting Act 2004 would be repealed.

Therefore, plainly millions of people voted for repeal and with immediate effect.

One assumes you do not have vast herds of deer eating your grass and crops? Along with spreading Lymes Disease to your horses?

 

[Cinnamontoast]

I'm not saying people shouldn't hunt. I totally agree with eliminating pests where needed, culling deer etc. My point was: is this such a huge issue that people actually voted for or against a party based on it? It's an important issue, yes, but surely people voted based on more than one point in the manifesto? Aren't there more important, wider ranging issues?

 

[Judgemental]

I'm not saying people shouldn't hunt. I totally agree with eliminating pests where needed, culling deer etc. My point was: is this such a huge issue that people actually voted for or against a party based on it? It's an important issue, yes, but surely people voted based on more than one point in the manifesto? Aren't there more important, wider ranging issues?

No because it is a bad law and bad laws have to be expunged quickly.

The old adage of "Be you ever so high you are not above the law". Therefore if the law is bad then, it is the most important thing to correct, so that a bad law is not above the people.

 

[Lizzie66]

I'm not saying people shouldn't hunt. I totally agree with eliminating pests where needed, culling deer etc. My point was: is this such a huge issue that people actually voted for or against a party based on it? It's an important issue, yes, but surely people voted based on more than one point in the manifesto? Aren't there more important, wider ranging issues?

You are correct there are more important things to consider and I doubt that very many people voted for or against Conservatives solely based on hunting with hounds. However, this was on the Conservative manifesto and they will be keen to try and see delivery on as many items as possible on their manifesto and it is probably a fairly easy one to deliver if SNP abstain as they said they would. They will also be keen to try and maintain the support of the hunting community as they have been volunteering in their droves to support MPs in marginal seats.

 

[{51248}]

I'd support the repeal if it was replaced by another law making it illegal to turn killing animals into a sport.

 

[rosepa]

pakkasham, is that not what hunting really is though - a sport which results in animals being killed? :/

 

[Cinnamontoast]

You are correct there are more important things to consider and I doubt that very many people voted for or against Conservatives solely based on hunting with hounds. However, this was on the Conservative manifesto and they will be keen to try and see delivery on as many items as possible on their manifesto and it is probably a fairly easy one to deliver if SNP abstain as they said they would. They will also be keen to try and maintain the support of the hunting community as they have been volunteering in their droves to support MPs in marginal seats.

I have seen a crazy no,her of posts elsewhere saying this very thing, that they would vote away from the Conservatives purely because of the Hunting Act being potentially repealed. I was and remain dumbstruck!

 

[Judgemental]

I have seen a crazy no,her of posts elsewhere saying this very thing, that they would vote away from the Conservatives purely because of the Hunting Act being potentially repealed. I was and remain dumbstruck!

Fear not, repeal with happen. That's why I called this thread The Acting Act 2004. Because in my opinion, it is a farce.

Now why is it going to be repealed, For the following reasons, especially as it's a Free Vote.

1. All the new boys and girls in Parliament on the Conservative benches will want to please the Prime Minister, mindful of their careers.

2. All the old boys and girls will be similarly disposed. None of them will want to have a black mark on their career path for the sake of a fox or two. Furthermore if the vote were tight those who 'sank the boat' would not be very popular. For example if they wanted to set down their own particular legislation etc. Whips are best smiled at whilst one goes into the Yes Lobby on a Free Vote. That is an understatement. Call it Public School Management Tactics. I include the Blue Foxes in that scenario.

3. As for the SNP. I wonder if discretion is the better part of valour and Mrs Sturgeon can see which side her bread is buttered and she can get more out of Mr Cameron for a few foxes and deer hunted than muddying the waters. Perhaps she has already she done a deal, as it is squarely an English and Welsh matter. I certainly would, because it will not effect the SNP support in Scotland in the slightest. Whereas the SNP will applaud her for having Mr Cameron on a string for free (she sells the English and Welsh foxes and deer - which she did not have to buy) and gets all sorts of monetary concessions that are part of the SNP's manifesto.

 

[marmalade76]

Never hinted, never will, but I hope there is new legislation to deal with the sabs who strike me as pure PITAs. Gofundmethis, gofundmethat, ruddy trauma!

Do people really think the Hunting Act is such a biggy and should be dealt with ASAP? I was absolutely horrified to see people saying how they would away from the Cons purely due to this one issue. I feel that there are bigger, more important issues as to why one should vote for any particular party.

Totally agree, and I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, OP.

 

[Judgemental]

Totally agree, and I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, OP.

Don't worry marmalade I won't, because the consequences of not supporting a repeal vote will be rather like, 'Kicking a Hound at the Meet', 'Heading the fox in the hunt of the season' or 'upsetting the biggest landowner as an individual, so that the hunt is banned, if one is ever out within a five mile radius of the estate or farm'.

 

[AmyMay]

My views have changed over the years, and I for one vehemently hope there is no repeal.

 

[{51248}]

pakkasham, is that not what hunting really is though - a sport which results in animals being killed? :/

That's exactly what hunting is, IMHO.

 

[Fellewell]

I'd support the repeal if it was replaced by another law making it illegal to turn killing animals into a sport.

When your pet pooch presents you with a small, or even large furry trophy, he's not being 'sporting' at all. He'd still track and kill it whether you were there or not. It's just nature, red in tooth and claw.

As for repeal, my main concern is that people who don't know the difference between Walt Disney and real life won't change their misguided behaviour.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I doubt that the hunting act will be repealed. I don't think that the average person in the street would like it to return to how it was.

IMHO, many people think that the issue has already been adequately dealt with. They see that hunting, with all its spectacle, continues albeit in a more regulated and humane form. Hunting has been seen to be 'modernised', if you like.

It will be interesting to see how the newbie Tory MPs react if a storm of anti repeal sentiment kicks up in their constituencies.

The SNP issue is very interesting. Will they use the right to abstain on the hunting vote as a bargaining tool to be stashed away for later? Hmmm, maybe so.

 

[Lizzie66]

I doubt that the hunting act will be repealed. I don't think that the average person in the street would like it to return to how it was.

IMHO, many people think that the issue has already been adequately dealt with. They see that hunting, with all its spectacle, continues albeit in a more regulated and humane form. Hunting has been seen to be 'modernised', if you like.

It will be interesting to see how the newbie Tory MPs react if a storm of anti repeal sentiment kicks up in their constituencies.

The SNP issue is very interesting. Will they use the right to abstain on the hunting vote as a bargaining tool to be stashed away for later? Hmmm, maybe so.

I think it will but I think it will be linked back to the original plan which was the middle way whereby animal welfare is key and hunts are regulated. There will be nothing to stop hunts continuing to hunt trails if they so desire, but at least we then get back to maintain fox numbers in the most appropriate and most humane manner.

 

[Tea Drinker]

I'd support the repeal if it was replaced by another law making it illegal to turn killing animals into a sport.

So you would outlaw fishing and shooting too then? Or perhaps is it only acceptable to make it a sport if you eat the quarry at the end?
And if you eat it, does it matter if the method chosen to kill the animal gave "sport" to those taking part? So the end justifies the means perhaps??!

And we shoot pigeons on our farm all summer long. Partly because they do damage to our crops (especially the peas) but also because it's wonderful sport. sometimes we eat them, sometimes we don't. How would you legislate for that kind of killing that falls into many camps? Bit like fox-hunting really which is part vermin service but in doing so, has a wonderful by-product of giving wonderful days over countryside to the mounted followers.

 

[{51248}]

When your pet pooch presents you with a small, or even large furry trophy, he's not being 'sporting' at all. He'd still track and kill it whether you were there or not. It's just nature, red in tooth and claw.

As for repeal, my main concern is that people who don't know the difference between Walt Disney and real life won't change their misguided behaviour.

It's not the animals that participate in the sport, it's the humans.

 

[{51248}]

So you would outlaw fishing and shooting too then?

Only if they were made into sports.
Though these offend me less than fox hunting, because there is less of a chase.


Or perhaps is it only acceptable to make it a sport if you eat the quarry at the end?

I think the activity as a whole is more acceptable if done for reasons of pest control or obtaining food, but to make killing into a sport, or make a sport out of killing, is completely immoral.

And if you eat it, does it matter if the method chosen to kill the animal gave "sport" to those taking part?
Yes, the sport aspect is immoral.

And we shoot pigeons on our farm all summer long. Partly because they do damage to our crops (especially the peas)

that's OK

but also because it's wonderful sport.

but this is immoral. You're saying you like killing animals for fun.

How would you legislate for that kind of killing that falls into many camps? Bit like fox-hunting really which is part vermin service

Vermin (if that's what they are) control is fine, but how many people are needed to actually do that ?

but in doing so, has a wonderful by-product of giving wonderful days over countryside to the mounted followers.

this is the immoral bit.

 

[Lizzie66]

Pakkasham your argument is extremely confused.

Angling is a sport a by product might be food on the table for tea but as like as not they are returned to whence they came. People do it because they enjoy it.

On the same basis fox-hunting is a method of vermin control. People who follow it do so for a number of reasons, some to help with the vermin control, some because they like to watch the hounds work, some for a nice ride across countryside that would otherwise be closed to them and some because they enjoy the social aspect. The fox is sometimes caught and killed and as frequently escapes free from harm. The "chase" aspect ensures that the best are more likely to escape, whereas the weaker are more likely to be caught and killed. This is as nature intended and is what leads to a well balanced and healthy population. No-one actually has a thirst for blood or "enjoys" the kill aspect. There is a satisfaction in knowing the hounds did their job.

I am sure that I won't change your mind and just as sure that you won't change mine. However its amazing how many senior folks from LACS have migrated from an anti hunting viewpoint to a pro hunting one, I don't think you will find any masters who have gone the other way.

 

[Countryman]

Pakkasham, you may very well feel it is immoral to gain any enjoyment from any part of a process where, at some point, an animal has been killed. This includes the eating of meat, and indeed also grain and cereals, where pest control has been carried out. I hope you do not *enjoy* driving your car, as it is killing many moths as you travel. Such is your right. However, your views are held by a very small minority. Legislation should not be about enforcing some people's idea of morality on others.

 

[{51248}]

Lizzie, sorry if I've confused you. My belief is that making the killing of an animal (however necessary and humane it may be) into a sport is immoral.


"On the same basis fox-hunting is a method of vermin control."

Which may or may not be actually necessary; there have been arguments on both sides about this. However, this is not a part of my argument.

"People who follow it do so for a number of reasons, some because they like to watch the hounds work, some for a nice ride across countryside that would otherwise be closed to them and some because they enjoy the social aspect."

This is exactly what turns it into a sport.

"The fox is sometimes caught and killed and as frequently escapes free from harm. The "chase" aspect ensures that the best are more likely to escape, whereas the weaker are more likely to be caught and killed. This is as nature intended and is what leads to a well balanced and healthy population. No-one actually has a thirst for blood or "enjoys" the kill aspect."

Nevertheless, the point of the hunt is to try and kill the fox. No hunt operates by chasing a fox for a while and then deliberately letting it get away. The intention is to kill. The intention of the participants is to enjoy the events that lead up to the kill. The participants could not enjoy the events if the kill was not the intention.

"However its amazing how many senior folks from LACS have migrated from an anti hunting viewpoint to a pro hunting one, I don't think you will find any masters who have gone the other way. "

TBH, I don't really care. My purpose here is to state my own opinions, not to justify other peoples.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Pakkasham.

I think your position is very well explained, and I am in agreement with it and would also add that in my view killing animals for sport is medieval and archaic.

While some may think that it is okay because hunting is fun, and may come up with arguments as to why it should return, one thing that cannot be changed is that animals are killed for sport...whatever the reason or apparent justifications.

That cannot be right.

 

[Judgemental]

It's not the animals that participate in the sport, it's the humans.

Considering your clear interest in flying, perhaps you would do well to use your knowledge, to challenge the endless incidents of low flying aircraft over riders in open country and horses at grass.

Frankly your arguments concerning the art of venery are all flying on a 'wing and a prayer'.

 

[{51248}]

"Pakkasham, you may very well feel it is immoral to gain any enjoyment ...."

That's not what I said, so don't put words into my mouth and then complain about it.

 

[{51248}]

"
Legislation should not be about enforcing some people's idea of morality on others. "

In a very broad sense, isn't all legislation based on the concept of enforcing morality ?