Reply to complaint to Lush....

[JenHunt]

so I emailed Lush complaining about their decision to support HSA, and pointing out that I am no longer buying from them.

got this in response.

Thank you for your recent email. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why we are supporting the Hunt Saboteurs Association, who will directly receive the proceeds from our Fabulous Mrs Fox bubble bar up until and including Boxing Day.

In February 2005, hunting with hounds was made illegal in England and Wales (Scotland having done so a number of years previously). Sadly, despite being supported by more than 75% of the population and after more than 5 years of this ban being in place, hunts right across the country continue to illegally cause untold suffering to animals in the name of sport.

When we first met The Hunt Saboteurs Association, we were very touched when they told us that when the legislation had been passed they had felt huge relief that they would finally be able to retire from the field now that the law would now be protecting our wildlife, but that the sad reality was that they had seen hunts continue in much the same numbers because police forces seemed reluctant to attend and enforce the ban. So they have had to continue to go out week after week, collecting evidence and filming the hunts. They tell us that as long as the Law is not enforced through the courts, they will be out on the fields of Britain, monitoring the hunts and using tried and tested non-violent tactics to get between the fox and the hounds whenever they can. They don't want to be there, but they can see that nobody else is doing the job.

We feel that it is disgraceful that the Hunt Saboteurs Association, a volunteer organisation, are the only people trying to enforce a ban that was passed into Law not just by a majority in Parliament, but with overwhelming support from the majority of the British public. We also believe that this majority think that hunting has ceased now that it is against the law. Sadly this is not the case and we believe the public should have the right to know.

Lush is proud to be associated with the Hunt Saboteurs Association who show the tenacity and bravery to uphold a law that our own police force and government seem reluctant to enforce, despite strong and continued support for the ban from the British public.

We welcome and value feedback from all our customers, so thank you for getting in touch with us. I will be sure to pass your comments on to our Campaigns team for future consideration.

(Future consideration my ar8e)

 

[Aragon56]

It seems like such a bizarre 'charity' to support, I can only think that someone in Lush is well connected to the hunt sabs?

Its really strange otherwise that they've chosen them out of thousands of other charities that could do with the money! I also can't see any link between bath/beauty products, and people whose idea of fun is to disrupt and monitor hunts on a Saturday morning, its very odd. At least some people have made them aware though, and hopefully it will backfire on them.

 

[muffinino]

Shocked muffinino is shocked

So, they'd rather support a group who harrass people who are legally hunting and use violent tactics, including harming horses and hounds, than put the money towards a cause that truly tries to make a difference to animal welfare in a constructive way that such as The Brooke, for example?

I.D.I.O.T.S.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

probably their products are initially tested on unfortunate animals anyway, although they would wholy deny this!!

 

[Nickijem]

Well,that's one brand I won't be buying for Christmas gifts again!

 

[sea_view]

Sounds to me that someone high up in Lush is a major anti as I am surprised such a big company would answer with an email like that which is quite clearly one-sided and not entirely factual.

 

[JenHunt]

does this sound like a suitably composed and reasonable reply?


I feel that you have not understood the complexity of this problem at all.

My experience of the HSA is one of violence and anti-social behaviour. I was 11 and whilst out drag hunting (not even fox hunting) my friends and I were set upon by a group who were proudly displaying their HSA logo (as well as that of other anti-hunt campaigns). This group proceeded to set off fireworks in the face of our horses, terrifying us and the horses. My friend's horse was attacked with a knife and could never be ridden again as her fear was so great that she became dangerous. My friend also gave up riding shortly afterwards.

The HSA are by no means "the only people trying to enforce a ban that was passed into Law" - there are countless other groups doing the same, and the vast majority are volunteer 'forces'. One of which recently were held responsible for the death of a hunt supporter (please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7937895.stm for more details).

It is not that police forces are "reluctant to attend and enforce the ban". A statement read at our first meet after the ban came into force (read by a representative of our local police force) stated that the police expected hunts to behave responsibly and to hunt within the law. The police had no intention of pro-actively enforcing the law as they had better ways to spend public funding, and better things for their man-power to be doing. In the area we live in, it is impossible for some of our followers to follow us, so there is little chance that unmounted police would be able to police us effectively. In many areas of the country the police do attend meets, but to protect the 2 sides of the debate from each other, rather than to police the hunting.

The "hunts right across the country continue to illegally cause untold suffering to animals in the name of sport" - this is certainly not the majority, yes hunts are continuing, and not with the same numbers but with increased numbers! But they have taken their interpretation of this ridiculously vague piece of legislation and worked with lawyers, police, magistrates and other organisations to find a way to continue to provide access for hunt supporters to the most beautiful, unspoilt parts of the British countryside. The vast majority of hunts are hunting within the bounds of the law as they see it, they cannot afford expensive legal cases, loss of membership, or the loss of community that any court case would bring.

I don't expect you to change your views, or the views of your organisation from my one email. But Please think about the effect this decision will have on your business as a whole. I am sure that if you were to choose a less contentious charity to support, such as World Horse Welfare, or The Brooke Hospital for Animals for example then you would surely have the support of a much greater proportion of the population than you will with this choice.

I do, however, remain stuck to my conviction to not buy your products in the future.

 

[sea_view]

Good answer IMO - well written

 

[Aragon56]

Yes I think your reply is good.

definitely agree with Sea_View, someone at Lush is clearly very anti or associated with the sabs in some way, its all very one sided.

 

[teapot]

Wow that's slightly one sided isn't it? Like your reply too :grin:

 

[TheEngineer]

Excellent reply. I for one will not be buying any more products from Lush for the extended family at xmas! And I am not even a "fan" of hunting. But I am a fan of "freedom of choice" and if someone wants to hunt, it is not my place, or any large companies place to oppose their choice. So good luck to anyone who flouts this ridiculous ban and lets have a few less ridiculous laws passed to impinge upon our freedom of choice.....

 

[Doris68]

I don't normally post on here BUT...! A few years ago, my good friend was out with the hunt (fortunately, on a good seasoned campaigner) and she was hit from behind by a car (on a track btw), which knocked her and horse into a ditch.
She went out the front end and was thrown. The horse, fortunately, sustained only minor injuries. Friend, however, was very traumatised. She had to go to court and give evidence, which she did.

The outcome......? The person who did this said it was an accident and he didn't intend to hit the horse?? He was given a fine (which he couldn't pay as he lived in a caravan with his pregnant partner)....nothing more happened I understand.

Take from this what you want but anyone who truly loves animals would not do this to 'fellow animals'. whether they be hounds or horses - or even humans!!!!

 

[A1fie]

Great reply - really reasoned and well written without being emotive.

Another one who won't be buying Lush products anymore - I support everyone's right to an opinion even if I don't agree with it, but I'm not giving money to fund an organisation that deliberately tries to frighten and intimidate people and horses.

 

[juliehannah58]

Great reply.

I think it's rubbish and such a terrible marketing decision, why risk alienating any potential customers on the back of a charity most people do not understand?? Very bizarre.

I'm going to become an anti-lush sab!

 

[teapot]

Has anyone got a copy of the email they sent to Lush in the first instance? I've seen jenhunt's and be interested to see others

I don't but their stuff anyway so haven't lost my custom as such

 

[HeWasGeeBee]

Hi,

I am a frequent buyer of your products however I am very disappointed with your backing of the Hunt Saboteurs Association and I hope you will be kind enough to listen to my reasons.

I understand that there is an argument as to whether and when animals need to be controlled. However it is worth remembering that the natural predators of animals such as foxes and deer are no longer present which means that their populations are out of balance. It is especially the case with deer but also with foxes that leaving them to die of so called 'natural causes' actually is bad both for their welfare and for bio diversity.

For the fox population to remain in balance approximately 440,000 foxes die each year. Of these 100,000 or so are shot and 20,000 or so were hunted many many more die in the roads. You might say this means that hunting is not necessary. However it is worth bearing in mind that shooting inevitably merely wounds a proportion of animals. In fact peer reviewed research has shown that the wounding rate can be up to 60%. Wounded foxes suffer horribly.

I am enclosing a picture of a wounded fox. It is not for the faint hearted. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30155688&l=2dc00f4c4e&id=1559808200 with more shooting and less hunting there will be more of these. A key feature of hunting is that the hounds quickly find and dispatch wounded foxes. Hunting also tends to favour strong animals over weak ones which are less able to escape. When the hounds catch a fox it is pumped up with adrenaline and dies very quickly. Hunting does not wound. This is by no means always the case with shooting.

I understand that you find hunting distasteful. However it is worth bearing in mind that foxes would always have been hunted and killed by larger predators such as wolves and lynx. This predation actually kept the fox population healthy being caught by a predator is actually a better and more natural death for a fox than for example starving to death or dieing from disease or wounds which can take a very long time and involve massive suffering. Hunting with dogs has many features which replicate the ecological and welfare benefits of hunting.

I do not personally go fox hunting. However I do use my dogs to flush out and disperse deer from my coppiced woodland where they can do considerable damage to freshly coppiced trees. In actual fact I never kill any deer. Under the hunting Act it is illegal for me to flush out deer with my dogs UNLESS I then shoot them. I consider it completely immoral for the law to require me to kill animals in these circumstances.

Banning hunting does not protect foxes or deer. It just means that they die in more unpleasant ways.

It's worth bearing in mind that field sports in general are involved in the management of two thirds of our rural land area and contribute approximately 2.6 million person days of conservation work to the countryside, the equivalent of 120,000 full time jobs.

Your products are wonderful but in terms of environmentalism they pale into insignificance in comparison to this.

If you would like to discuss these issues further I would be only to happy to hear from you.

Best wishes


Giles Bradshaw
Rose Ash

 

[brighthair]

This was my email - sent in May 2009
I worked for Lush and heard a rumour so stuck my nose in early!! I am the ONLY pro hunt member on the Lush forum. However due to rational debate/bribery a few people are now asking questions and saying they don't want it to fund violence even if they don't agree with hunting. I won't be buying the bubble bar, and I won't look forward to going into the shop with the anti hunting window. The products are the only thing that works on my skin, but I am pretty stocked up so no shopping for a while
Email below

I am writing regarding a rumour (maybe chinese whisper!) I have heard regarding a new bubble bar. I believe it will be similar to Charity Pot except the money will go to hunt saboteurs

I adore Lush but the idea of this nearly brings me to tears. I am actually a pro hunt supporter - even though I am against animal testing and pride myself on choosing free range eggs/meat.

Hunt saboteurs are well known for many incidents where horses have been injured, often badly. However you will struggle to find incidents where hunts have injured horses/hounds as they care for their animals so well.

please refer to

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=36349
http://www.countryside-alliance.org...by-masked-men-in-front-of-wife-and-children./

Sabs often line hedges/walls with wire etc designed to bring a horse down. This often results in a broken leg and the horse has to be shot. Being a horse owner myself I find this upsetting and distressing.

I also think in regard to the gyrocopter incident where a man was killed - possibly by sabs - who was a well known and respected member of the hunting community it would be very bad timing

If I buy a bubble bar, and the profit goes to a hunt sab group, who wire a hedge and cause a horse to be destroyed - isn't that indirectly funding animal cruelty?

Hunting with or without foxes, is a brilliant day, a way of bringing a community together, pest control for farmers (where the fox is killed straight away as opposed to being shot in the leg and dying days later), exercise for horses and riders and is enjoyed by old and young, rich and poor.

I urge you to reconsider this - why not put that money to better use by donating to a horse charity? After the sterling job they did in rescuing so many horses from Spindles Farm, Amersham, they deserve everybodys support.

I understand part of the chosen charity may be a shock tattic - but is that at the expense of your ethics? Please ensure that NO money goes to people who may not set out to, but often injure animals in their pursuit of rescuing the fox

 

[Tharg]

The email I sent them is in the other thread. I got the same one sided reply as jenhunt.

 

[combat_claire]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was dismayed to read in The Guardian that your latest range of cosmetics will be a fund raiser for the Hunt Saboteurs Association. I was under the impression that Lush's charity fund raising was based around support for 'non-violent civil disobedience'. The Hunt Saboteurs Association is well known for for violent campaigns where hounds have been lured into hazards, been sprayed with all manner of substances to disrupt the hunt and in some cases stolen. In addition they have launched campaigns of intimidation against those involved in legal hunting.

I had been planning to buy many of your products as Christmas presents this year, but unfortunately I am unable to do this while your charity funding includes groups such as the HSA.

Yours faithfully,

I haven't had a reply to this yet, although when I first sent it through to their PR department I got a generic load of bollocks relating to their charity fund raising policy and how their charities were allocated for this year.

 

[HeWasGeeBee]

I got an identical reply

 

[HeWasGeeBee]

Dear Vicky,

I also find it totally unacceptable that you are supporting people who engage in violent and illegal activities. Are you aware that hunt sabotage is a crime? I have been personally targeted by these people with a photograph of me with gun sites super imposed over it put up by it on the internet.

Are you happy to support people who villify your customers in this way?

Furthermore the idea that hunts are routinely breaking the hunting act is an outright lie.

Hunts have been extensively monitored and there have been very very few successful prosecutions of them. All outstanding prosecutions have now been dropped due to lack of evidence.

These people routinely follow round and harass law abiding people filming them and their children. Would you follow me round with a video camera in your stores while accusing me of shop lifting when you have no evidence that I am? And would you send out emails to members of the public accusing me of shop lifting when you have no evidence?

 

[{51248}]

I think there's two things here...

1) The Hunt Sabs are selling themselves and gaining sympathy, and hunts are not. You can complain, but you'll never get anywhere unless and until the hunts sell themselves better.

2) You say hints are hunting legally; the Hunt Sabs talk about cruelty. Why are there two such opposing points of view? You cant both be right.

 

[combat_claire]

To be honest, hunting and hunting people are getting better at showcasing themselves to the general public, which is probably the reason we have so many new followers while IFAW have been forced to lay off two hunt monitors, and LACS to sell off their London HQ to raise funds. So called hunt monitors have been found attending hunt meets with weapons, so don't try and tell me that is intended at being peaceful protest!

If you read the Hunting Act, then hunts are doing their best to comply with the legislation. We work within the exemptions laid out. This really seems to stick in the craw of those who sought to ban us, so now they style themselves as 'hunt monitors' and follow the hunts round in an attempt to prove we are doing something we are not. There have been many prosecutions and yet just a handful convictions - 1 of which was overturned on appeal. It is telling that the CPS/Courts have thrown out three cases involving the D & S, The Percy & the Heythrop, while private prosecutions against the huntsman of the Ullswater were also found in the hunt's favour.

If I decided that I thought there was a slight chance that you might shoplift, and as a result blockaded you onto your own drive, videoed you as you went about your daily business then you wouldn't be overly amused, yet it seems to be acceptable for self-appointed vigilantes to treat law abiding hunting folk in this way.

 

[{51248}]

"If you read the Hunting Act, then hunts are doing their best to comply with the legislation. We work within the exemptions laid out"

TBH, I dont think that's well enought known. I think it's more widely thought that hunts are trying to get round the legislation and continue hunting in the traditional way, rather than seeking ways to comply with the legislation.

However, I dont want to argue with you personally - because I respect you - but I think you'll agree that there is still a big PR issue. Even if you feel it is not a general issue, it certainly is as far as Lush is concerned.

 

[combat_claire]

That is arguable - yes some people will not be able to distinguish between pre-ban hunt staff and hounds with hunting horn chasing fox and post-ban hunt staff and hounds with hunting horn chasing socks, but over the summer months we do a lot of hard work to take hounds and hunting to the general public at shows which don't have a traditional field sports bent. Judging from the numbers in the ring wanting to know more, those approaching afterwards for a more detailed chat I would say the message of working within this ridiculous act is getting through, slowly but surely.

There were many people that I spoke to who didn't realise that the American mink is protected under the Hunting Act, they are appalled when you tell them of the damage this invasive species does and the way our hands are tied in ridding our waterways of it by the Hunting Act rules, which we comply with totally.

Their jaws drop even further when the foxhound hunt staff chip in to explain that protecting game birds is one exemption when using terriers underground, but to protect your sheep from fox damage is not reason enough.

and by the time the hare hound personnel in have explained that rabbits and rats are exempt, but anything else is illegal - even if those three lovely poodles you have on a lead chase a squirrel as a team effort.

PR is getting better, but yes we have some way to go.

 

[HeWasGeeBee]

2) You say hints are hunting legally; the Hunt Sabs talk about cruelty. Why are there two such opposing points of view? You cant both be right.

Whether there is or is not cruelty is of course completely irrelevant to whether the Hunting Act is being broken.

It is perfectly possible to break the law with out being cruel and visa versa

 

[will04]

The number you need to complain to is 02074343948.
This is the number for Sean Gifford who is head of ethics for the company and the main man behind this campaign.
Lets get as many people we can to bombard this man with phone calls!