RSPCA are to STOP Hounding Fox Hunters.....

There is massive disagreement over whether that one case should have been taken.

Whatever your point of view on that, it does not, in my opinion, justify accusing the RSPCA of wholesale injustice in the thousands of prosecutions it makes each year.

We would all prefer it was not a charity doing these prosecutions, I think, but that isn't going to change while the country is so short of money.
 
Last edited:
A1fie said:
Legal aid is not available for all imprisonable offences especially in the magistrates court. There is a two stage test - a means (financial) test, where you are only entitled to legal aid if you earn under £12.5k. If you earn between £12.5 and £21k, a full assessement will be carried out and evidence of all income and outgoings must be provided. If you earn over £21k, you are not entitled to legal aid. If you pass the financial test, an interest of justice test is then carried out. The interest of justice test is getting harder to pass and will not necessarily be granted even if the offence carries a sentence of imprisonment.

Many people have no choice but to represent themselves at court and it is not true to say that they cannot represent themselves if an offence is imprisonable . . . . .
Click to expand...




My point is that all cases for legal aid are treated the same, whether prosecuted by the RSPCA or not, so I gave only the bare bones as the rest was not relevant.

Nobody has even mentioned not being allowed to represent themselves.
 
Last edited:
A1fie said:
........

Thought you would know this as you have previously said you sit as a magistrate . . . . . . . . . .
Click to expand...

Magistrates have a Clerk to the Court, and they are generally steered by that august body. Magistrates often talk complete poppycock, but rarely take kindly to being told so! :)

Alec.
 
I think you're all missing the point somehow. If hunting foxes is against the law, don't bleat on if you CHOOSE to break the law. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, and certainly don't cause an animal welfare charity to spend money trying to stop you!!!! Why should you possibly imagine you are above the law???
 
Saneta said:
I think you're all missing the point somehow. If hunting foxes is against the law, don't bleat on if you CHOOSE to break the law. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, and certainly don't cause an animal welfare charity to spend money trying to stop you!!!! Why should you possibly imagine you are above the law???
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is missing the point. The objection is to being prosecuted by organisations other than the CPS. The RSPCA are a charity and receive a huge amount of money from the public, the majority of whom, would like their donations to be spent on looking after animals and not prosecuting hunts. The Heythrop prosecution cost them so much money and for what? No one went to jail, no one was banned from keeping animals - the conviction had little effect.

There was no reason why the RSPCA could not have submitted their file to the CPS for them to prosecute. After all, it is their job. They are also objective, unlike the RSPCA or the LACS,
 
A1fie said:
I don't think anyone is missing the point. The objection is to being prosecuted by organisations other than the CPS. The RSPCA are a charity and receive a huge amount of money from the public, the majority of whom, would like their donations to be spent on looking after animals and not prosecuting hunts. The Heythrop prosecution cost them so much money and for what? No one went to jail, no one was banned from keeping animals - the conviction had little effect.

There was no reason why the RSPCA could not have submitted their file to the CPS for them to prosecute. After all, it is their job. They are also objective, unlike the RSPCA or the LACS,
Click to expand...


There was every reason why the RSPCA could not have submitted this file to the CPS. Like it or not, and I don't, animal welfare prosecutions in this country are undertaken by the RSPCA and not the CPS. That's just how it is.
 
ester said:
but if this is correct

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...RSPCA-hunt-prosecutions-failed-last-year.html

they are attempting to convict people who are not guilty... so I don't see how that is missing the point?
Click to expand...

Well the point I was making was that people were dismissing the entire work the RSPCA on the basis of hunt prosecutions, which make up a miniscule proportion of the prosecutions that they pursue.

I felt that was a ridiculous stance, and I still do.You may hate their position regarding hunting, but to suggest that all their prosecutions are unfair and biased and unjust, as some have, is going too far, imo.

Also, if you were in country that regularly illegally hunts fox, as I am, you might have a little more sympathy for the attempted prosecutions of people blatantly breaking the law.
 
cptrayes said:
Well the point I was making was that people were dismissing the entire work the RSPCA on the basis of hunt prosecutions, which make up a miniscule proportion of the prosecutions that they pursue.

I felt that was a ridiculous stance, and I still do.You may hate their position regarding hunting, but to suggest that all their prosecutions are unfair and biased and unjust, as some have, is going too far, imo.

Also, if you were in country that regularly illegally hunts fox, as I am, you might have a little more sympathy for the attempted prosecutions of people blatantly breaking the law.
Click to expand...
It is entirely their own fault though - if they hadn't brought such high profile prosecutions about people wouldn't be questioning their £3direct debits being used to fund court battles - it was a stupid move, which is why the charity commission kicked up such a stink.

I'd love to know why you insist on spreading such venom about nearby hunts - considering your source must be those cracking CFD rumours they like to start. You don't hunt with CF, their only conviction collapsed last year, with the taxpayer picking up around £30k costs after RSPCA couldn't bring evidence to the court - it's ridiculous.
 
Spreading venom?

Since when was it spreading venom simply to state the truth?

My source was members of two hunts who have invited me to hunt with them, a member of a hunt who freely talks about hunting fox, and a friend who was chatting about being sabbed who, when I asked why he was being sabbed, laughed and said 'because we hunt fox of course !' Four different hunts.
 
Last edited:
Echo Bravo said:
Yes too little too late with me and to be honest I don't like their attiude and nobody likes being talked down at by people who no very little about horses or wild animals. :(
Click to expand...

I doubt they know very little about horses / wild animals. They do their job as best as they can and there are a hell of a lot of people who work for the RSPCA at ground level who care deeply for animals. They simply want the laws regarding hunting to be followed which ultimately is for the welfare of the fox which IMO is good news (but hey I'd be glad if it was banned completely). I agree they have spent too much money on court cases etc. when they should be spending it elsewhere.
 
A1fie said:
The RSPCA are a charity and receive a huge amount of money from the public, the majority of whom, would like their donations to be spent on looking after animals and not prosecuting hunts.
Click to expand...

I think thats a massive generalisation, prosecuting hunting is helping the foxes welfare so it is animal protection at the end of they day. The vast majority of the country are against hunting I imagine so to say they dont want people who break the law prosecuted is off the mark IMO.
 
MagicMelon said:
........ , prosecuting hunting is helping the foxes welfare so it is animal protection at the end of they day. The vast majority of the country are against hunting I imagine ........
Click to expand...

Two points and both are entirely wrong. From the health perspective of any animal, in this case The Fox, having a natural predator, in this case Man, is actually beneficial to the general well being of the population. Sanctuary was most certainly provided in harbours, and as for the vast majority, I can assure you that they are in the main ambivalent, and in the main have other things in life which occupy their thoughts. The bulk of those who are opposed to Hunting are more opposed to those who Hunt, seeing it as a class selective sport. Were they right, then I'd agree with them. They're wrong and I don't.

Incidentally, I don't hunt and hold a degree of ridicule for some of those who do, but the simple fact is that the countryside did benefit from hunting, and though few will accept this, I feel sure, so did the Fox.

Alec.
 
Agreed Alec. Scotland banned hunting first so are ahead in terms of 'control'. Populations aren't selectively controlled any more, outside of breeding season. Now foxes are shot on site all year. I lived in Scotland for 3 years and the only fox I saw during that time was a dead one, in the town. Foxes are going to go the way of the wolf - total extermination. There is no need now to selectively maintain a population - farmers just want to protect their stock.
 
Alec Swan said:
Two points and both are entirely wrong. From the health perspective of any animal, in this case The Fox, having a natural predator, in this case Man, is actually beneficial to the general well being of the population. Sanctuary was most certainly provided in harbours, and as for the vast majority, I can assure you that they are in the main ambivalent, and in the main have other things in life which occupy their thoughts. The bulk of those who are opposed to Hunting are more opposed to those who Hunt, seeing it as a class selective sport. Were they right, then I'd agree with them. They're wrong and I don't.

Incidentally, I don't hunt and hold a degree of ridicule for some of those who do, but the simple fact is that the countryside did benefit from hunting, and though few will accept this, I feel sure, so did the Fox.

Alec.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I'm torn, as a supporter of both hunting and shooting, I was saddened to see how many keepers upped their snaring use after the ban, but their job is predation control and snaring is legal. The tragedy for me is knowing that any fox can get in a snare - some old mangy thing or a young sucked vixen, at any time of the year. Hunting provided a season and a hunted fox killed would not have been a healthy fox, who would have easily outrun a pack of hounds.

I find the whole "RSPCA fox welfare" a complete smack in the face, anyone who genuinely cared about the foxes' welfare would not be supporting the ban.
 
I agree with alec for a change, I am neither for or against hunting but foxes need to be controlled and shooting IMO is not the best way. how many foxes are killed outright? if they are hunted they either get away completely or die straight away...this was always a class decision not an animal welfare decision.my friend has just had 2 of her 3 pet chickens taken by foxes and she now agrees with hunting!!!! why don't we ban fishing??? this is very unfair on the fish, loads of people who don't know what they are doing, throwing injured fish back in to die slowly..the reason we don't ban fishing is because it is more of a working class sport...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top