RSPCA originally formed by pro hunt Conservative MP

[SarahColeman]

Given that the judge, the convicted and the defence team ALL stated that there was 15 mins video footage showing them ILLEGALY hunting may I suggest things in future you may believe seem "extremely unlikely", are equally 'very possible', Oakash.

 

[Alec Swan]

Given that the judge, the convicted and the defence team ALL stated that there was 15 mins video footage showing them ILLEGALY hunting ........

Could you supply irrefutable evidence, to support your rather expansive claims?

Alec.

 

[SarahColeman]

Could you supply irrefutable evidence, to support your rather expansive claims?

Alec.

It would depend on ones definition of 'irrefutable', or ones desire to ignore the truth is my guess. We could start with this.... Philip Mott QC "What you have here is unlawful hunting, shown and admitted, of no more than 15 minutes in total,"

Although to be fair he did say they really were just following a trail at other times

 

[Hunters]

Has the Hethrop case saved a single fox? I seriously doubt it..

Could the money have been better spent..... But of course.

When MP's at the tIme of the ban were asked why the wanted a ban, one admitted to me that it was a political decision to 'bloody' Conservative noses, for what had been previously done under Thatchers government.

It never was or about the fox. Treble the amount of foxes get killed by cars.

Wake up people, politics is a big poker game, where sport is had & having been very involved with politics I should know.

 

[SarahColeman]

Barnfield said so outside the courtroom to all the waiting press as reported here.....Outside court, Barnfield said that he had only pleaded guilty because he could not afford to fight the £327,000 case the RSPCA had mounted.
He claimed that of the 500 hours of footage only 15 minutes was unlawful and that the hunt followed legal trail hunting, where a fox scent it laid down for the hounds to follow.

I am looking for the judges comments and will post when I find them for you Alec or are we done on this matter and your disbelief fully addressed?

 

[SarahColeman]

Has the Hethrop case saved a single fox? I seriously doubt it..

Could the money have been better spent..... But of course.

When MP's at the tIme of the ban were asked why the wanted a ban, one admitted to me that it was a political decision to 'bloody' Conservative noses, for what had been previously done under Thatchers government.

It never was or about the fox. Treble the amount of foxes get killed by cars.

Wake up people, politics is a big poker game, where sport is had & having been very involved with politics I should know.

Men were not hung for stealing horses but to stop horses being stolen. If this prosecution prevents others from acting in the way the Heythrop did then foxes will be saved from such hunting. Who cares what one or more MP's wanted from this ban the public want it and MP's represent us and our views! Nor does it matter about road kills the law is to ban the killing of foxes with dogs and the Heythrop conviction proves absolutely the law is a success. As hunts refuse to abide by the law time will bring a ban on the smokescreen of trail hunting I have no doubt. they had their chance to comply and when caught not doing so actually attack the RSPCA. Hilarious!

 

[Hunters]

SarahColeman

Forgive me my dear, for if you think MP's are about representing your views, for you, there is no hope.

Politicians need votes to stay in power. Labour thought the ban was a vote wInner & used it also to hurt the Tories for what Thatcher had done to the miners.

Open up your eyes

 

[Countryman]

In my opinion, the monitors who monitor the Heythrop, who I've had the misfortune to come across, don't actually care about animals. They pretend they do when they're cameras are running, and pretend they're polite middle class people interested in animal welfare, but when they turn their cameras off the verbal abuse begins, as does the old lines about how all hunters are toffs etc

 

[Alec Swan]

Barnfield said so outside the courtroom to all the waiting press as reported here.....Outside court, Barnfield said that he had only pleaded guilty because he could not afford to fight the £327,000 case the RSPCA had mounted.
He claimed that of the 500 hours of footage only 15 minutes was unlawful and that the hunt followed legal trail hunting, where a fox scent it laid down for the hounds to follow.

I am looking for the judges comments and will post when I find them for you Alec or are we done on this matter and your disbelief fully addressed?

Thank you for reinforcing my argument. "Barnfield said that he had only pleaded guilty because he couldn't afford the £327k case the rspca had mounted". FINALLY, an rspca supporter who has accepted the reason for Barnfield's guilty plea. His 15 minute aberration, which stepped outside the 500 HOURS of footage, is the straw to which you, and your ilk, cling.

You've accepted that his plea was made through his inability to face the prosecution costs, and nothing to do with his crime. Patently and were I wrong, then he would have defended his position.

I'm sorry, SarahC, but you've just made my point for me, and I'm grateful to you.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

Men were not hung for stealing horses but to stop horses being stolen.

....... Hilarious!

I agree with you (God, but you and I are as one!). One small problem though, did the death penalty stop murders? As you so rightly say, Hilarious!

Alec.

 

[Moomin1]

Thank you for reinforcing my argument. "Barnfield said that he had only pleaded guilty because he couldn't afford the £327k case the rspca had mounted". FINALLY, an rspca supporter who has accepted the reason for Barnfield's guilty plea. His 15 minute aberration, which stepped outside the 500 HOURS of footage, is the straw to which you, and your ilk, cling.

You've accepted that his plea was made through his inability to face the prosecution costs, and nothing to do with his crime. Patently and were I wrong, then he would have defended his position.

I'm sorry, SarahC, but you've just made my point for me, and I'm grateful to you.

Alec.

But they themselves ADMITTED to fifteen minutes of ILLEGAL HUNTING.

Therefore, they have committed an offence. Simple.

You cannot say that somebody shouldn't be brought before a court just because they may, for instance, have only conducted a fifteen minute assault on somebody, instead of a 3 hour long torture. The law is the law.

 

[Hunters]

Equally, should someone be hung for murder, because they cannot afford a defence & so plead guilty

Come on....

 

[Alec Swan]

But they themselves ADMITTED to fifteen minutes of ILLEGAL HUNTING.

Therefore, they have committed an offence. Simple.

You cannot say that somebody shouldn't be brought before a court just because they may, for instance, have only conducted a fifteen minute assault on somebody, instead of a 3 hour long torture. The law is the law.

Explain this to me; yet again, and as has been freely stated by another, the reason why Barnfield was unable to DEFEND his actions, was because of the monstrous and overpowering risk of the costs. He patently couldn't afford the costs of the parasitic barristers that the charity managed to justify (though only to themselves, it now seems ), so do you accept that those who are unable to justify such defence, are entitled to any less justice than the man who has nothing, and therefore couldn't care less?

Do you, honestly consider that £327 THOUSAND of charitable donations could have been better spent? Well, do you?

I have nothing, shall I take 3 couple of hounds to myself, and would you HONESTLY think that the rspca will go to the troubles which they have, over me, that they have over the Heythrop? Tell me that you believe that they would, and you're living in a dream world.

Alec.

 

[Moomin1]

Equally, should someone be hung for murder, because they cannot afford a defence & so plead guilty

Come on....

THEY ADMITTED TO 15 MINUTES OF FOOTAGE BEING ILLEGAL HUNTING, OUTSIDE OF COURT. They committed an offence. End of.

Why oh why are people so desperate to defend the actions of criminals, who you would think have now shed a very bad light on those who DO hunt legally too.

If you lot hunt legally, and abide with the law (whether you agree with it or not) then you should be ashamed and pretty angered by the actions of the Heythrop.

 

[Countryman]

Why should we be ashamed of the Heythrop? No, we should be proud of them, they're rural heroes putting up with an incredible amount of intense harassment and then being bullied into pleading guilty when I don't believe the evidence actually showed they had been.

 

[Moomin1]

Explain this to me; yet again, and as has been freely stated by another, the reason why Barnfield was unable to DEFEND his actions, was because of the monstrous and overpowering risk of the costs. He patently couldn't afford the costs of the parasitic barristers that the charity managed to justify (though only to themselves, it now seems ), so do you accept that those who are unable to justify such defence, are entitled to any less justice than the man who has nothing, and therefore couldn't care less?

Do you, honestly consider that £327 THOUSAND of charitable donations could have been better spent? Well, do you?

I have nothing, shall I take 3 couple of hounds to myself, and would you HONESTLY think that the rspca will go to the troubles which they have, over me, that they have over the Heythrop? Tell me that you believe that they would, and you're living in a dream world.

Alec.

The last sentence you make Alec sums you up, and is the whole reason why debate with you is pointless. You seem to think that you have this God given knowledge and insight into the goings on of every thing that occurs in this world. You obviously place yourself in your own mind, above the law.

Yes, I do think that the money spent on prosecuting the Heythrop was WELL SPENT. I would like to see it happen again, and again, and again, should unscrupulous hunts folk break the law.

And yes, should you break the law by even hunting illegally on a small scale, I would quite readily donate to the RSPCA to see you prosecuted aswell.

 

[Alec Swan]

But they themselves ADMITTED to fifteen minutes of ILLEGAL HUNTING.

Therefore, they have committed an offence. Simple.

.......

Again, you are wrong. They didn't ADMIT to 15 minutes of ILLEGAL hunting. What was actually said was that out of a staggering 500 HOURS of film footage, there were a mere 15 MINUTES which they felt that they needed to defend. The risk of loosing their case was such that they couldn't afford, or importantly risk, the prosecution costs.

I would have stood my ground. Barnfield couldn't risk it. That's the injustice of the whole thing.

Alec.

 

[SarahColeman]

I agree with you (God, but you and I are as one!). One small problem though, did the death penalty stop murders? As you so rightly say, Hilarious!

Alec.

Of course it did not so in both cases we have changed the sentence not repealed the laws. Hilarious is the suggestion to repeal a law because people still break it I would have thought.
If you are worried that the Heythrop conviction will not stop illegal hunting then we shall see but £60,000 for illegal days out hunting is a lot of caps to find.

 

[SarahColeman]

Equally, should someone be hung for murder, because they cannot afford a defence & so plead guilty

Come on....

If you are on video killing the victim what help is money?

 

[joeanne]

Alec Swan, you accuse the RSPCA of 'frittering away', money. I would like to ask you a simple question please if I may. The RSPCA was handed video evidence of illegal hunting by hunt monitors. Whenever the RSPCA is provided with evidence of lawbreaking regarding the welfare of animals it will investigate and if evidence proven it will prosecute. This started out as an every day situation for the RSPCA so what do you suggest they should have done as I will be very interested to hear your thoughts on the matter unless you believe laws in this land should not be enforced?

Oh oh me me me...
What they SHOULD have done is pass it to the police who in turn would have passed it to the CPS who in turn would have prosecuted if they felt the case would reach a satisfactory outcome.
Private prosecution is wrong when a charity is funding it, all the RSPCA should be doing is gathering evidence if they happen upon a case and passing it to the appropriate body for consideration by the CPS.
That way the funds they raise can do what it was actually meant for in the 1st place.....helping and rehabilitating animals who find themselves in need of assistance.

 

[SarahColeman]

SarahColeman

Forgive me my dear, for if you think MP's are about representing your views, for you, there is no hope.

Politicians need votes to stay in power. Labour thought the ban was a vote wInner & used it also to hurt the Tories for what Thatcher had done to the miners.

Open up your eyes

I was able to learn one thing from politicians during the RSPCA debate. They make the laws but do not do so for fun and expect them to be enforced.

 

[Countryman]

I have seen the video footage. There is NOTHING that to my mind would stand up in court as proof of illegal activity.

SarahColeman, with respect, you are utterly clueless if you think that film of hounds breaking up a fox constitutes proof the Heythrop broke the hunting act. Read the Act first and read up on standards of evidence.

 

[SarahColeman]

In my opinion, the monitors who monitor the Heythrop, who I've had the misfortune to come across, don't actually care about animals. They pretend they do when they're cameras are running, and pretend they're polite middle class people interested in animal welfare, but when they turn their cameras off the verbal abuse begins, as does the old lines about how all hunters are toffs etc

Very off topic but so long as they are good at capturing those breaking animal welfare laws they are doing their job.

 

[Moomin1]

Again, you are wrong. They didn't ADMIT to 15 minutes of ILLEGAL hunting. What was actually said was that out of a staggering 500 HOURS of film footage, there were a mere 15 MINUTES which they felt that they needed to defend. The risk of loosing their case was such that they couldn't afford, or importantly risk, the prosecution costs.

I would have stood my ground. Barnfield couldn't risk it. That's the injustice of the whole thing.

Alec.

But Alec, as I have tried to explain so many times, it is RIDICULOUS thing to say that they were too 'frightened' to do anything other than plead guilty because of the costs. Any charges brought about by the courts are all means tested. Therefore defendants only pay back the amount of money which is considered to be reasonable, and in a method which is manageable. Therefore, for instance, somebody on a decent income may only pay out £50 per month towards a fine, or somebody on benefits may only pay £1 a week!

 

[SarahColeman]

Oh oh me me me...
What they SHOULD have done is pass it to the police who in turn would have passed it to the CPS who in turn would have prosecuted if they felt the case would reach a satisfactory outcome.
Private prosecution is wrong when a charity is funding it, all the RSPCA should be doing is gathering evidence if they happen upon a case and passing it to the appropriate body for consideration by the CPS.
That way the funds they raise can do what it was actually meant for in the 1st place.....helping and rehabilitating animals who find themselves in need of assistance.

WHY? Because this time the guilty were a hunt? Absolute rubbish!

 

[Moomin1]

I have seen the video footage. There is NOTHING that to my mind would stand up in court as proof of illegal activity.

SarahColeman, with respect, you are utterly clueless if you think that film of hounds breaking up a fox constitutes proof the Heythrop broke the hunting act. Read the Act first and read up on standards of evidence.

Well in that case then the defendants should have run with it, because the costs would have been reimbursed anyway.

 

[SarahColeman]

I have seen the video footage. There is NOTHING that to my mind would stand up in court as proof of illegal activity.

SarahColeman, with respect, you are utterly clueless if you think that film of hounds breaking up a fox constitutes proof the Heythrop broke the hunting act. Read the Act first and read up on standards of evidence.

If you had watched all 15 minutes with the sound turned up you could have saved yourself writing the nonsense above.

 

[Hunters]

When a fox is shot, it is sometimes broken up to hounds.

However explanations are never going to quench the thirst of the do gooders.

 

[JanetGeorge]

But Alec, as I have tried to explain so many times, it is RIDICULOUS thing to say that they were too 'frightened' to do anything other than plead guilty because of the costs. Any charges brought about by the courts are all means tested. Therefore defendants only pay back the amount of money which is considered to be reasonable, and in a method which is manageable. Therefore, for instance, somebody on a decent income may only pay out £50 per month towards a fine, or somebody on benefits may only pay £1 a week!

Sweetheart - you forget the defence barristers!! Prosecution costs and fines are means tested - defence costs are not! And for a trial originally estimated to take 30 days, they'd have been looking at substantial costs for their own barristers and legal team! And - they would have needed 3 teams because the defence for each would have been slightly different in terms of 'responsibility'.

Julian Barnfield was the professional huntsman - IF illegal hunting had been going on, he would be the primary guilty party. He couldn't have claimed ignorance or an inability to stop it.

The second individual on the day was the Master 'in charge'. He COULD have claimed that he was busy field mastering and hadn't REALISED that Julian was (allegedly) hunting foxes.

And the hunt - as a company - could have defended the action based on the fact that - say - the Chairman and committee had instructed the Masters and the professional staff that all hunting MUST be of the legal variety.

So - all 3 defendants would have needed their own legal teams and barristers - working for up to 30 days That's a MINIMUM of £100,000 (if they went for cheapo barristers!) And they'd have HAD to pay that - win or lose. If they'd won, they MIGHT have got their costs back - but again - they might not have!

 

[SarahColeman]

The last sentence you make Alec sums you up, and is the whole reason why debate with you is pointless. You seem to think that you have this God given knowledge and insight into the goings on of every thing that occurs in this world. You obviously place yourself in your own mind, above the law.

Yes, I do think that the money spent on prosecuting the Heythrop was WELL SPENT. I would like to see it happen again, and again, and again, should unscrupulous hunts folk break the law.

And yes, should you break the law by even hunting illegally on a small scale, I would quite readily donate to the RSPCA to see you prosecuted aswell.

Very well said and completely agree.