RSPCA originally formed by pro hunt Conservative MP

[SarahColeman]

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.[/QUOTE

Is somebody reading the posts to you Alec but choosing to ignore bits you will not like perhaps?? AGAIN, Philip Mott QC "What you have here is unlawful hunting, shown and admitted, of no more than 15 minutes in total,"

 

[SarahColeman]

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.

Do you think that was the footage? I thought you said you had seen it

 

[SarahColeman]

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!

IF they were innocent Honeybun why admit to the world that the monitors had taken video of them breaking the law?

 

[Alec Swan]

Of course it did not so in both cases we have changed the sentence not repealed the laws.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.

How interesting. It would seem from what you say that you have a greater interest in the semantics of law, than the arguments of justice.

I would point out to you that the word "Hilarious" was used by you. It was applied by you, and to your argument, and now it seems, you'd like a side shift.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

IF they were innocent Honeybun why admit to the world that the monitors had taken video of them breaking the law?

Read the JanetGeorge post again, consider it, and you may manage to grasp its intent, as the rest of us have.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

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!

At no point have I suggested that the defendants were 'frightened'. Have you been drinking, again?

Alec.

ps. OK, that's a cheap shot! I'm off to the pub.

a.

 

[JanetGeorge]

IF they were innocent Honeybun why admit to the world that the monitors had taken video of them breaking the law?

Duh - Honey - you don't know much about court cases, do you! If you are going to plead 'guilty' - for WHATEVER reason - you have to accept that some of the evidence, at least, shows you as guilty (and from that part of the 15 minutes I've seen, it ISN'T crystal clear by a long shot!)

You certainly can't say to the Judge: "Well, Guv. - I'm totally innocent, of course, but I'm going to plead guilty because I have a busy month in front of me and I can't afford to waste my time here. And I'll save a lot more on my legal costs than what you'll hit me with!"

 

[Countryman]

SarahColeman, have you actually watched the footage? If you have I think you'll agree there's nothing that would stand up in court - PROBABLY. However, if they had been found guilty the costs didn't bear thinking about and their defence teams would've been bloody expensive considering they'd have to oppose RSPCA QC's - so it just wasn't worth it. I think they are heroes for being bullied into pleading guilty.

 

[SarahColeman]

Duh - Honey - you don't know much about court cases, do you! If you are going to plead 'guilty' - for WHATEVER reason - you have to accept that some of the evidence, at least, shows you as guilty (and from that part of the 15 minutes I've seen, it ISN'T crystal clear by a long shot!)

You certainly can't say to the Judge: "Well, Guv. - I'm totally innocent, of course, but I'm going to plead guilty because I have a busy month in front of me and I can't afford to waste my time here. And I'll save a lot more on my legal costs than what you'll hit me with!"

What a complete load of nonsense you have just posted!!! Not sure what courts you frequent but the only time you may be expected to explain yourself in a British court is when you plead not guilty. In what Universe are you expected to explain why you are pleading guilty or changing your plea to guilty to a judge???????? Indeed YOU don't say a word your defence team does it for you.

 

[SarahColeman]

SarahColeman, have you actually watched the footage? If you have I think you'll agree there's nothing that would stand up in court - PROBABLY. However, if they had been found guilty the costs didn't bear thinking about and their defence teams would've been bloody expensive considering they'd have to oppose RSPCA QC's - so it just wasn't worth it. I think they are heroes for being bullied into pleading guilty.

Of course I have watched it otherwise I would not comment. Have you listened to it??? If hounds start chasing a fox AND YOU ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SO IT IS ILLEGAL. I an sorry for 'shouting', but it is better than banging ones head against a wall. You think they are heroes and that says enough. I would personally flog them if it were legal.

 

[SarahColeman]

"Duh - Honey - you don't know much about court cases, do you! If you are going to plead 'guilty' - for WHATEVER reason - you have to accept that some of the evidence, at least, shows you as guilty (and from that part of the 15 minutes I've seen, it ISN'T crystal clear by a long shot!)"

I still can not recover from reading this utter garbage!

 

[Countryman]

SarahColeman you say if hounds chase a fox and you encourage them that that is illegal.

Not exactly.

It is only illegal if you know they are chasing the fox when you encourage them!

So unless the huntsman sees the fox, sees the hounds hunt its line and knows no trail has been laid there, he is innocent.

You seem to be one of these clueless people who thinks hounds in full cry=hunting a fox. No it's called trail-hunting which the Heythrop said they were doing.

If you are going trail hunting, hounds will speak. FACT.

You're the one that needs flogging with your clueless, prejudiced and disgusting barbaric views.

 

[Hunters]

SarahColeman

Since you feel do strongly about hunting, one has to ask why you come onto a hunting forum?

 

[Countryman]

She's clearly an anti troll-she joined H&H solely to criticise hunting. Look at her post history!

 

[Alec Swan]

Of course I have watched it otherwise I would not comment. Have you listened to it??? If hounds start chasing a fox AND YOU ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SO IT IS ILLEGAL. I an sorry for 'shouting', but it is better than banging ones head against a wall. You think they are heroes and that says enough. I would personally flog them if it were legal.

Such reasoning, such eloquence. Tell me, have we had a little drinkie-poos?

Alec.

 

[Hunters]

Has she gone?

 

[SarahColeman]

Such reasoning, such eloquence. Tell me, have we had a little drinkie-poos?

Alec.

I happily neither drink or smoke and would protect any animal from cruelty with as much force as I could muster.

 

[SarahColeman]

She's clearly an anti troll-she joined H&H solely to criticise hunting. Look at her post history!

Really? I actually joined to discuss with others the RSPCA stories which sadly become arguments for and against hunting it appears each time.

 

[SarahColeman]

SarahColeman you say if hounds chase a fox and you encourage them that that is illegal.

Not exactly.

It is only illegal if you know they are chasing the fox when you encourage them!

So unless the huntsman sees the fox, sees the hounds hunt its line and knows no trail has been laid there, he is innocent.

You seem to be one of these clueless people who thinks hounds in full cry=hunting a fox. No it's called trail-hunting which the Heythrop said they were doing.

If you are going trail hunting, hounds will speak. FACT.

You're the one that needs flogging with your clueless, prejudiced and disgusting barbaric views.

Okay I am clueless like no doubt anybody who disagrees with certain people on this Hunting section. I can live with that. It is easy to see since the RSPCA prosecution of the Heythrop just how many people have been verbally attacked and accused of such naivety but given the hunt supporters record against the likes of the public backed RSPCA, having now used EVERY weapon at their disposal it is easy to see who the naive ones were and who doesn't actually have a clue about the REAL world

 

[Countryman]

Again however, you refuse to even discuss the evidence in the trial which makes me doubt you understand the law.

 

[SarahColeman]

Again however, you refuse to even discuss the evidence in the trial which makes me doubt you understand the law.

If the evidence clearly did not show illegal hunting I would not have said I was guilty. I understand myself and law enough to know that I would not lie under oath!

 

[SarahColeman]

I am off out as my children have booked a badminton court for 12.30 just in case anybody suggests I have gone anywhere. Perhaps Countryman you can guess what my view may be on the following.After a fox ran past hunt monitors, who were recording footage from a road nearby, Barnfield drew up on horseback. "Two route-followers indicated to Mr Barnfield the direction in which the fox had run. He immediately blows the hunting horn and enters the field as directed," said Carter-Manning. Barnfield and another man then gave vocal encouragement to the remainder of the pack, shouting "tally ho" and "forrard".

 

[Countryman]

I may be wrong SarahColeman, but I don't think the defendants are ever under oath. Barnsfield could've lied as much as he liked and it would be fine.

But you don't get it-I don't think the evidence showed legal hunting. So you say he shouldn't have pleaded guilty. But he was bullied into it by a) the exhorbitant cost of his lawyers he'd have had to pay for to fight the RSPCA's top QC's and b) the slightest chance of him losing the case landing him with a bill for millions.

However, that piece of evidence SarahColeman I would've thought would've been obvious, even to you, that it wouldn't have stood up under cross examination.

The followers pointed but what did that mean? That the fox had gone that way? That the trail had been laid that way? That his hounds were that way?

Intent has to be proved. Unless the prosecution could prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Barnsfield knew a fox had gone that way AND that no trail had been subsequently laid there.

The ambigous pointing of a few car followers proves nothing.

In court there is no way that would be seen as evidence-who is to say they weren't pointing saying 'your hounds went that way'?

And remember, the car followers are under no obligation to tell Barnsfield a fox went that way.

 

[SarahColeman]

On another occasion, in March, footage shot by a volunteer shows hounds beginning to squeal as they try to flush out a fox from dense cover, "and then almost immediately afterwards a double horn".

Further footage captures the hounds pursuing a fox and cries of "on, on, on" from the mounted hunt. Barnfield was "filmed quite clearly amongst the pursuing hounds shouting 'on, on, on' in obvious encouragement", said Carter-Manning.

 

[SarahColeman]

I may be wrong SarahColeman, but I don't think the defendants are ever under oath. Barnsfield could've lied as much as he liked and it would be fine.

But you don't get it-I don't think the evidence showed legal hunting. So you say he shouldn't have pleaded guilty. But he was bullied into it by a) the exhorbitant cost of his lawyers he'd have had to pay for to fight the RSPCA's top QC's and b) the slightest chance of him losing the case landing him with a bill for millions.

However, that piece of evidence SarahColeman I would've thought would've been obvious, even to you, that it wouldn't have stood up under cross examination.

The followers pointed but what did that mean? That the fox had gone that way? That the trail had been laid that way? That his hounds were that way?

Intent has to be proved. Unless the prosecution could prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Barnsfield knew a fox had gone that way AND that no trail had been subsequently laid there.

The ambigous pointing of a few car followers proves nothing.

In court there is no way that would be seen as evidence-who is to say they weren't pointing saying 'your hounds went that way'?

And remember, the car followers are under no obligation to tell Barnsfield a fox went that way.

I was tempted not to reply to this post given the ludicrous nonsense it contains but it does raise my curiosity about those attending the hunt even foot followers. Is it not the case that ANYBODY connected to the hunt in anyway is deemed illegally hunting if they know the hounds are onto a fox yet do nothing in an attempt to stop the hounds, shouting or whatever? Does it even need encouragement to be illegal? Perhaps someone less biased than you Countryman will be able to answer

 

[Alec Swan]

What I find so baffling is that a Court case was based upon the evidence, supplied by a bunch of bumbling buffoons, and that the defendants offered up a guilty plea to what was claimed as evidence, but what was patently edited and twisted and was in reality, perjured evidence, if offered under oath, and there was no defence offered.

The case was eminently defendable. Were the "evidence" to be carefully considered, and the fact that over 500 hrs, there was a mind numbing degree of editing (and distorting), then I'm also staggered that the case ever got to Court.

Before the pro prosecution bods leap about, consider that professional film makers, editors have watched the relevant footage, and declared it not fit as evidence, in a Court of Law. Why it was accepted and why it wasn't defended remains a mystery, except for the risk of failure, and the burden of paying the ludicrous £327k costs. Money that a charity can fritter away, but not an individual.

Alec.

 

[SarahColeman]

What I find so baffling is that a Court case was based upon the evidence, supplied by a bunch of bumbling buffoons, and that the defendants offered up a guilty plea to what was claimed as evidence, but what was patently edited and twisted and was in reality, perjured evidence, if offered under oath, and there was no defence offered.

The case was eminently defendable. Were the "evidence" to be carefully considered, and the fact that over 500 hrs, there was a mind numbing degree of editing (and distorting), then I'm also staggered that the case ever got to Court.

Before the pro prosecution bods leap about, consider that professional film makers, editors have watched the relevant footage, and declared it not fit as evidence, in a Court of Law. Why it was accepted and why it wasn't defended remains a mystery, except for the risk of failure, and the burden of paying the ludicrous £327k costs. Money that a charity can fritter away, but not an individual.

Alec.

Interesting but some may say fantasy. The defendants if not happy could have had the Public Prosecutors office refer the case to the CPS and if it did not meet the required standard it would have been kicked out! Are you suggesting they did not receive the best advice on offer? Or that you know better? Who has said it was a defendable case Alec?

 

[SarahColeman]

p.s volunteer "bumbling buffoons", who took on an beat the Countryside Alliance/Heythrop bumbling buffoons

 

[SarahColeman]

"Before the pro prosecution bods leap about, consider that professional film makers, editors have watched the relevant footage, and declared it not fit as evidence, in a Court of Law."

Who are these professional film makers Alec?

 

[Alec Swan]

Interesting but some may say fantasy. The defendants if not happy could have had the Public Prosecutors office refer the case to the CPS and if it did not meet the required standard it would have been kicked out! Are you suggesting they did not receive the best advice on offer? Or that you know better? Who has said it was a defendable case Alec?

I agree with you, there was buffoonery on both sides, but whilst the onus was upon the prosecuting side of the argument, to PROVE law breaking, so the onus upon the defence was to discredit and show the film work, for what it was, amateurish and home made and edited.

All very strange, but as it wasn't my problem, so it isn't really my concern! Have your second rate antis film me at my leisure, and they'll meet with a more robust approach to life.

Alec.