RSPCA originally formed by pro hunt Conservative MP
- Thread starter Hunters
- Start date
Countryman
Well-Known Member
Firstly SarahColeman I'm going to address your first post, then your 2nd. I'm going to explain it not in a biased way, but in an honest appraisal of the hunting act and what it permits.
You say "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."
Right. Where is the evidence that Barnfield knew they were on a fox and not a trail? The prosecution would've had to prove in a trial beyond doubt that Barnfield knew they were on a fox
Why?
Because if they were trail hunting and hounds began to squeal, he'd Want to cheer them on so would double the horn. Hounds squeal on a scent - which is what they'd be expected to do if trail hunting!
As to your second point, there is nothing wrong with Barnsfield shouting 'on, on' unless the prosecution can prove he knew they were hunting a fox. As I've said before, you don't seem to realise that that us what he would have been doing if they were trail hunting.
Also, case law with the hunting act dictates that the defendant is presumed to have been acting within the law and states that it is for the prosecution to prove behind doubt that he knew it was a fox not a trail he was hunting.
You say "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."
Right. Where is the evidence that Barnfield knew they were on a fox and not a trail? The prosecution would've had to prove in a trial beyond doubt that Barnfield knew they were on a fox
Why?
Because if they were trail hunting and hounds began to squeal, he'd Want to cheer them on so would double the horn. Hounds squeal on a scent - which is what they'd be expected to do if trail hunting!
As to your second point, there is nothing wrong with Barnsfield shouting 'on, on' unless the prosecution can prove he knew they were hunting a fox. As I've said before, you don't seem to realise that that us what he would have been doing if they were trail hunting.
Also, case law with the hunting act dictates that the defendant is presumed to have been acting within the law and states that it is for the prosecution to prove behind doubt that he knew it was a fox not a trail he was hunting.
Countryman
Well-Known Member
You say "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 "
What ludicrous nonsense was in my post then? None-just legal knowledge.
As to the foot follower issue, I can tell you. It is perfectly legal to attend and follow an illegal fox hunt even if you know it to be illegal. Even if the hounds course a fox past you and the huntsman encourages them, the followers have done nothing wrong. This isn't my 'biased opinion' this is fact and had been proven in court on several occasions. The Act makes it an offence to hunt a wild mammal with a dog and says that to hunt, you must be in charge of, or controlling, the hounds. Therefore passive followers are innocent. If however they turn a fox back, or holloa a fox, they would be aiding and abetting illegal hunting which counts as breaking the hunting act.
What ludicrous nonsense was in my post then? None-just legal knowledge.
As to the foot follower issue, I can tell you. It is perfectly legal to attend and follow an illegal fox hunt even if you know it to be illegal. Even if the hounds course a fox past you and the huntsman encourages them, the followers have done nothing wrong. This isn't my 'biased opinion' this is fact and had been proven in court on several occasions. The Act makes it an offence to hunt a wild mammal with a dog and says that to hunt, you must be in charge of, or controlling, the hounds. Therefore passive followers are innocent. If however they turn a fox back, or holloa a fox, they would be aiding and abetting illegal hunting which counts as breaking the hunting act.
MillyMoomie
Well-Known Member
By the way everyone. The defendants ORIGINALLY pleaded not guilty, and in fact continued this plea right up until the last minute.
The defense hired a QC, for reasons of parity the RSPCA did also. This is common practice.
ANY evidence, photographic, filmed, statements etc cannot be tampared with, and has to be proven not to be. To suggest otherwise is just plain stupid.
The defense would have seen the evidence against them. I ask, of not guilty, why hire a QC?
The defense hired a QC, for reasons of parity the RSPCA did also. This is common practice.
ANY evidence, photographic, filmed, statements etc cannot be tampared with, and has to be proven not to be. To suggest otherwise is just plain stupid.
The defense would have seen the evidence against them. I ask, of not guilty, why hire a QC?
SarahColeman
Well-Known Member
Oh dear, do not make often asking others for evidence a habit, when failing to ever provide any yourself or you may gain a reputation
SarahColeman
Well-Known Member
I do believe the 'hounds', have backed away from the RSPCA with bloodied noses and their tails firmly between their legs MillyMoomie
SarahColeman
Well-Known Member
I do believe it is time we agree to differ Countryman. If the Heythrop hunt/huntsmen are happy with their guilt who are we to bother otherwise as Alec appears to agree £60,000 for a fox hey
£60,000 for a fox hey SarahColeman
Well-Known Member
Oh and of course the Heythrop being banned from National Trust land
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
Oh and of course the Heythrop being banned from National Trust land
Has it occurred to you how strange it is that the NT have banned all hunting from their land (Not just the Heythrop
), but they still allow driven game shooting to go ahead, where there is the guarantee of injured game being left for days or weeks to die?Do you wonder why this is? Let me tell you, those who shoot pay vast amounts for the privilege to do so, so you needn't think that the NT were acting in any sort of altruistic fashion, when they banned hunting. They did so because firstly, hunting brought in no revenue, and secondly, and in the light of that, they were appearing to do the right thing which appeased those of a certain set who leave them near obscene bequests.
Alec.
SarahColeman
Well-Known Member
Has it occurred to you how strange it is that the NT have banned all hunting from their land (Not just the Heythrop
Do you wonder why this is? Let me tell you, those who shoot pay vast amounts for the privilege to do so, so you needn't think that the NT were acting in any sort of altruistic fashion, when they banned hunting. They did so because firstly, hunting brought in no revenue, and secondly, and in the light of that, they were appearing to do the right thing which appeased those of a certain set who leave them near obscene bequests.
Alec.
Not sure if we are on the same page
The Heythrop have had their trail licence revoked until they can be trusted to hunt within the law. Other hunts have not been banned, yet.
Hunters
Well-Known Member
I was going to make the point that NT land has banned hunting for yonks.
Alec et al, you are never going to change the minds of some of the people on here. It was common knowledge that Richard Sumner & Julian Barnfield had decided not to face huge costs & plead guilty.
What I'm still quite amazed about, is that so called animal lovers on here, would rather have their association spend £326,000 on a stupid hunt prosecution than spend that money on real help.
That one really confounds me, as the good old RSPCA have undoubtedly lost street cred with donators & that actually saddens me for any lost or distressed animal that may well now have to be destroyed because of a chairman with his own political agenda. Shame on him.
Alec et al, you are never going to change the minds of some of the people on here. It was common knowledge that Richard Sumner & Julian Barnfield had decided not to face huge costs & plead guilty.
What I'm still quite amazed about, is that so called animal lovers on here, would rather have their association spend £326,000 on a stupid hunt prosecution than spend that money on real help.
That one really confounds me, as the good old RSPCA have undoubtedly lost street cred with donators & that actually saddens me for any lost or distressed animal that may well now have to be destroyed because of a chairman with his own political agenda. Shame on him.
SarahColeman
Well-Known Member
And now they have banned the Heythrop from trail 'hunting'! And anybody pretending the Heythrop hunt could not fight the prosecution because of money is talking nonsense.
SarahColeman
Well-Known Member
Animal lovers who have provided £160,000 in only eight weeks must be rubbing their hands with glee Hunters. I expect some of the hunts in the likes of Devon and Cornwall will be far, far cheaper to convict
Hunters
Well-Known Member
Which ever way you dress it up, it is an obscene amount to spend & any animal destroyed as a result, is because of people like you refusing to acknowledge that your association got it wrong.
SarahColeman
Well-Known Member
Pathetic attempt to blame people who support the RSPCA for the failings of others. Any problem with I guess you are suggesting over breeding is for the government to address not for the RSPCA to ever increase its homing centre sizes leaving animals awaiting homes that will NEVER be found. Grow up hunters!
Countryman
Well-Known Member
SarahColeman - on your point about cheaper hunts being easier to convict, forget about it. I understand there is a central Hunting Fighting Fund to fight prosecutions etc which is considerably better off than the RSPCA's own fighting fund...
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
SC these people have very very different morals than the likes of you or I. They will always try to justify their self indulgent barbaric behaviour and in the process throw the blame to anybody who may step into the firing line.
The mere fact that they try to exonerate criminal behaviour/breaking the law by wildly suggesting political motive, evidence tampering, and ridiculous claims regarding enforced guilty pleas says it all.
Not worth even arguing with.
Hunters
Well-Known Member
I think I hit a nerve lol.
MillyMoomie
Well-Known Member
When did YOU last visit an RSPCA animal centre Hunters?
When did you last look at all those animals waiting for homes NOT being destroyed, or even go to a boarding kennel where even more are patiently sitting on a list to a kennel space.
Yes you have hit MY nerve Hunters because you obviously have no idea of the real world. Go and experience what you so righteously preach about. THEN you may convince me.
When did you last look at all those animals waiting for homes NOT being destroyed, or even go to a boarding kennel where even more are patiently sitting on a list to a kennel space.
Yes you have hit MY nerve Hunters because you obviously have no idea of the real world. Go and experience what you so righteously preach about. THEN you may convince me.
Hunters
Well-Known Member
Calm down dear, it's only a forum.
Furthermore it's a forum for people who hunt, whether that be drag hunting or trail hunting or whatever.
Personally, & I do believe I AM allowed an opinion, the RSPCA although generally do good work, have only themselves to blame for the negativity they have brought themselves.
If the RSPCA think that they have damaged hunting, then they are very wrong. They have only hurt themselves & as I said earlier, that's actually quite a pity.
Furthermore it's a forum for people who hunt, whether that be drag hunting or trail hunting or whatever.
Personally, & I do believe I AM allowed an opinion, the RSPCA although generally do good work, have only themselves to blame for the negativity they have brought themselves.
If the RSPCA think that they have damaged hunting, then they are very wrong. They have only hurt themselves & as I said earlier, that's actually quite a pity.
competitiondiva
Well-Known Member
ah so you believe that law breakers should only be brought to justice if they break a law that YOU think should be in place?? Who are you to pick and chose? The hunting act was brought in because the majority of MP's voted it in. If you don't agree with it lobby your MP, don't point fingers at the RSPCA for upholding that law. Read this article, makes good reading! http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnis...oesnt-change-just-because-youre-on-horseback/
Animal Welfare law was broken and those that broke it were brought to justice, nothing political in that, and it's just what the RSPCA was set up for when they first began!
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
Why would it possibly hit a nerve?
The Heythrop were found guilty. Hunting with hounds is illegal still.
Win/win situation for anti hunt.
It's people like you that should feel a bitter taste in your mouth, which quite clearly you do given your pathetic excuses for the criminalities of the Heythrop.
Hunters
Well-Known Member
I wasn't aware I'd given any excuses for the Heythrop. Not sure I could.
As I have repeatedly stated, regardless of whether it was a hunt or not £300,000 is a heck of a lot of money to spend on any prosecution.
But you are never going to change your mind & neither am I.
As I have repeatedly stated, regardless of whether it was a hunt or not £300,000 is a heck of a lot of money to spend on any prosecution.
But you are never going to change your mind & neither am I.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
Well, the Charities Commission didn't feel that it was in any way a breach so there we go!
Countryman
Well-Known Member
No animal welfare laws were broken. The Hunting Act has nothing to do with animal welfare, it doesn't exist to reduce cruelty.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
Ok. So what does the Hunting Act exist to do?
Hunters
Well-Known Member
I think the fact that the Charities Commission felt they had reason enough to write speaks volumes.
But no doubt they too will be castigated into being pro- hunt nutters.
It's all about accountability.
But no doubt they too will be castigated into being pro- hunt nutters.
It's all about accountability.
Ahunter
Member
Ok. So what does the Hunting Act exist to do?
The Burns report clearly states, in the event of a ban other methods will be used to compensate those no longer killed by hounds, the two likely take up methods he stated were less Preferable to hunting, only a clown would then claim the ban was introduced to reduce cruelty or suffering.
It was introduced to stop the perceived sporting element to foxhunting regardless of the increase in suffering and cruelty.
The Burns report clearly states, in the event of a ban other methods will be used to compensate those no longer killed by hounds, the two likely take up methods he stated were less Preferable to hunting, only a clown would then claim the ban was introduced to reduce cruelty or suffering.
It was introduced to stop the perceived sporting element to foxhunting regardless of the increase in suffering and cruelty.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
What on earth are you rambling about?!!
The CC HAVE to write, when enough complaints are raised. The pro hunt peeps raised their complaints, so they wrote, and looked into it. They found no breach. Get over it FGS it's pathetic.
Just accept that your hunting friends at the Heythrop let you 'legal hunters' down and committed an offence. They got caught. They got prosecuted.
The rest of you should be ashamed by those that let YOU down (if you hunt legally).
lastchancer
Well-Known Member
This might be a slightly dumb question but... The hunts have to have the farmers permission to go on the land that they hunt on? Do the monitors/thugs not need permission too? And if they don't have it can/do the landowners take action against them?