RSPCA originally formed by pro hunt Conservative MP

[Hunters]

Yes hunts take the time to get permission & no monitors/antis do not.

Monitors/antis believe that they have the right to go wherever they like.

 

[Hunters]

Trespass generally is a civil offence, although aggravated trespass is different.

After Trevor Morse was killebang an anti - helicopter in Warwickshire, we had a huge hit from the antis (they seemed delighted to have killed a man.)

The police attended a 'trespass' incident & a arrest was made. The landowner was so angry with the anti that he backed the police prosecution. The antis/ monitors claimed that illegal hunting was taking place & produced video evidence of hounds rioting on deer.

 

[Hunters]

The huntsman could clearly be seen trying to stop the hounds.

Long & short of it, the anti was found guilty & after the verdict, previous convictions were read out & they were as long as your arm.

A fee months later, the anti had appealed the decision & so back to court we all went. Upon seeing us all once more prepared to go through it all again, the anti cancelled the appeal.

So yes you can do something about antis & trespass but it's a long & drawn-out process.

 

[Hunters]

Also, apologies for typos, iPhone app problems, but I think my posts are just about readable

 

[competitiondiva]

No animal welfare laws were broken. The Hunting Act has nothing to do with animal welfare, it doesn't exist to reduce cruelty.

The hunting act was brought in because the majority of MP's (and in turn the pubic) voted that it was cruel and outdated, therefore voted to ban it.

Whether the alternatives are any less or more cruel (and I am aware there are plenty of pest control firms and game keepers, successfully managing fox problems with more humane methods) is a separate issue in itself, it does not mean that the act of hunting with a pack of dogs is not cruel! I won't go into the debate of hunting. As no one will be swayed but just wanted to highlight the fact that the hunting act does create an animal welfare offence, therefore within the remit of the RSPCA.

 

[SarahColeman]

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...

you forgot to add ner ner na ner ner to your childish post!

No good having a fighting fund if you have not the stomach for a fight @Heythrop????

 

[SarahColeman]

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?

An even dumber question from me lastchancer If the hunts are not breaking the law why are they doing all they can not to be monitored. If they are law abiding the monitors can prove this for them and trail hunting may not be banned after all.

 

[SarahColeman]

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.

Hunters you completely ignored the HUGE fact that the Heythrop have been banned from trail hunting on National Trust land. What a price they have payed for their arrogance!

 

[Simsar]

SarahC genuine question, are you seriously suggesting that anyone going about their lawful business should allow themselves to be filmed as evidence?? Bizarre!

 

[Ahunter]

"The hunting act was brought in because the majority of MP's (and in turn the pubic) voted that it was cruel and outdated, therefore voted to ban it"

What a load of Cobblers!!!!!

Peter Bradley, Labour MP for The Wrekin and parliamentary secretary to Alun
Michael wrote in the Sunday Telegraph, "we should own up, the struggle was not about personal freedoms and animal welfare, it was class war"


"Whether the alternatives are any less or more cruel (and I am aware there are plenty of pest control firms and game keepers, successfully managing fox problems with more humane methods) is a separate issue"

The Burns inquiry did not think so and compared the various methods as anyone with a brain would think its bloody stupid to ban one method only for another to take its place and increase suffering.

 

[SarahColeman]

SarahC genuine question, are you seriously suggesting that anyone going about their lawful business should allow themselves to be filmed as evidence?? Bizarre!

When 50 odd thousand people connected to a certain business have signed a declaration stating they will break the law then to monitor them is by no means bizarre, more common sense. Being filmed not breaking the law would cause me no concern whatsoever. Moreover I would not then act in an illegal manner to prevent people filming me hunts people presently do.

 

[combat_claire]

An even dumber question from me lastchancer If the hunts are not breaking the law why are they doing all they can not to be monitored. If they are law abiding the monitors can prove this for them and trail hunting may not be banned after all.

How would you like it if I followed you round the supermarket videoing and photographing your every move because I suspected that you might be about to start shoplifting? I might argue that if you are law abiding then you have nothing to fear from my monitoring your activity. You would probably see it as harassment of you going about your lawful business. There we have the nub of the reason why hunts dislike the monitors.

This combined with the fact that many monitors are former saboteurs there is hardly any wonder why they are distrusted.

I had the misfortune to come across a group of the East Midland's finest monitors/saboteurs - they were a deeply threatening presence as they marched up the hillside in their black hoodies, camouflage bottoms and scarves towards a group of foot followers who were peaceably watching the draw. I would add that they were not abusive or violent to us, but I still had a feeling that they had menace on their minds.

 

[Simsar]

Thanks CC you beat me to it!

 

[combat_claire]

So yes you can do something about antis & trespass but it's a long & drawn-out process.

It took the Fitzwilliam 2 years of evidence gathering against saboteurs before they managed o secure an injunction using an ancient tort known as 'trespass of goods'

The details are here in this report:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-by-blowing-horns-and-hallooing-1504580.html

 

[Simsar]

Another question, if hunts are persistently follwed by the same sabs could the hunt or the hunt staff take out a restaining order on the offenders?

 

[combat_claire]

Thanks CC you beat me to it!

I would just add I have better things to do with my time than follow people around the supermarket!!

 

[Simsar]

Restraining even, wouldn't want them restained...... might get done for cruelty.

 

[Fellewell]

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!

'Nor does it matter about road kills'

So an agonising death for a fox by the roadside in territory he's unfamiliar with is acceptable to you is it?
You'd be ok with the Heythrop running over foxes in a car would you?
Perhaps you could ask yourself why the fox has been forced to become an urbanite in the first place.
Being cleanly despatched by a terrierman is a far more humane end; but this isn't really about the fox for you is it? Be honest.

 

[Moomin1]

'Nor does it matter about road kills'

So an agonising death for a fox by the roadside in territory he's unfamiliar with is acceptable to you is it?
You'd be ok with the Heythrop running over foxes in a car would you?
Perhaps you could ask yourself why the fox has been forced to become an urbanite in the first place.
Being cleanly despatched by a terrierman is a far more humane end; but this isn't really about the fox for you is it? Be honest.

There's a slight difference in a car accidently hitting a fox, than a human being going all out to intentionally kill using a pack of hounds.

 

[Countryman]

The reason we do everything we can to stop the monitors filming or having a good day out is that they make no secret of the fact they hate us and hold us in contempt. You do not let someone who hates you film your activities when you know they will do everything they can to have the filming misconstrued as illegal activity - for example, telling a court that hounds in cry is proof of illegal hunting! (Hounds in cry is also equally good proof of trail hunting...)

 

[SarahColeman]

How would you like it if I followed you round the supermarket videoing and photographing your every move because I suspected that you might be about to start shoplifting? I might argue that if you are law abiding then you have nothing to fear from my monitoring your activity. You would probably see it as harassment of you going about your lawful business. There we have the nub of the reason why hunts dislike the monitors.

This combined with the fact that many monitors are former saboteurs there is hardly any wonder why they are distrusted.

I had the misfortune to come across a group of the East Midland's finest monitors/saboteurs - they were a deeply threatening presence as they marched up the hillside in their black hoodies, camouflage bottoms and scarves towards a group of foot followers who were peaceably watching the draw. I would add that they were not abusive or violent to us, but I still had a feeling that they had menace on their minds.

It just does not compare UNLESS I was previously allowed to take any goods I wanted from the supermarket for free. Now the supermarket said I had to pay for my goods but I, encouraged by a future MP declared no way would I pay, I would shoplift. If you then videoed or photographed my every move in the supermarket you would have your comparison.

 

[Fellewell]

There's a slight difference in a car accidently hitting a fox, than a human being going all out to intentionally kill using a pack of hounds.

Try telling that to the fox.

Hounds are/were doing what comes/came naturally. Just as sure as the lions in the Serengeti with that well-known 'hunt follower' David Attenborough.

People happily sit down to be entertained by watching animals ripping each other to bits on natural history programmes. Would you call that cognitive dissonance?

 

[SarahColeman]

Try telling that to the fox.

Hounds are/were doing what comes/came naturally. Just as sure as the lions in the Serengeti with that well-known 'hunt follower' David Attenborough.

People happily sit down to be entertained by watching animals ripping each other to bits on natural history programmes. Would you call that cognitive dissonance?

Hounds are not doing what comes 'naturally' to them, LEGALLY anymore

 

[Countryman]

Well hounds killing a fox isn't necessarily illegal.

 

[Fellewell]

No. Honestly for me it is about attacks on the RSPCA by people such as yourself who post c**p like the above

I didn't mention the RSPCA and you are resorting to foul language because you don't have any answers.

 

[SarahColeman]

Well hounds killing a fox isn't necessarily illegal.

Back to ner ner so soon

 

[competitiondiva]

Try telling that to the fox.

Hounds are/were doing what comes/came naturally. Just as sure as the lions in the Serengeti with that well-known 'hunt follower' David Attenborough.

People happily sit down to be entertained by watching animals ripping each other to bits on natural history programmes. Would you call that cognitive dissonance?

by your arguement then dog fighting should be allowed as they are doing what comes naturally to them??

 

[SarahColeman]

Trespass generally is a civil offence, although aggravated trespass is different.

After Trevor Morse was killebang an anti - helicopter in Warwickshire, we had a huge hit from the antis (they seemed delighted to have killed a man.)

The police attended a 'trespass' incident & a arrest was made. The landowner was so angry with the anti that he backed the police prosecution. The antis/ monitors claimed that illegal hunting was taking place & produced video evidence of hounds rioting on deer.

I do not know the intimate details of this case but was it not Morse who was trespassing and then aggravated the offence with violence toward the copter occupants?

 

[Moomin1]

Try telling that to the fox.

Hounds are/were doing what comes/came naturally. Just as sure as the lions in the Serengeti with that well-known 'hunt follower' David Attenborough.

People happily sit down to be entertained by watching animals ripping each other to bits on natural history programmes. Would you call that cognitive dissonance?

Ha ha. Err, slightly flawed argument, because animals ripping each other apart in the wild is FOR SURVIVAL. Not to provide entertainment for people such as yourself.

 

[JanetGeorge]

by your arguement then dog fighting should be allowed as they are doing what comes naturally to them??

Sorry, dear, but dog fighting to the death doesn't actually come naturally to them! And although stallions can fight to the death if one is VERY determined to take over, it is more normal for one to back off and leave the area fast if he is having 7 bells kicked out of him!

Dog fights are 'engineered' by breeding aggressive dogs, bringing them up to be aggressive, and putting them in a situation where they can't run away - they fight - or they die! And sick barstewards bet on the outcome and are 'entertained' by the pain they suffer - and the blood that flows!

Anyone who went foxhunting to satisfy a 'blood lust' would be VERY sadly disappointed! In 20 odd years of foxhunting I was close enough to 3 kills to SEE them - and there was no blood with any of them (the pack I normally went with rarely 'broke up' their foxes after the kill. Once it was dead, the most the dog hounds would do was lift a leg on it!)