RSPCA originally formed by pro hunt Conservative MP

[Lizzie66]

How come it said that they had landed the gyrocopter to refuel, and that Morse had actually arrived in his land rover at the location to take photos of them?

So you agree that he was taking photos of someone committing an act of deliberately intimidating and endangering life by flying too close to horses? Trevor was acting in the same way as you believe hunt monitors act, by trying to gain evidence of someone committing a criminal act. You find it perfectly acceptable for them to do this but not for Trevor Morse to do the same ?

You also appear to defend the killing of Trevor Morse, would you feel the same way if hunt followers ran down hunt monitors, claiming that the monitors intimidated them and made them fear for their safety ? I doubt it. You and SC both hold double standards and are totally incapable of any reasoned argument. You will not change our minds as our opinions are based on reasoned argument and scientific evidence, yours are based on your personal beliefs.

You are entitled to those beliefs but please do stop trying to force those beliefs on us.

 

[SarahColeman]

I think you have pretty much summed up the ridiculous nature of the law here.
Yes, it is perfectly legal to kill a fox using a bird of prey - although it does have to be a large bird (typically a golden eagle or eagle owl).
Yes, it is perfectly legal to shoot a fox. It is not desirable to attempt to shoot a fox with a shotgun (unless it is very close) but it does happen.
Yes, it is perfectly legal to use a snare or trap.

Personally, I'm not very happy about any of the above. But they are legal.

I've seen an urban fox trapped in a cage and then shot at point blank range. In this case, it was not the shooting that disturbed me, but the fact that the fox was incredibly distressed due to the fact that it was caged. It brought home to me that the most cruel thing to happen to this animal was to be deprived of the ability to run away.

Yet it is completely legal.

I am constantly coming across members of the public who honestly believe that foxes are some sort of protected species and that it is illegal to kill one. I've been amazed at how little some people know about the law, foxes and hunting.

I honestly believe the laws bedding in period is nearly up. Nobody in their right mind wants a return to a banned blood sport and future strengthening of the law will see many daft loopholes forced onto the bill at the time removed. I personally hate to think of shotguns used to kill foxes.

 

[SarahColeman]

So you agree that he was taking photos of someone committing an act of deliberately intimidating and endangering life by flying too close to horses? Trevor was acting in the same way as you believe hunt monitors act, by trying to gain evidence of someone committing a criminal act. You find it perfectly acceptable for them to do this but not for Trevor Morse to do the same ?

You also appear to defend the killing of Trevor Morse, would you feel the same way if hunt followers ran down hunt monitors, claiming that the monitors intimidated them and made them fear for their safety ? I doubt it. You and SC both hold double standards and are totally incapable of any reasoned argument. You will not change our minds as our opinions are based on reasoned argument and scientific evidence, yours are based on your personal beliefs.

You are entitled to those beliefs but please do stop trying to force those beliefs on us.

The copter pilot had been investigated and was not flying low. It is a matter of record! The rest of your post is no doubt very offensive to others and myself as we do not struggle with reasoned argument if faced with posts not containing lies!

 

[Lizzie66]

Oh lord no not the bird of prey smokescreen There are no birds of prey in this country that can humanely and safely kill a fox, any hunt pretending to use one should be firmly monitored for law breaking!

You're right it is cruel but unfortunately that is what the Hunting Act allows. The more humane way is banned !

 

[Nancykitt]

I honestly believe the laws bedding in period is nearly up. Nobody in their right mind wants a return to a banned blood sport and future strengthening of the law will see many daft loopholes forced onto the bill at the time removed. I personally hate to think of shotguns used to kill foxes.

Oh, right, sorry, I didn't realise we were going through a 'bedding in period'.
By 'daft loopholes', do you mean that the shooting, trapping, snaring and killing of foxes with birds of prey will be banned? Really??

I'm very surprised that even people like you can't see that to trap a fox - to take away its ability to run - is incredibly cruel. Yet how are the urban foxes to be controlled if trapping/caging is made illegal? Fox control is not just about the countryside.

 

[Nancykitt]

Oh lord no not the bird of prey smokescreen There are no birds of prey in this country that can humanely and safely kill a fox, any hunt pretending to use one should be firmly monitored for law breaking!

Hang on, are you seriously suggesting that there are hunts taking out falconers with their birds of prey as some sort of cover-up exercise when actually they are killing foxes with hounds???

Your evidence, please? I can't think of one falconer who would consent to such a thing.

 

[Lizzie66]

The rest of your post is no doubt very offensive to others and myself as we do not struggle with reasoned argument if faced with posts not containing lies!

You have not put forward any evidence supporting your viewpoint. The Burns report and the RSPCA concluded back in 2000 that the hunting of foxes with hounds was less cruel than the majority of other methods. They recommended a middle way approach, looking to make animal welfare the aim of any legislation relating to hunting with hounds. The MPs chose to ignore this and force through a law that prohibits hunting with hounds (with some exceptions) and that effectively worsens the welfare of foxes.

You have put forward views that are biased and bigoted, any points that you cannot answer you reply to with insults. If you choose to take offence at my comments then that is your choice but it is my choice to express my opinion as you have yours.

 

[SarahColeman]

You have not put forward any evidence supporting your viewpoint. The Burns report and the RSPCA concluded back in 2000 that the hunting of foxes with hounds was less cruel than the majority of other methods. They recommended a middle way approach, looking to make animal welfare the aim of any legislation relating to hunting with hounds. The MPs chose to ignore this and force through a law that prohibits hunting with hounds (with some exceptions) and that effectively worsens the welfare of foxes.

You have put forward views that are biased and bigoted, any points that you cannot answer you reply to with insults. If you choose to take offence at my comments then that is your choice but it is my choice to express my opinion as you have yours.

The thread is not about the rights and wrongs of hunting it is supposed to be about the RSPCA. If certain pro hunt posters attempt to take it of topic I can CHOOSE whether to respond or not. I do not need or wish to have a particular viewpoint on hunting as I would be happy simply discussing the RSPCA. There you are.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Give up Janet. You can't change bigots or fanatics.

I have returned home from work & read today's posts.

They're not interested in anything anyone of us has to say.

They have an Ill informed answer for everything & if they don't then they resort to insults.

The word 'fanatic' comes to mind.

So very true.So many closed minds on the hunting forum. Does no one speak with a sense of fair play and integrity on the subject?

I have never been an 'anti' but I do object to distorting truth and feeding propaganda. The posts on the hunting forum are at times outrageous and belligerent. That's the reason why I challenge the extremist and fanatical views on here.

 

[Moomin1]

Give up Janet. You can't change bigots or fanatics.

I have returned home from work & read today's posts.

They're not interested in anything anyone of us has to say.

They have an Ill informed answer for everything & if they don't then they resort to insults.

The word 'fanatic' comes to mind.

A fair few words spring to my mind too, but I won't post them here.

 

[JanetGeorge]

How come it said that they had landed the gyrocopter to refuel, and that Morse had actually arrived in his land rover at the location to take photos of them?

That is exactly what happened. Trevor Morse wanted to photograph the pilot so he could be identified - to accompany a complaint to the CAA about the gyrocopter's constant low flying which was scaring horses!

Which bit don't you understand??

 

[Moomin1]

That is exactly what happened. Trevor Morse wanted to photograph the pilot so he could be identified - to accompany a complaint to the CAA about the gyrocopter's constant low flying which was scaring horses!

Which bit don't you understand??

The point I am making is that Morse actively went to the location where the pilot was refuelling, in order to photograph. He then blocked his path, or attempted to, and called for 'reinforcements' (which in itself, as agreed by the courts, is somewhat highly threatening). You appear to be trying to suggest that the pilot actively sought out the hunt and deliberately acted in a way as to endanger the life of Morse. That was not the case. It was an accident brought about by the stupidity and dangerous behaviour of Morse himself.

I am not saying that the pilot had or hadn't acted in a similar fashion himself over previous incidents with the hunt - maybe he had. But in the incident involving Morse's death, I do not see you can possibly blame the pilot. Neither could the court.

 

[JanetGeorge]

The point I am making is that Morse actively went to the location where the pilot was refuelling, in order to photograph. He then blocked his path, or attempted to, and called for 'reinforcements' (which in itself, as agreed by the courts, is somewhat highly threatening). You appear to be trying to suggest that the pilot actively sought out the hunt and deliberately acted in a way as to endanger the life of Morse. That was not the case. It was an accident brought about by the stupidity and dangerous behaviour of Morse himself.

I am not saying that the pilot had or hadn't acted in a similar fashion himself over previous incidents with the hunt - maybe he had. But in the incident involving Morse's death, I do not see you can possibly blame the pilot. Neither could the court.

The pilot had recklessly endangered the lives and safety of dozens of hunt followers - including children - every time he flew low over the hunt! HE didn't want to be photographed, identified, and reported to the CAA. HE knew how the blades of a gyrocopter act - they are NOT fixed - Trevor Morse almost certainly didn't. A lengthy discussion on a pilots' forum after the incident revealed that the vast majority of pilots - whatever their views on hunting - thought the piot had acted (at the very least) in an irresponsible manner! The Pilot was IN his gyrocopter - in the company of a violent animal rights extremist - why should he be scared of Trevor Morse. The court did not know about the pilot's companion - the court decided that would be 'prejudicial' to the pilot's trial. That decision was - of course - prejudical to Trevor Morse and his family's right to justice!

 

[Moomin1]

The pilot had recklessly endangered the lives and safety of dozens of hunt followers - including children - every time he flew low over the hunt! HE didn't want to be photographed, identified, and reported to the CAA. HE knew how the blades of a gyrocopter act - they are NOT fixed - Trevor Morse almost certainly didn't. A lengthy discussion on a pilots' forum after the incident revealed that the vast majority of pilots - whatever their views on hunting - thought the piot had acted (at the very least) in an irresponsible manner! The Pilot was IN his gyrocopter - in the company of a violent animal rights extremist - why should he be scared of Trevor Morse. The court did not know about the pilot's companion - the court decided that would be 'prejudicial' to the pilot's trial. That decision was - of course - prejudical to Trevor Morse and his family's right to justice!

Urgh. It does appear to be a common trait amongst the pro hunt on this thread..being so right and more qualified and knowledgeable than the law. A COURT FOUND HIM NOT GUILTY. A COURT FOUND THE HEYTHROP GUILTY. You and your pro hunt supporters don't like it. Tough.

 

[Hunters]

Poor man. Enough said.

 

[Moomin1]

Poor man. Enough said.

Yes I agree. Poor man. Shame he was silly enough to do what he did.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

That is exactly what happened. Trevor Morse wanted to photograph the pilot so he could be identified - to accompany a complaint to the CAA about the gyrocopter's constant low flying which was scaring horses!

Which bit don't you understand??

I find it extremely distasteful that you are trying to point score over this man's tragic death. You KNOW what the facts are and yet you try to distort the facts from the court case for your own ends.

There is much more I could say about this incident, but respect for the grief of his family and the trauma of those involved, prevents me from doing so.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Urgh. It does appear to be a common trait amongst the pro hunt on this thread..being so right and more qualified and knowledgeable than the law. A COURT FOUND HIM NOT GUILTY. A COURT FOUND THE HEYTHROP GUILTY. You and your pro hunt supporters don't like it. Tough.

And how often do Courts get it wrong?? How many times do the guilty go free - and how often are innocent people convicted. Pretty often!!

 

[Moomin1]

And how often do Courts get it wrong?? How many times do the guilty go free - and how often are innocent people convicted. Pretty often!!

Well according to you and your hunt supporters the courts seem to get it wrong a lot.

According to most other people, it happens pretty rarely.

 

[Hunters]

Eggs for breakfast I think.

 

[Moomin1]

Eggs for breakfast I think.

Your point being?

 

[JanetGeorge]

Well according to you and your hunt supporters the courts seem to get it wrong a lot.

According to most other people, it happens pretty rarely.

Well - do a bit of research and you'll find out that 'most other people' are wrong. Start here - and these are just some of the high profile cases. http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/criminal-cases-review-commission Many others never get this far!

In the first court case I was involved in - back in 1992 - which involved a violent assault by a hunt saboteur against the hunt terrierman, the saboteurs got off. They got off for several reasons. One was an identity problem - one of the saboteurs was wearing a distinctive red jumper. When he ran from the scene he persuaded a newbie to swap clothes with him. So the newbie was arrested and charged along with two others who WERE involved. Then there was a bit of deliberate perjury - by one of the saboteurs. Then there was some VERY stupid and very imaginative evidence given by a braindead female hunt supporter who was at LEAST 300 yards away from the incident, didn't get a proper view and had probably emptied her flask before the attack happened!

In another case I was involved in, the most important witness was a livestock farmer who had seen - and heard - what went on. Before the trial, he was visited by some masked saboteurs who walked around his livestock buildings rattling boxes of matches and making 'subtle' threats. Strangely enough, the farmer decided not to be a witness!

At another trial - nothing to do with hunting - I was an expert witness for Trading Standards in a horse mis-selling case. I saw and heard the father of the defendant THREATEN the prosecution's main witness! I reported it to the Clerk of the Court and they called the police - who were 'too busy' to attend. It was reported to the Judge and - in the legal discussions that followed - the defendant decided to plead guilty. I was SO angry about the threats made (which were against the woman's children) I made a special trip to the police station to report the threats - accompanied by the main witness and her husband - who had been threatened by the same man, although I hadn't witnessed that. The police refused to take ANY action! Said it was 'trivial'! The justice system has a LOT of ways of going wrong when the police won't take action against someone who threatens witnesses!

And there are a hundred other ways in which the wrong result can be reached! The Justice system is very far from perfect!

 

[Moomin1]

Well - do a bit of research and you'll find out that 'most other people' are wrong. Start here - and these are just some of the high profile cases. http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/criminal-cases-review-commission Many others never get this far!

In the first court case I was involved in - back in 1992 - which involved a violent assault by a hunt saboteur against the hunt terrierman, the saboteurs got off. They got off for several reasons. One was an identity problem - one of the saboteurs was wearing a distinctive red jumper. When he ran from the scene he persuaded a newbie to swap clothes with him. So the newbie was arrested and charged along with two others who WERE involved. Then there was a bit of deliberate perjury - by one of the saboteurs. Then there was some VERY stupid and very imaginative evidence given by a braindead female hunt supporter who was at LEAST 300 yards away from the incident, didn't get a proper view and had probably emptied her flask before the attack happened!

In another case I was involved in, the most important witness was a livestock farmer who had seen - and heard - what went on. Before the trial, he was visited by some masked saboteurs who walked around his livestock buildings rattling boxes of matches and making 'subtle' threats. Strangely enough, the farmer decided not to be a witness!

At another trial - nothing to do with hunting - I was an expert witness for Trading Standards in a horse mis-selling case. I saw and heard the father of the defendant THREATEN the prosecution's main witness! I reported it to the Clerk of the Court and they called the police - who were 'too busy' to attend. It was reported to the Judge and - in the legal discussions that followed - the defendant decided to plead guilty. I was SO angry about the threats made (which were against the woman's children) I made a special trip to the police station to report the threats - accompanied by the main witness and her husband - who had been threatened by the same man, although I hadn't witnessed that. The police refused to take ANY action! Said it was 'trivial'! The justice system has a LOT of ways of going wrong when the police won't take action against someone who threatens witnesses!

And there are a hundred other ways in which the wrong result can be reached! The Justice system is very far from perfect!

I'm sorry, just need to clarify a few things.

1) Your first instance - you do not explain objectively how the court got it wrong on that occassion. You merely describe the version of events you believed took place.

2) You say the vital witness in this case backed out, because of 'threats from hunt sabs'. Well, how is that anything to do with courts getting things wrong?

3) The third example of yours - you say that 'in the legal discussions that followed the defendant pleaded guilty'. Therefore, the court did not make any judgement at all other than take in the guilty plea. Furthermore, your other moan was at the police. They are not the court.

 

[lastchancer]

You can hardly include the case of Trevor Morse in that I'm afraid. He pursued the anti hunts guy, he tried to block him from leaving, despite being asked to move. He was the one who got on the phone asking for 'reinforcement' from the pro hunt supporters in order for them to come along to the scene to assist him in his efforts of blocking him.

Much as it is a sad situation for somebody to die like that, I am afraid he did put himself in that situation.

Good god you can't just kill folk for doing something stupid!!
If I were driving a car and some idiot chav stood in the way and refused to move would it be ok to mow him down? Tempting though it may be...

 

[lastchancer]

Yes I agree. Poor man. Shame he was silly enough to do what he did.

You really do come across as a vile individual Moomin.

 

[lastchancer]

WTF? The court found him NOT GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER. NEVERMIND MURDER. THE MAN WAS NOT GUILTY.

Get a grip the lot of you

THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE CAP'S, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LOUD YOU SHOUT, YOU ARE STILL FULL OF NONSENSE

And I was referring to your inference that this poor man somehow asked for his tragic end. I don't know if the pilot was guilty or not, I wasn't there. But he certainly wasn't playing very nicely was he when he was flying dangerously low over the hunt now was he...

I'm not even particularly for or against hunting but it's pretty obvious that the hunts have a lot to put up with. The anti's shouldn't even be on the land that they 'monitor'.

 

[Moomin1]

THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE CAP'S, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LOUD YOU SHOUT, YOU ARE STILL FULL OF NONSENSE

And I was referring to your inference that this poor man somehow asked for his tragic end. I don't know if the pilot was guilty or not, I wasn't there. But he certainly wasn't playing very nicely was he when he was flying dangerously low over the hunt now was he...

I'm not even particularly for or against hunting but it's pretty obvious that the hunts have a lot to put up with. The anti's shouldn't even be on the land that they 'monitor'.

From what I read, he wasn't even on hunt land when the accident happened. The hunt supporter tracked him down.

 

[Hunters]

Vile - is an understatement (as per Lastchancer)

 

[Alec Swan]

WTF? The court found him NOT GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER. NEVERMIND MURDER. THE MAN WAS NOT GUILTY.

Get a grip the lot of you

Just a small point for you; He was "found" to be not guilty, there's a world of difference between that, and in "fact" being not guilty.

The pilot feared for his life, and through his stupidity, ignorance and negligence, he killed a man? Through his wanton use of an aircraft, another died, and he wasn't responsible? Whilst the Court wasn't able to "find" him guilty, are you honestly going to tell me that he wasn't responsible for the death of a complete innocent?

As with most of the rabid anti hunting campaigners, I'd suggest that a session with a psychiatrist may well be of benefit.

Alec.

 

[JanetGeorge]

I'm sorry, just need to clarify a few things.

1) Your first instance - you do not explain objectively how the court got it wrong on that occassion. You merely describe the version of events you believed took place.

To explain it fully - in words of one syllable - would have taken all night! I was in the thick of the 'incident' and KNOW what happened.

2) You say the vital witness in this case backed out, because of 'threats from hunt sabs'. Well, how is that anything to do with courts getting things wrong?

Because the court did not have all the evidence.

3) The third example of yours - you say that 'in the legal discussions that followed the defendant pleaded guilty'. Therefore, the court did not make any judgement at all other than take in the guilty plea. Furthermore, your other moan was at the police. They are not the court.

But they are an integral part of the majority of court cases - and - unfortunately - often to blame for miscarriages of justice. Miscarriages of justice are usually NOT the direct fault of the court, although some juries CAN be dominated by one particular member. The court is just where all aspects of a prosecution are brought together. The court can ONLY 'get it right' if all aspects are 'right'. And very often they are not!

It is a miracle there aren't MANY more miscarriages of justice!