winterwood
Well-Known Member
Good point made here. Have you posted the poll on any other horsey/non horsey forums Brontie?
Maybe something like 'Horse Gossip'
RSPCA prosecuting the Heythrop hunt
- Thread starter Brontie
- Start date
Good point made here. Have you posted the poll on any other horsey/non horsey forums Brontie?
Maybe something like 'Horse Gossip'
eatmyshorts
Well-Known Member
What many (as although not all) seem to be forgetting is who committed an offence here. The law is the law, whether you agree with it or not (or get caught). The RSPCA should not be the ones on trial here, justice was brought but unfortunately it cost. If nobody broke the law in the first place, that money could have been spent elsewhere. Lay the blame where it belongs.
eatmyshorts
Well-Known Member
Excellent point. Hardly surprising that so for, on a hunting forum, that most have voted No. It's human nature to protect your own. I hope to get a balanced view that this pole is also posted on an antihunt forum.
Last edited:
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
Brontie I agree with the person who said that this forum's users are biased. As a whole demographic we ate more than likely to be positively biased towards pro hunting than the average population. But, your choice
I don't feel I can answer the question because I don't know which funds were used and how they were raised. If the prossecution was funded by say one or two major donors or a specific fundraising campaign which informed donors what their donation was to be used for, I don't condemn their action. If it was funded from a pool of money that was made up of 100s of donors who were under the impression that their donations would help fund emergency vet treatment for a stray kitty or dog, then that would be unethical and misleading at best, and illegal at worst to spend that money on something very different.
The RSPCA does indeed have a separate fighting fund to bring animal abusers to justice.
For those who would like to donate, here's the link; https://www.rspca.org.uk/donate/fig...um=Redirect&utm_campaign=Emergency_FR_Dec2012
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
A bit of a cheek saying that the RSPCA May have learnt its lesson. The hunts obviously don't. Even if they get off at court the fact that there was enough of a case to get them there is enough. I certainly hope that hunts pay for their own defense. It's bad enough that they flout the law and cause a charity to waste money on them. I'd like to see sentences increased to mandatory prison for these offences, it's the only way to stop these people and their disgusting crimes.
Armas
Well-Known Member
The CPS did not prosecute this as a criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of making their case beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning that it has to be a near certainty that the person is guilty and no other options appear reasonable.
Please remember the hunt plead guilt because they could not justify the great cost of defending them selves. The RSPCA carried out a very expensive witch hunt.
The RSPCA's brought a civil cases the plaintiff's burden is merely preponderance of the evidence, meaning that its more likely that the plaintiff's claims are true but not necessarily certain.
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
That is not how it works. The RSPCA has specialist resources in bringing a case to court with a 98% success rate. The CPS does not have the same level of expertise in this area. The RSPCA does assist the CPS in some more straight forward cases but the CPS seems to have to priortise its resources much like every other public service.
The Crown Prosecution service does indeed bring successful cases against hunts such as this one;http://www.cps.gov.uk/southeast/cps_southeast_news/hunt_members_guilty_of_hunting_offences/
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
The hunts cannot be trusted not to hunt animals, no suprise there. Perhaps it's time to make this sort of gathering illegal.
Shutterbug
Well-Known Member
My point exactly. However this fact does appear to be completely overlooked for the best part. As someone else said had it been a dog fighting ring or a puppy mill that was being prosecuted, there would be no end of outrage towards the party actually committing the crime and praise all round for the prosecuting party. Breaking the law is breaking the law so perhaps the finger of blame (along with the bill for prosecution) should be pointed at the hunt who broke that law in the first place.
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
Just because hunts were once socially accepted, they're not any more. Just like bull and bear baiting, badger baiting, cock and dog fighting. Hunts are just as sadistic appealing to that sort of mind set.
People who like to terrify and kill for sport are not welcome to do this here anymore. The law says they shouldn't do it, so grow up and behave.
People who like to terrify and kill for sport are not welcome to do this here anymore. The law says they shouldn't do it, so grow up and behave.
Shantara
Well-Known Member
I don't think we've ever really seen eye to eye, but I totally agree with you here.
Lizzie66
Well-Known Member
What a biased uninformed post.
Fox hunting has nothing to do with bear/badger baiting or cock/dog fighting. These were outlawed because of the cruelty involved, other than the entertainment of individuals there was no purpose and the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
Fox hunting is about controlling fox numbers (notice the control not eradicating) and ensuring that the population of foxes is as healthy as possible. The least cruel method is hunting with hounds, this discriminates between healthy and injured/diseased animals, in that generally the healthy get away and the others don't.
The current situation is such that foxes are shot, more often than not maimed and die a slow lingering death, or they could be trapped/snared where they could stay for days before they are found and dispatched by a shot, they have been known to chew off their own foot to get away or they could be poisoned which again is a slow painful death.
So actually those of you who are anti-hunting with hounds are actually pro-cruelty so I know who I would rather socialise with !
Shutterbug
Well-Known Member
I am not anti hunting but I agreed that the prosecution of a party who broke a law was correct and warranted. When you strip this issue back and look at it on facts, its quite simply that the law has been broken so a prosecution was warranted. We cannot say that its ok for people to break the law because we dont think the law is suitable - thats not for us to decide. The fact remains, a law was broken and the offending party were punished - they should also be handed the bill for the prosecution because had they not broken the law and been found guilty the money wouldnt have been wasted and could have gone towards helping other animals - the blame for that lies squarely with the hunt who broke the law.
And the comparison with badger baiting, dog fighting and the like is correct in that they are all also illegal activities that would warrant prosecution.
Pigeon
Well-Known Member
You may not agree with the money spent by the RSPCA, but this wouldn't be an issue if the Heythrop hunt hadn't caused suffering to animals in the first place.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Rubbish. They've always been shot around here and I've never come across a carcass, never mind a fox suffering a slow lingering death.
True there are sometimes stupid louts who lamp illegally and badly, but those exist wherever there are wild animals to have 'fun' shooting. That has nothing to do with the debate about whether fox control is best done by gun or hunting with hounds.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
I love this argument. The healthy get away to be chased again and again and again until they are one day no longer healthy enough and get caught. Smashing.
I do not believe that you can substantiate your view that hunting with hounds is the least cruel method of fox control. The Burns report did not find that to be the case. It found that shooting was at least as humane.
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
Talking of socializing, that's what lots of people go hunting for, the cruelty aspect is either put to the back of the mind or a stupid attempt to justify it as a humainly acceptable way of control, which it isn't. Hunts are not legitimate any more, in fact most are illegal because of the types that get involved assuming they are above the law. Well, here's the news, people convicted are the same as any other common criminal with a criminal record. I've been in farming all my life, and rode with hounds many times. I decided off my own bat I didn't want anything to do with hunting any more because it is cruel and that cannot be excused or disguised nor should it be.
shannonandtay
Well-Known Member
^^^ This. How can being chased in sheer fright until you drop be humane, come on now.
shannonandtay
Well-Known Member
Well I know what method I'd rather go by, either a bullet from a gun or chased and ripped apart by hounds its not a difficult one is it
MagicMelon
Well-Known Member
Im glad they were prosecuted, but no it was way too much to spend unfortunately.
{97702}
...
Bumping the thread, in case just a few more would open it and vote.
I came and voted just because FL told me to on FB
And I voted no; not that I would ever donate to RSPCA, but if I donate to a welfare charity I expect my donation to be spent on welfare not the charity pursuing their own political agenda
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
It is grossly irresponsible of the hunts to break the law and then cause such expense to both the RSPCA and the CPS.
It's time they apologised and paid the total cost for breaking the law. If it wasn't for them, the money could be better used in the justice system and in the animal welfare charities currently having to pick up part of the cost.
Why should ordinary citizens pay for the hunt's disregard for the laws of this country ?
It's time they apologised and paid the total cost for breaking the law. If it wasn't for them, the money could be better used in the justice system and in the animal welfare charities currently having to pick up part of the cost.
Why should ordinary citizens pay for the hunt's disregard for the laws of this country ?
Brontie
Well-Known Member
Actually, my research which has included many veterinary reports shows that the stress endured during the chase is the same as any endured during a disturbance in their habitat. It's rare that they know until the last final minutes, and even so, the chase endured is no more than what there body is capable of, providing they're healthy
Brontie
Well-Known Member
The hunt didn't ask them to prosecute them? Nor did the RSPCA / CPS have to, they chose to spend that money prosecuting, no one was forced too.
Clodagh
Playing chess with pigeons
You are talkiing complete ballcock! I have hunted all my life, now that I don't we shoot our foxes with a rifle. Killing them with a rifle is in no way dependant on scenting conditions, which is the thing that makes the difference to a pack of hounds. A fit healthy fox will not be able to outrun hounds if conditions are in the hounds favour, a lame or mangey or pregnant fox could well do so if the scent was poor. We don't shoot loads, 8 this year, but all good clean shots. Have you never seen what happens to a fox if two young hounds get hold of it? It isn't quick, trust me.
Clodagh
Playing chess with pigeons
Lizzie66 - I keep reading your post and getting crosser and crosser! So foxhunting isn't primarily about entertainment!? Where in the country do you live? If on Exmoor or in the Lake District you may have a (very small) point, but anywhere else you are a fantasist.
Superhot
Well-Known Member
So why should the hunt flout the law and expect not to be prosecuted?. If I drove at a 100 mile an hour anywhere in the UK. I would expect to be punished if I was caught. I take the risk, I take the responsibility don't, I??? I wish people would stop bleating when they're caught breaking the law. Don't do it. SIMPLES!!!!!
pennyturner
Well-Known Member
I'm sure it's just what the little old ladies had in mind when they were writing the cheque.
Funny how the RSPCA adverts always focus on the starving dog, not a fat lawyer. Reality is they'd rather shoot the dog and hire the lawyer.
Dishonest, morally bankrupt organisation.
Funny how the RSPCA adverts always focus on the starving dog, not a fat lawyer. Reality is they'd rather shoot the dog and hire the lawyer.
Dishonest, morally bankrupt organisation.
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
The hunt didn't ask them to prosecute them? Nor did the RSPCA / CPS have to, they chose to spend that money prosecuting, no one was forced too.
LOL ! The prisons are full of people who would rather they hadn't been prosecuted.
Shall we let all criminals remain unpunished and free to carry on breaking the law ?
The hunting fraternity are morally bankrupt and causing money to be spent by the police, CPS, court system and all equine charities (not just expense to the RSPCA).
Perhaps if they left their uncontrollable hounds at home, stopped wanting to cause terror and suffering to wildlife, more unwanted fluffy kittens could have deluxe catteries at the RSPCA shelters.
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
Brontie, you sound the worst sort of apologist for this disgusting, illegal practice.