RSPCA prosecuting the Heythrop hunt

Was the RSPCA right to use over £326,000 in donations to prosecute the Heythrop?

  • Total voters
    0
BigBuck's said:
The "fighting fund" was launched AFTER the Heythrop prosecution, so my points still stand.
Click to expand...

Not really, everyone knows the RSPCA stance on this, if they choose to use funds prosecuting hunts that is their business, not the hunts, not hunt supporters, not judges, not even people who donate to the RSPCA. If you want to donate with strings attached, give elsewhere.

The clue is in the title, PREVENTION of CRUELTY to ANIMALS. I see no exemption for 'foxes', nor for the 'unspeakable'

The noxious little band who keep breaking the law in order to follow their own weird perversion, should face up to the fact that they will be pursued remorselessly, their bolt holes will be blocked and when they think they have found safe haven they will be harried with terrier like tenacity by well paid lawyers and barristers.

Contrary to Countryside Alliance and pro-hunting claims, according to a Mori Poll published in The Guardian on 18 December 2001, 83% of people in the UK think hunting is cruel, unnecessary and unacceptable. In a Gallup poll for the Daily Telegraph in 1997, 77% of rural dwellers disapproved of fox hunting.

Forlorn is the hope that the Act will ever be repealed. Ordinary people, clear thinking people, humane people, civilized people, people who vote don't want this disgusting practice to ever return. It ain't no vote catcher, so it ain't going to happen. :D:D
 
Pale Rider said:
Contrary to Countryside Alliance and pro-hunting claims, according to a Mori Poll published in The Guardian on 18 December 2001, 83% of people in the UK think hunting is cruel, unnecessary and unacceptable. In a Gallup poll for the Daily Telegraph in 1997, 77% of rural dwellers disapproved of fox hunting.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to see how that compares to the results of the BBC MORI poll in 2005, in which support for the ban had fallen to 47%.

My understanding is that the wording of the BBC poll was more neutral than alternative polls referred to above, which tend to be commissioned by IFAW/LACS and use a recognised technique known as "push polling" which employs superficially-neutral language with an underlying negative bias.
 
BigBuck's said:
It's interesting to see how that compares to the results of the BBC MORI poll in 2005, in which support for the ban had fallen to 47%.

My understanding is that the wording of the BBC poll was more neutral than alternative polls referred to above, which tend to be commissioned by IFAW/LACS and use a recognised technique known as "push polling" which employs superficially-neutral language with an underlying negative bias.
Click to expand...

Mori poll 4 months ago, Dec 2012 - 81% against deer hunting, 76% against fox hunting.

Also of interest, is that the fighting fund launched by the RSPCA in the first 8 weeks had received donations of £160,000 from the public.

Outside hunting fraternities, hunting remains, as ever, unpopular.
 
If the money came from people donating "blindly" thinking it will help feed starving animals etc, it's wrong. If it came from specialist donations for the prosecution, bit different.

Personally, I will not have anything to do with the RSPCA, I think they are a waste of time. One morning driving to work I saw a cat with its back legs run over. I couldnt stop. Got to work, rang RSPCA, thinking they would be out ASAP to help poor kitty. Their response;"Oh well we might get out to it, if there is someone in the area." Discusting. Poor cat was probably there for hours.

As for foxes.... yes they are prey animals. Wolves naturally hunt them. No animal hunts for fun. Really? Watch my old dog... he lived to kill things.
 
horserider said:
Mori poll 4 months ago, Dec 2012 - 81% against deer hunting, 76% against fox hunting.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware of that poll. Commissioned by IFAW/LACS/RSPCA, so obviously in the interests of fairness we should be alive to the danger of push polling as noted above.

Of course the sample sizes for all of these polls hovers around the 2000 mark so there is a huge amount of extrapolation, assumption and weighting that goes on - but "1,520 people are against fox hunting" doesn't quite have the same attention-grabbing headline soundbite, does it?!

horserider said:
Also of interest, is that the fighting fund launched by the RSPCA in the first 8 weeks had received donations of £160,000 from the public.
Click to expand...

That's good. At least they're nearly halfway to covering retrospectively the cost of one prosecution. It doesn't alter the fact that the £320,000 that was originally spent on it came from funds not specifically donated for such legal action.
 
Last edited:
eatmyshorts said:
......., the kill is quick and clean (by a single hound perhaps, but what about when several hounds catch the fox at the same time? ........
Click to expand...

The facts are that when hounds (in the plural) pour over a fox, the demise of the animal would be much quicker with several hounds taking a hold, than one single hound. One hound, single handed, would take longer, much longer, to kill a fox than those that arrive on the scene together.

Alec.
 
BigBuck's said:
Yes, I'm aware of that poll. Commissioned by IFAW/LACS/RSPCA, so obviously in the interests of fairness we should be alive to the danger of push polling as noted above.

Of course the sample sizes for all of these polls hovers around the 2000 mark so there is a huge amount of extrapolation, assumption and weighting that goes on - but "1,520 people are against fox hunting" doesn't quite have the same attention-grabbing headline soundbite, does it?
Click to expand...

The BBC poll you mention was commisioned by the Countryfile programme. 8 years ago using the same sample size.

Strangely, it is the only poll with results like that.
Perhaps if Simon Hart and his chums at the Countryside alliance commissioned a poll in Chipping Norton, they could get some extraordinary results too.
 
Alec Swan said:
The facts are that when hounds (in the plural) pour over a fox, the demise of the animal would be much quicker with several hounds taking a hold, than one single hound. One hound, single handed, would take longer, much longer, to kill a fox than those that arrive on the scene together.

Alec.
Click to expand...

Janet George assures us that its one quick bite that makes the kill. No suffering needed.
However, research shows you are right and JC is wrong.
 
horserider said:
Mori poll 4 months ago, Dec 2012 - 81% against deer hunting, 76% against fox hunting.

.......
Click to expand...

Polls such as that which you've quoted are meaningless. Their value can be determined by those who commissioned them, and the demographics employed. Those who commission such polls give clear guidance as to the structure of those whose opinions are sought!

Alec.
 
Depends which hound, an important consideration.

According to a recent poll, hounds with more white on them are much more efficient at dispatching foxes than ones without.

Also, there is a positive correllation between ear size and kill-efficiency.
 
horserider said:
The BBC poll you mention was commisioned by the Countryfile programme. 8 years ago using the same sample size.
Click to expand...

Err, yes, that's why I said "all of these polls".

horserider said:
Strangely, it is the only poll with results like that.
Perhaps if Simon Hart and his chums at the Countryside alliance commissioned a poll in Chipping Norton, they could get some extraordinary results too.
Click to expand...

Or possibly the BBC poll is the only one that was carried out with truly neutral questioning? Given that, as said above, the other polls have been commissioned by one or a combination of IFAW, LACS and the RSPCA who aren't exactly agenda-free when it comes to the topic under discussion.
 
BigBuck's said:
That's good. At least they're nearly halfway to covering retrospectively the cost of one prosecution. It doesn't alter the fact that the £320,000 that was originally spent on it came from funds not specifically donated for such legal action.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement to cover any cost retrospectively or otherwise. 'Specifically donated for such legal action????'. Whose pre condition was that?

Specifically donated to prevent cruelty to animals, therefore, see this as a preventative strike. If the Heythrop halfwits have to plead guilty, it will put off quite a few from following in their footsteps, quite a few thicko's won't be though, but otherwise jobs a good un. Onward and upward. :D
 
wench said:
Personally, I will not have anything to do with the RSPCA, I think they are a waste of time. One morning driving to work I saw a cat with its back legs run over. I couldnt stop. Got to work, rang RSPCA, thinking they would be out ASAP to help poor kitty. Their response;"Oh well we might get out to it, if there is someone in the area." Discusting. Poor cat was probably there for hours.
Click to expand...

Wow, do you really believe that the RSPCA were responsible for that cat's suffering?
 
Wench please ring the main number and get the tape recording of your call ( yes you can do that) I would run naked through WFP dressage at badminton if that's what you were told. You don't speak to a inspector or anyone who has any access to an inspector, it's a call centre who will only log the job them task out to whoever is available.
 
So ,with over 180 foxhound packs in the country,even if only a half dozen contravene this act.The RSPCA will have to find millions of pounds in additional funds.And it still wont change anything. Tacticaly this has been a disaster for those against hunting.Whilst I admire pale riders optimism,I think history will prove me right.
 
Last edited:
Bigbucks the fact is that if it were major donors (donating specifically towards the cause) we are unlikely to find out.

Charities can't use donations intended for one thing for something else. If e.g. a registered equine charity were to run an appeal for money to buuild a new hayshed and they raised 10 x the cost of the hayshed, they aren't allowed to spend that money on anything else.
 
wench said:
One morning driving to work I saw a cat with its back legs run over. I couldnt stop. Got to work, rang RSPCA, thinking they would be out ASAP to help poor kitty. Their response;"Oh well we might get out to it, if there is someone in the area." Discusting. Poor cat was probably there for hours.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't anything could be important enough to cause me not to be able to stop to help that poor cat! :(
 
Mike007 said:
An interesting and well presented argument ,a refreshing change from the usual emotional ranting.
Click to expand...

Thankyou! Emotional rants only make you look like a loony-bunny-hugger IMO. I like to try to at least understand the opposite point of view in any debate - my ex & i spent many of our early dates trying to understand each other in fact, given his favourite pastime was hunting & i am very antiblood sports of any kind! It's some kind of miracle we lasted 10 years TBH!!
 
eatmyshorts said:
....... - my ex & i spent many of our early dates trying to understand each other in fact, given his favourite pastime was hunting & i am very antiblood sports of any kind! It's some kind of miracle we lasted 10 years TBH!!
Click to expand...

A miracle indeed! 10 years of fundamental differences? I admire your joint stoicism, or stubbornness, I can't decide which. ;) Not sitting in judgement, just observations.

Alec. :D
 
Alec Swan said:
A miracle indeed! 10 years of fundamental differences? I admire your joint stoicism, or stubbornness, I can't decide which. ;) Not sitting in judgement, just observations.

Alec. :D
Click to expand...

We agreed to disagree Alec - tough but possible ;) There are some things in life which folk will never see eye to eye on.
 
Pale Rider said:
Specifically donated to prevent cruelty to animals, therefore, see this as a preventative strike.
Click to expand...

So at last we agree on something, the money was donated to prevent cruelty, so they should have prosecuted under the animal welfare act.
The hunting act has nothing to do with animal cruelty so they shouldn't have spent the money as they did !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top