Rural Manifesto

[combat_claire]

I hope that even in these tough times people will be able to find a few quid to donate to this valuable one off campaign that the CA are running in April.

Just imagine what we could achieve if every member gave £15. I for one won't be returning the slip denying payment. :grin:

 

[zigzagzig]

Poor old CA! So hard up they have to fleece their hard-pressed members for even more money. All those silly, doomed legal cases really were rather expensive. Was it worth it?

 

[combat_claire]

That is a question you should pose to the LACS surely, after all the CPS have said they won't appeal the Tony Wright verdict and have just chucked out the Heythrop and the Devon & Somerset Staghounds cases. Repeal is in the air and this will be money well spent.

 

[zigzagzig]

"Just imagine what we could achieve if every member gave £15."

Uhm, the CA could take even more dosh off its members to fund highly expensive and doomed legal cases!

I'm referring specifically to the farce of challenging the use of the Parliament Act. Even more silly is the CA's decision to seek "justice" in, of all places, the European Courts. And to make this silly sausage bonanza even sillier, just look at the "ordinary" people they've chosen to represent hunters in that case. Are you aware that one of them, in all seriousness, argues that Chernobyl was a "godsend" for the environment?

You can quite rightly point out that all this has nothing to do with me. Exactement. I dislike hunting and watch all of this with a feeling of incredulity and hilarity. But, since I'm here and we're having a nice conversation, if you really want to help out the hunts and hunting don't you think you'd be better off buying a round of drinks for the hunt staff rather than funding 60 seconds of a QC's time?

 

[Hebegebe]

The CA's campaign is highly successful. The Hunting Act is now increasingly seen as unenforceable and unworkable legislation. Indeed even the CPS have admitted it is so.

Many Labour MPs now realise this and the law has become an embarrassment to rather than a triumph of the Labour Party.

 

[combat_claire]

One of the major reasons that the Parliament Act challenge was rejected is that by declaring use of the Parliament Act 1949 as ultra vires then it would have had severe ramifications on other laws passed under its authority, including the War Crimes Act 1991, European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000. It would have meant huge constitutional upheaval.

As such the legal challenge was taken to Europe, which incidentally frowns heavily upon discrimination against any European citizen with regards to their freedoms. The question has been asked and the hearing will direct the referring court towards a decision.

This latest campaign for donations is specifically to help fight an upcoming election, which must be called this year or next.

P.S Is this the return of Kieran?? I may be mistaken, but the style just seemed familiar

 

[zigzagzig]

Well, why does the CA need to raise more money for an election? Answer: because it's essentially pissed the rest of it up a wall in highly costly forays into the court. I also find it hilarious that the Little Englanders who hunt are asking Europe to help them out.

But it's your money and you can do what you want with it. In fact you can cover it in hay and feed it to a horse for all I care.

No I'm not called Kieran.

 

[Eagle_day]

"Highly costly forays to court?"

Isn't that why LACS had all those merry Christmas redundancies and had to flog off their London HQ? And go cap in hand to the IFAW to fund their Isle of Wight case. But with the collapse of the Heythrop and D&S CPS fronted actions that really is pissing money against the wall. A joy to behold, mind.

 

[zigzagzig]

I'm in the very happy position of not having to justify the actions of either the CA or the LACS. I would however guess that CA has spent far more on legal fees in recents years than its rival.

Combat_Claire in this thread acknowledges that overruling the use of the Parliament Act would have had huge constitutional repercussions. It was highly unlikely - to put it mildly - that the courts would intervene. Why then waste money on this case? You could have used the cash to help the Tories win the election, which strikes me as being by far the easiest way of getting rid of the ban.

Thinking about it I'd like to work for the CA. The people are probably quite nice and you sit around talking about horses and stuff and when the money runs out you just ship more in from the nice members' bank accounts.

 

[combat_claire]

The members kind of expect the organisation to explore all legal avenues, not to sit on their hands and wailing at the unfairness of it all. This the CA did, raising some interesting questions about the legality of other acts passed under the 1949 act, which itself was only passed using the earlier Parliament act...

 

[zigzagzig]

"The members kind of expect the organisation to explore all legal avenues..."

Do they? Even when every single commentator predicted that the case was doomed?

The best and simplest way to repeal the Act is to get a Tory Government (and if you think the present lot are incompetent just wait for Cameron & co to get in, but I digress).

Here's a question or two: just how much has the CA spent on the Parliament Act case and the Strasbourg campaign? Half a million? A million? Do you happen to know? Does the CA publish accounts?

 

[peakpark]

Will it be LACS and IFAW who pay for the gyrocopter murderer's defence, I wonder?

 

[Hebegebe]

I wonder how much those 700 hours of parliamentary time cost the country?

Passing a failed law.

 

[Eagle_day]

"Here's a question or two: just how much has LACS spent on the Tony Wright case and the hunt monitoring campaign? Half a million? A million? Do you happen to know? Does LACS publish accounts?"

You're not as disinterested as you pretend to be. The Wright case is a gem: a LACS initiated and funded case that has well and truly turned round and bit them on the bum, with the Hunting Act now in tatters.

 

[zigzagzig]

Whose legal bill for the last five years do you think is bigger - the CA's or LACS's? I'm not a member of the LACS but if their aim is to be as big a pain in the arse for hunters they've done a pretty good job. As for the CA, they're viewed in the public's mind as a one-agenda organisation. They're synonymous with hunting and that's about it. Personally I think that's a shame because they (appear to) do an awful lot of non-contentious stuff which most people would support.

If I was a CA member I would be worried by their policy of throwing money down every single legal avenue (see combat_claire's post above) in the hope that one of them may be successful. I would have preferred to see a more thoughtful approach where only the campaigns which had a good chance of success were adopted. Or to put it into your language, rather than crazily machine gunning the landscape, a good hunter bides his time and carefully picks off the prey with a single crisp shot.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

reading through these endless toing and froing threads which seem to go in ever increasing circles, isn't it time to put this particular one to bed? the season is now but all finished, lets all have a peaceful summer and look forward. lets face it, this nonsensical "act" is like all the other lab. acts,(of which there are many!!) unclear and rediculous, noone knows what they can or cannot do so lets just leave be and see what pops up in the autumn?

 

[zigzagzig]

Well this is a discussion board, so people discuss. If this thread isn't to your liking, there's a childishly simply solution...

 

[rosie fronfelen]

don't treat me like an idiot for a start!i.ve been following your posts and the others daily, i just thought instead of going round the houses and back day in day out and really getting nowhere, it would be better for all of you to take a break and come back later on with clearer heads and not the animosity. i'm a hunting person so am aware totally of what is said and what goes on and am fully aware of the purpose of the threads, thank you-i'd say get a life and take some fresh air!!

 

[rosie fronfelen]

for anyone's interest by the way, i received in the post today the annual report and the summary of 2008 financial statements. these are available in full on the CA web site.

 

[Eagle_day]

If I was a CA member I would be worried by their policy of throwing money down every single legal avenue ...

I don't know of any concern at all. It may have been breaking windows with golden guineas but we only had to be lucky once. And lets face it, the Tony Wright High Court judgement went beyond our wildest dreams.

 

[combat_claire]

And from the summary that I read in this morning's post they are showing a profit. I wonder if LACS' accounts are in such a healthy state....

 

[joe_carby]

lets face it we [ay our subscriptions to help them help us, i dont really care how they are useing my money if i have something spare i will donate. im sick of having people i care about attacked and abused by so called hunt moniters who think that they are above the law because for this short term period the law is on there side. this law has done 1 thing and that is to give aggressive mindless vigilante groups a free oppertunity to cause trouble and distress. we had antis pulling our hounds towards main round when we were acting within the law. they dressed in the balaclavas and black overalls terrifying kids and adults alike.

As far as im concerned every spare penny i have will go to them to get this stupid act over turned and get the law back on OUR side.

 

[zigzagzig]

The CA should be an alliance of people who care about the countryside. One of the strongest arguments for hunting, in my view, irrespective of whether you like it or not, is that it's in the hunters' interests to preserve their pray's habitat. The CA should repeat endlessly that hunting is good for the environment.

It is this sort of argument which I find very persuasive, albeit not convincing.

Why, then, does the CA decide to choose someone to represent them in the most prominent court cases - up to the House of Lords in this country and then to Strasbourg - who in all seriousness argues that the Chernobyl nuclear disaster was a "godsend" for the environment? Why pick fanatical oddballs like this as the face of an organisation which is trying to preserve the countryside? I genuinely can't understand it.

joe-carby, you say you "really don't care how they [the CA] are using my money". Well my answer is: you should.

 

[Hebegebe]

From what I am aware Chernobyl didn't have any bearing on the Human Rights Case.

Moreover one has human rights no matter what one's views are or how one chooses to wind up dick brained idiots on forums.

The reason that they asked me to be one of the claimants is that they support my right to manage my property in an environmentally friendly, ecologically sensitive and non lethal manner.

The Government had insisted that I could not do this unless I shot the deer which I and the CA felt interfered with my right to peacefully enjoy my property.

Broadly they felt I should have the right not to kill the deer.

As it happens the Government managed to persuade the courts that it had the right to make me kill deer that my dogs flush out in order to prevent the possibility of my dogs accidentally killing them. Something that has always bemused me.

Who knows Stasbourg may take a different view.

 

[Hebegebe]

ps I'm not the 'face of the CA'. That's an absurd thing to say.

They kindly offered to represent me in court not visa versa.

You seem not to have a clue about anything ziggidy zaggedy.

 

[zigzagzig]

Have you thought about buying up land around Chernobyl and cashing in on the ecological bonanza? I'm sure it would be going cheap. With any luck after a while your cows would grow another udder, so the milk production would go through the roof!!!

 

[Hebegebe]

They're beef cattle.

are you a little obsessed by the chernobyl thing?

It was only a piss take to get some debate going

actually if I was to buy cheap land as a long term investment i think I'd head for the antarctic

 

[zigzagzig]

Oh I see,you deliberately adopted a ludicrous stance as a "piss take". Does this mean you're going to admit that your obsession with shooing deer away from your rhubarb plot is another "hilarious" joke? It's, after all, equally silly.

 

[Hebegebe]

It would be hard to belei9ve that if I take my dogs into my woods I don't flush out any deer in them wouldn't it?

How on earth would I achieve that?

As you know it is all about intent.

 

[zigzagzig]

But even you don't consider it to be hunting. You claim that others do, but you don't.