Rural Rites


Well-Known Member
28 July 2006
Visit site
Hi All,

I know it will have been discussed earlier but I would just like to say Hooray for Rural Rites. After years and years of debating on websites and reading all the evidence and recognising the opponents of hunting twisted and corrupted evidence, I am so pleased it has been documented. To my knowledge the allegations against Prof Stephen Harris, IFAW, Lacs and the RSPCA have not been refuted in anyway. That says it all.



Ban What Ban


Well-Known Member
28 July 2006
Visit site
Hi All,

Taken from Martin Salter Labour Mp for Reading West website under the title the arrogance of foxhunters,

The right to peaceful protest is central to any democracy. Now I have probably been on many more protest marches than the average member of the Countryside Alliance and yet I never felt the need to throw bottles at police officers, invade the Chamber of the House of Commons, threaten the elderly parents of Members of Parliament or make peoples lives a misery by blocking the M25.

From Rural Rites

Martin Salter had been distributing a leaflet inside The Chamber which drew a
parallel between pro hunting groups and far right British National Party. When
Peter Luff, Conservative MP for mid Worcestershire asked Mr Salter for a copy
and was rebuffed, he told Salter his conduct was disgraceful. Salter responded
to Mr Luff with "say that again and I'll break every f---ing bone in your
f---ing body" This offensive behaviour was reported to the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Is that what you mean about peaceful protest Martin?

Cheers and chuckles



When I see the contorted faces of the Countryside alliance I want to redouble my efforts to ban foxhunting.

John Prescott

I am still hunting and you have been caught with your pants down, you need to look in a mirror



Well-Known Member
29 February 2004
Excellent book by Charli Pye-Smith. Unfortunately the people who read it, were almost certainly the ones who already suspected that there was more to the Hunting Act than met the eye.


Well-Known Member
28 July 2006
Visit site
Hi All,

Apologies if you have already read Rural Rites but this is a good analytical Appraisal for those who have not.



An Analytical Appraisal

The sole purpose of this appraisal is to encourage as many people as possible to
obtain and read this startlingly terrifying book by Charlie Pye-Smith which the
all party Middle Way Group commissioned in order to record in as much honest
detail as possible, the activities which led to 700 hours of parliamentary time
being expended in passing a ban on Hunting With Dogs (fox hunting).

Who should read it ? Every British citizen from age 16 years.

Why should it be read ? Because it exposes a terrifying abuse of political
power, a complete disregard for honesty by the very people in whom the public
place their trust and it also exposes the betrayal by the Opposition Party's to
not act as a Regulator on the public's behalf.

Author:- Charlie Pye Smith
Publisher:- All Party Middle Way Group @ £9-99 plus P&P £1-50.
From:- The Middle Way group. PO Box 54846, LONDON. SW1A 0WY.

This book was published on 18th February 2006 exactly ONE YEAR to the day after
THE HUNTING WITH DOGS ACT became law in England.
In the first year of practical application The Act has proven to be a failure in
every respect.
Most importantly it has been an abject failure in ANIMAL WELFARE, the reason
chosen to 'force feed' the public by the most vociferous of the anti hunting
MPs, messrs Banks, Kaufman and Prescott. However as Pye-Smith confirms, this was
NOT the reason which motivated these three zealots to accept nothing but an
outright ban, their reason was BIGOTED HATRED.

Pye Smith, an 'independent' Investigative Journalist has made an objective study
of all aspects surrounding and leading up to the passage of The Act into
statute. He concludes, on an element by element basis, that lies, ignorance,
stubborn bigotry underpinned by hatred, misinformation, misrepresentation of
evidence and outright criminal practices, combined to persuade the public and
achieve a vote in favour of a ban on "Fox Hunting".

His book Rural Rites visits every contributory issue of the debate and finds
honesty severely compromised in each and every aspect. In a Forward by Peter
Oborne Political Editor of The Spectator, Oborne describes Pye-Smith as
"scrupulous, measured in his judgement and exceptionally well informed" and
describes this book as "terrifying", not because of the massive increase in
deaths of all species of animal The Act was loudly promoted to be protecting,
but because he shows "we now live in a totalitarian state ruled by emotion
rather than logic, by ignorance rather than knowledge, by bigotry rather than
understanding". Even Llyn Golding a Labour Peer describes The Act as "all about
payback time for the miners"

The700 hours of parliamentary time taken to present, debate and eventually pass
The Act compares badly and very questionably, with the 70 hours taken to arrive
at the decision for Britain to join America and go to war with Iraq, which
decision was without the support/approval of The United Nations.
This scenario has to be seen as Current Government Values and set against more
than 100 young British soldiers lives which have been sacrificed for NO BENEFIT
to the British people. In fact, hindsight would argue, such values were a direct
contributory cause of the London Tube bombings where innocent civilians were
maimed and slaughtered in a most horrific manner.

SO, what has been 'achieved' by The HWD Act ?

Hares, have been shot as pests in unprecedented numbers, Pye-Smith's research
confirmed that on just 10 coursing estates 8,000 hares had been shot as
'agricultural pests' in the past year but would have also generated a total
income of £64,000 for the carcasses at their current value of £8 per carcase. On
many days 600 and more were shot instead of being 'conserved' as quarry for the
now outlawed sport of Coursing.
In the 200 years since this much older sport, has been subject of rules and
formal organisation, more than 8 out of every 10 hares 'coursed' have always
escaped unharmed, simply because the outcome of a 'course' is judged on the
attributes of the dog's performance and not the death of the hare. The few that
are killed die from a bite to the backbone which severs the nerve system
resulting in instant death and again the carcase is sold or eaten as food by the

Foxes have been killed 'accidentally' by hounds in at least equal numbers to
those killed 'legitimately' prior to The Act. The numbers poisoned, trapped,
shot and wounded to die a more painful and lingering death than the instant
death from a 'nip' to the neck of hound hunting, reflects their status as pests
both in the countryside and by ever increasing numbers in towns.
Where the "urban fox" has ceased to be a 'cute' garden visitor and realisation
has slowly dawned that they are indiscriminate and mostly diseased killers,
their growing populations have necessitated specialist Pest Controllers being
employed, at considerable cost, to rid neighbourhoods of mess, disease and death
to domestic pets.
The much approved practice by Animal Rights fanatics, of trapping and
transporting urban foxes to the countryside for release into 'the wild', is
simply dealt with by 'lamping'. Here, farmers shoot at night with a rifle
because they will not tolerate the artificial 'rehabilitation' of diseased
animals to contaminate the already managed and controlled local healthy
population levels which can be acceptably tolerated in their district.

Deer have been virtually wiped out as agricultural pests in one heavily farmed
area of the South West where previously 'hunting for sport' took precedent over
economics and deer were conserved (NOTE not "protected") for the 'value' of the
sport they represented to the farming communities who hunted.

Quite simply, if landowners and farmers have no reason to tolerate costly damage
to crops, the environment and livestock, the cause of the problem will not be
tolerated. This not unreasonable concept is both misunderstood and ignored by
bigots as it is by the townie TV viewers who voice a great deal of opinion but
have little real knowledge or understanding of the countryside its management
and conservation needs for maintaining the man managed "balance" which this
small over-populated island requires in order to sustain whatever decreasing
amount of open countryside still exists.

But such words over simplify a very complex and at times criminally devious
campaign by fanatical anti hunting terrorists which Pye Smith's book
conclusively exposes as an utterly fraudulent political campaign completely
enshrined in a combination of class warfare and people hatred.

Pye-Smith's style of presentation is in 'essay' format. In other words he has
encapsulated in continuous text a large number of individual and critical
elements which would have been better presented as a series of individual
His three 'chapters' although specifically titled, represent a critical mass but
fail to emphasise each element of "abuse" in a readily referenced manner.
Each 'element' needed to be presented in isolated and specific context if it is
to register resoundingly , be understood and be considered against a critical
background of logic and honesty. The emotive rhetoric which is the overriding
currency of pro ban lobbyists which has been so definitively exposed by
Pye-Smith's consecutive passages, needed to be more specifically reflected
against honest logic if maximum impact and understanding is to attend the
reading of this very important comment on current UK politics.
To exemplify this small criticism, cash "bungs" given by Animal Rights bodies to
buy the votes for a ban from constituency MP's, is mixed in with an expose of
the many elected MP's who refused to review and understand the alternative
arguments of scientifically researched and peer reviewed facts on aspects such
as cruelty and the wounding expectation, by a range of alternative methods to
hunting with dogs.
Ignorance and criminal activity clearly need to be defined and exposed as
individual failures if only to reflect the moral failings in the one against the
criminal illegality of the other

The following LIST of ELEMENTS with which the book dealt, attempts to focus the
reader in bite sized digestible lumps, towards drawing an overall conclusion on
the failure of a New Labour Government, under whose administration The Act was
passed, to act democratically, professionally and with intelligence and honesty.

Also, it begs the question, if the reader concludes that a less than acceptable
process resulted in The Act being passed into statute, what responsibility do
The Opposition Party's bear and did they fail in their duties towards the
British public ?

Chapter 1.


In the first paragraph Pye-Smith refers to the ignorance of the authors of the
Labour Manifesto document titled A Working Countryside where hare hunting is not
even referred to, he concludes that the authors were unaware of its existence.
But hare coursing, a very well regulated activity for the past two centuries,
was about to be outlawed for no better reason than dogs were used to challenge
another animal, just as hawks are still used legally since the ban to catch and
kill outright, their specific animal quarry.

When Jack Straw became Home Secretary he asked Lord Burns to conduct an Enquiry
into the practices of Hunting With Dogs, the result of Lord Burns work concluded
that if certain associated practices were modified and some discontinued,
Hunting With Dogs could continue as an "acceptable" country pursuit.

A Bill was prepared which permitted hunting to continue but, with specified
changes to accepted practices.
A consultation process under Alun Michael, and referred to as The Portcullis
House Consultation, caused significant changes to the draft version and after
overriding intervention by Tony Banks, MP for West Ham, the revised Hunting Bill
became an outright "Banning" Bill and was by now relocated from the Home Office
to DEFRA under Alun Michael, Minister for Rural Affairs and proven appeaser of
the 'animal rights' activists..

The "banning" Bill, now known as The Banks Bill, passed from Commons to Lords
who rejected it several times in a 'ping pong' process of Lords amendments which
were rejected by the Commons and significantly by most "urban based" Liberal
Democrats also several Conservatives, notable amongst whom was Anne Widdecombe.

To conclude this stalemate situation The Speaker, with only one single precedent
in the last 100 years, invoked The Parliament Act, and the Bank's Banning Bill
was passed into statute against the better judgement of The Upper House who had
so resolutely refused to accept an outright ban.
Prior to this almost unprecedented action being taken Tony Blair had discussed
the situation with Lord Roy Jenkins who admonished Mr Blair thus "Tony, if you
invoke the Parliament Act it will be the most illiberal act of the last century"
with this still ringing in his ears he allowed it to happen.

On 17th June 2004, Dennis Skinner MP for Bolsover, told the House of Commons
"there is not a subject under the sun that is better suited for raising morale
in the constituencies than a ban on fox hunting"
"This has nothing to do with animal welfare, this is for the miners" Skinner
told Jim Barrington, former Director of The League Against Cruel Sports, later
in 2004 at the Labour Party Conference
Gerald Kaufman, MP for the Manchester inner city Gorton constituency, told
Jonathan Dimbleby in reference to the near 1 million hunting supporters who
marched through London "The people marching ? They didn't march for the miners
when thousands of their jobs were taken away by Thatcher"
In a newsletter to his constituents he told them "I promised you that I would
work for this, foxes, hares and deer will no longer be the prey of the tally-ho
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"

Kate Hoey, Labour MP for Vauxhall said, "a few justified the ban on animal
welfare grounds without understanding the issues"

Lord Donoughue a Labour Peer and former Minister for Farming said "I've spent 40
years fighting political zealots in the Labour Party, they don't care about
welfare or cruelty, they dislike certain people and are guided by prejudice and

Lembit Opik, Liberal MP for Montgomeryshire said, "Basil Brush had much more
impact than Bertrand Russell on the quality of philosophical debate from the
pro-banning side" He later told colleagues "many pro ban MP's wilfully ignored
the evidence, sometimes to the point of deluding themselves into believing the
evidence did not even exist"
As part of his information gathering he visited a Fell Huntsman David Jones, who
gave an example of a farmer losing 10 lambs in 3 nights to a fox at a cost to
him of £500. Jones was contacted and provided the long established "lambing
call" response in which a smaller hound pack and just himself dealt conclusively
with the specific fox causing the problem. He described this as typical of the
57 'lambing calls' he had attended in the year following the Foot and Mouth
disaster where every call resulted in a 'positive' outcome.
The HWD Act now requires Mr Jones to attend such calls with only 2 hounds and
flush any foxes to a waiting gun. This he describes as "inefficient and
impractical" especially shooting in hilly terrain where livestock are present
also without the broad range of hound skills and attributes which comprise a
cohesive hound pack..
How will farmers prevent fox damage ? By any means which gets a successful
conclusion, from shotgun to poison, snares, terriers and gassing and even
Douglas Batchelor CEO of the LACS said in a leaked internal memo that "the use
of just two hounds to flush a fox to guns is useless".

Martin Salter Labour MP for Reading West and the Labour Party Spokesman on
"fox hunting plays no part whatsoever in pest control" Had Mr Salter read and
understood The Burns Report, a totally independent and objective assessment of
all facts, he would have known that such a statement was absolute nonsense.

Charles Kennedy, Liberal Democrat MP for a Scottish constituency and Leader of
the Lib Dem Party, voted as a Scot representing a Scottish constituency for an
Act to ban hunting in England despite there being a new law recently passed in
Scotland which had permitted hunting with hounds to continue.
When Norman Lamb, Lib Dem MP for North Norfolk was asked by a constituent why
had Kennedy clearly voted vindictively when he should have abstained, Mr Lamb,
who voted against a ban replied, "it's a mystery and he should be asked".
Within a year of The Act becoming law Charles Kennedy was sacked from his
leadership role by the Party .

Jim Dowd, Labour MP for Lewisham West, had, previous to The Act's passing, told
Jim Barrington "the people of inner-city Lewisham have elected me to ban
After The Act was passed Barrington met Dowd in the Common's bar and said to him
"I'm sure the people of Lewisham will be delighted to know you voted to increase
animal suffering" Dowd replied "Barrington, I always knew you were a c--t , come
outside and I'll smack you in the mouth"
Pye-Smith observes that this crude debating strategy was a true reflection of
the pro ban MP's when away from The Chamber.

Martin Salter had been distributing a leaflet inside The Chamber which drew a
parallel between pro hunting groups and far right British National Party. When
Peter Luff, Conservative MP for mid Worcestershire asked Mr Salter for a copy
and was rebuffed, he told Salter his conduct was disgraceful. Salter responded
to Mr Luff with "say that again and I'll break every f---ing bone in your
f---ing body" This offensive behaviour was reported to the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West was sent a copy of a statement made by
arch anti hunting and failed former MP for a Somerset hunting community Jackie
Ballard, now Director General of The RSPCA, in which she said "there is no
absolute proof that wounded foxes suffer" in an attempt to promote alternative
methods of controlling foxes. The copy was e-mailed to Flynn by The Middle Way
Group to which Flynn responded "vacuous, brain dead and stupid. This is the most
futile e-mail I've had this year. Are you brain damaged ?"

Lord Donoughue confirms that Antis funded Labour to gain votes for a ban. In one
example where a Labour constituency accepted monies to appoint a candidate who
would vote for a hunting ban, the eventually successful candidate and later MP,
told Lord Donoughue, the only undertaking he was told to uphold despite his own
views on the matter, was to vote for an outright ban on hunting because his
Constituency Party had been paid to do so.

Douglas Bachelor, LACS Chief Executive, wrote to Peter Luff, Conservative MP in
2001, "the League has not funded the campaign of any MP, pro or anti hunting.
All that our members have done is to offer help to MP's who have wanted it"
Pye-Smith points out that 'contributions' were made by LACS to the Labour Party
dating as far back as late 70's and 1980's. In 1979 the LACS gave Labour £80,000
and legal action was taken in which the court decided £30,000 could be given for
"animal welfare" promotion i.e. to fund the fight to ban hunting, but £50,000
was an illegal payment and Labour must return it. Richard Course the League's
Director re-distributed this money in amounts of £200 or less to
constituencies via a legal loophole.
This practice continued and prior to the 1987 election the League gave 75 Labour
constituencies sums from £50 to £200 for 'political promotion' Of the 75
recipients 73 MP's later voted in support of a ban on hunting.

Chapter 2.


Professor Stuart Harrop, a former RSPCA employee and now professor of Wildlife
Management Law at Kent University whose credentials were impeccable BUT was
known to favour the Middle Way Group's licensing approach rather than banning
hunting outright, was given no opportunity to give evidence to the Portcullis
House hearing when he was proposed as a MWGroup spokesman because the Campaign
for the Protection of Hunted Animals i.e. LACS, IFAW and the RSPCA, told the
chairman they would walk out if Harrop was called to give evidence.
On the other hand Professor Stephen Harris, described by Pye-Smith as "one of
the stars" and of future historians they, will describe him as "a performer" of
the Portcullis House hearings, was called no fewer than 6 times to give evidence
on behalf of the Campaign for the POHA. Much of what Professor (S) Harris
contributed was later proved to be either misinterpretation, misquotes or
re-constituted and distorted facts but because it was supportive of a ban it was
therefore 'acceptable'.
To further confirm the unethical reliance on the science used by Professor (S)
Harris, a study conducted by him and funded by IFAW into wounding rates from
shooting, has been sitting unpublished and un-reviewed by his peers for the past
2 years but it was nevertheless quoted by Harris to prove the acceptability of
shooting as a preferred alternative to hunting and accepted as 'evidence' by the
Jonathan Reynolds of The Game Conservancy Trust illustrated Harris's misuse of
research by pointing to his 'misinterpretation' of certain GCT work and then
went on to challenge a report written by Harris and Baker which claimed that fox
control had no impact on the overall fox population, only locally. Reynolds
refuted this by quoting GCT findings comparing West Norfolk with Mid Wales where
the former, due to heavy alternative culling yielded a mere 11% to hunting while
the latter yielded 73%.

An American scientist Dr Terry Kreeger has had his late 1980's researches
misquoted by the pro ban faction in order to substantiate their claim that
hunting is the most cruel option. So distorted were Dr Kreeger's finding by Prof
Harris, IFAW and the RSPCA that he wrote to the Sunday Times refuting ALL OF
THEIR CLAIMS. Kreeger had already written to the Burns Enquiry that there had
been a continuing problem with the 'interpretation' of his data, but still Prof
Harris persisted with his 'use' of Kreeger's data.
This research is important because the "cruelty" question relied on proving that
alternative methods of control caused less suffering and as every experienced
countryman knows shooting foxes and deer does result in considerable wounding
and most especially where shotguns are used on foxes. A wounded fox will usually
succumb to gangrene before ultimate death BUT has it "suffered" since it was
wounded ?
According to Jackie Ballard, an ousted Somerset MP and now Director General of
the RSPCA, 'there is no absolute proof that wounded foxes suffer'. Neither did
the RSPCA believe that foxes were 'a general pest'. Such extraordinary
statements when shrouded in Prof (S) Harris's obfuscation of scientific
'evidence' can easily become accepted as "fact" by MP's the media and public
alike. This is exactly what happened throughout the years leading up to the
final phases and especially during the 'hearings'.
Professor Bateson, the author of a much quoted report, concluded that 14.6% of
deer shot, suffered wounding rather being killed outright. However Professor
John Webster pointed out that the suffering experienced by shot and wounded deer
was collectively almost certainly greater than the stress suffered by herds of
hunted deer.
The National Trust believing Bateson's 'evidence' to be credible and trustworthy
based its decision to ban Stag Hunting on his report. However Bateson
subsequently made significant 'revisions to his interpretation of the available
data and Pye-Smith concludes that had the later 'evidence' been available to the
National Trust it would almost certainly not have banned hunting on its land.

Pye-Smith's detailed analytical exposé's are so damning of certain individuals
who shroud themselves in the cloak of scientific propriety that nothing short of
criminal proceedings could satisfy the extent to which research was used and
abused in order to achieve the result desired rather than an HONEST OUTCOME.

Pye-Smith severely criticises the RSPCA for making an enormous fuss about a few
foxes being killed but ignores far greater examples of animal abuse.
By the mid 90's research conducted by Nick Fox and Helen MacDonald, showed that
there were approximately 9 million cats in Great Britain which killed 88 million
wild birds and 164 million small mammals EVERY YEAR. Clearly, banning the
keeping of cats as pets on such grounds would damn any Party who proposed it in
today's misinformed and dysfunctional society, it would lose them so many votes
that a General Election could be won or lost on this single issue alone.

In the year 2005 following the ban, a 60 gamekeeper sample killed 707 vixens of
which 179 were 'wet' through being killed during the breeding season. Of these,
39 instances involved attempts to locate and despatch the cubs humanely rather
than allow them to starve to death in their earths but, it was estimated that
160 cubs would nevertheless still have died from starvation. This would not have
happened prior to the HWD Act and 60 gamekeepers represents such a small
proportion of the total working gamekeeper population throughout the British
Isles that a comparison of total numbers killed by hunting with hounds pales
into insignificance compared with the reduction of fox populations down to a
level which will now be tolerated with hunting banned.
Anybody who may doubt that foxes will be relentlessly controlled now hunting is
no longer an option, need look no further than the county of Norfolk for
confirmation. Despite, or in fact because of, the county supporting more poultry
farms, game shooting estates and other wildlife sanctuaries than almost anywhere
else in Britain, only ONE FOX HUNT exists in the county and that is located on
the extreme Western boundary of an enormously large square area of countryside.
Why is this ? Because neither poultry farmers or gamekeepers will tolerate
anything other than the smallest amount of pest depredation of the stocks which
represent hard cash e.g. to shoot a pheasant in Norfolk costs a Game Shooter not
less than £25 for a single bird and for a wild partridge up to double that
amount. A typical day's game shooting for 8 to 10 guns will account for 200
birds generating a direct shooting income of £5,000 plus the additional income
from sale of game. With good barley making £65 per ton and bull calves
unsaleable, sources of income outside of the traditional farming orbit are
having to be grasped and developed as never before.
Economics drive the countryside and never more so than today when so many
factors act in concert that conspire to destroy British farming. However, sport
is also a traditionally key ingredient of the 'glue' which holds the cultural
and social integrity of farming communities together, upset its balance and the
ramifications are very far reaching indeed. For politicians to misunderstand or
worse still ignore the dynamics of the country community infrastructure then, as
Peter Oborne so succinctly observes, the effects can be terrifying.

Chapter 3.


Pye-Smith observes that the manner in which the pro ban lobby manipulated the
Burns Report to their advantage was nothing short of "brilliant". By leaning on
the report so heavily they gave the impression that their case against hunting
had received Burn's approval when nothing could have been further from the

Gaining widespread coverage and the high moral ground in the media, was a key
strategic objective of which both sides were aware, however the pro ban lobby
understood the importance better, worked harder to achieve it and consequently
"won hands down" according to Pye-Smith.

It is a provable fact that they were willing to corrupt evidence of reputable
scientists such as Dr Kreeger in order to support their rhetoric and portrayal
of people who hunt as a barbaric and bloodthirsty minority who slay innocent
animals for fun, and those who defend them are typecast as myth makers and
Such denigration is a key weapon in the anti armoury and was taken to such
lengths as to claim that "people who are cruel to animals confirm indicators of
personality disorder that can lead to crimes of violence" Douglas Batchelor of
LACS even proposes that linkage exists between hunting and child abuse citing
the fact that people hunt because they enjoy it as do paedophiles.

But, Pye-Smith points out, the RSPCA is different, the person in the street
would invariably give it a glowing tribute, while as a charity they are legally
bound to make good but honest use of science. How then could John Rolls, RSPCA
Director of Animal Welfare Promotion, misrepresent the known scientific facts to
the High Court of Justice in 2005 and not be sanctioned for doing so ?
In recent years the Association has become 'inconsistent' exemplified by its
1997 policy statement in which it disagrees with the tail docking of certain
types of dogs yet at the same time condones the mutilation of sexual organs by
neutering male and female dogs and cats.
It relies heavily for its funds on legacy donations from cat lovers so it
wouldn't do, and it doesn't, to criticise the enormous killing of wildlife by
Britain's pet cat population, not to mention the gratuitous torment which
precedes their victim's death.
The RSPCA's opposition to hunting is relatively recent, in 1951 it gave evidence
to the Scott Henderson Inquiry that "hunting was a far more humane method of
control than shooting". It's position has changed, not because of scientific
evidence to the contrary but because the 'nature' of the organisation has
It was once 'the foremost animal welfare organisation in the country' that is no
longer true since it has espoused the philosophy of the Animal Rights movement
as confirmed in its 'Declaration of Animal Rights'

John Hobhouse, now in his nineties, represents better than any other living
example, the virtues of the RSPCA as it used to be when it was acknowledged
universally as the foremost animal welfare organisation, probably then, in the
In his letter to The Times after the HWD Act was passed he wrote, "For an Act of
Parliament purporting to relieve animal suffering to do exactly the opposite is
very sad. That the RSPCA, which does immensely important work on so many animal
welfare fronts, has been party to this fiasco is a tragedy"

So, who is John Hobhouse ?
He was a member of the National Council of the RSPCA for 20 years, and national
chairman for 7 years.
He hails from an old and highly respected Liberal family which produced two
Cabinet Ministers, he himself will go down in history as the Society's first
great reforming chairman who introduced top class scientists whose advice was
welcomed by Government Ministers. He established the network of dog and cat
sanctuaries which replaced the previous lawful execution of animals which had
not been claimed after several days. His local re-housing facility with which he
is still closely involved, re homes some 3,000 abandoned or neglected dogs and
cats annually.
He began his work with the RSPCA more than 50 years ago and confirmed recently
that "I'm only pro hunting because it is less cruel than other methods of
control" He went on to say "The RSPCA had given the impression that it could
re-home 20,000 hounds belonging to registered hunts, turning a hunting hound
into a domestic pet is an arduous and difficult time consuming business which,
if pursued by the RSPCA, would deny abandoned dogs in the meantime the interim
housing they deserved"

Who but the most insular would attempt to deny the experience and honest logic
of such a powerful voice for animal welfare ? Jackie Ballard for one and John
Rolls for another.

Is not just another interesting read on a subject of interest to Country Sports
participants it is the most definitive indictment of the dishonesty of today's
politicians especially where any country matters or country sports in particular
are concerned.
Both Government AND Opposition are equally guilty of abusing public trust and
failing to act with honesty and without resort to personal vindictiveness.

Charlie Pye-Smith and The Middle Way Group have laid bare the terrifying extent
to which current politicians have sacrificed their integrity and abused the
electorate, few third world countries could have stooped to such levels of

Brian D Dunn
March 2006


Well-Known Member
28 July 2006
Visit site
Just had a few beers..........having second thoughts on my last statement

Cheers and chuckles