Xlthlx
Well-Known Member
Just emailed LACS as follows.
Dear Douglas,
Thank you for your letter. I contacted the RSPCA regarding flushing out
the deer recently and a Mr John Pollock responded with a message in my
voicemail. He is the RSPCA officer at West Hatch.
He said that because the law is ambiguous he had had to get advice from
his legal team. Interesting in itself as you claim the law is clear.
He went on to say that he has no problem with me flushing out deer with
dogs as it (and I quote) 'seems like an ideal way to move the deer
through the wood.' The current advice from the RSPCA to me is that I
can flush but with only two dogs as long as I don't chase the deer.
Not actually what the law says of course!
I have also been writing via my MP to Jim Fitzpatrick the farming
minister. As you know defra have given varying advice on the legality
of flushing out. At first they said as it involved 'chasing away' it
was legal, then they said it is illegal, now Mr Fitzpatrick in his
letters has said the legality of my activities is 'uncertain', when
pushed he has said that flushing out is 'probably' not hunting as
defined in the Act.
Personally I don't think the man has a clue what he is talking about.
You say that I refuse to accept that flushing out and chasing the deer
is hunting. Not so, I have always argued that it is illegal under the
hunting act.
Interestingly of course the law does not actually make it clear if the
definition of hunting under the Act requires an intention to catch the
animal or not. We know it does not include all the ordinary English
meanings of the word following the Tony Wright case where the judge
found that 'searching' was not illegal.
Yes I am deliberately using my dogs to chase deer.
I recently had a number of emails from your Joshua Kaile threatening to
send some LACS monitors down to observe me intentionally using my dogs
to hunt deer. I made it very clear to Joshua that the monitors were
welcome and I would do my best to ensure they got plenty of footage of
any chase that occured and a signed statement from me that I was
deliberately using my dogs to hunt the deer.
Needless to say the monitors did not turn up which was a shame as I got
up at dawn on the Saturday as I often do and the dogs found some deer in
the woods which they chased.
I am not the slightest bit ashamed of what I do as you probably realise.
I am afraid I do regard the hunting Act as it applies to me as a bit of
a joke.
The fact is Douglas as you perfectly well know you will not lift a
finger to prevent me breaking the Hunting Act. Inspite of your alleged
support for what i do being illegal you have never taken any action
whatsoever to prevent me breaking the hunting Act. You've not even
reported me to the police.
I discussed the flushing out exemption with your Joshua Kaile and put a
direct question to him as to whether he supported it. His answer was
quite clear. 'No'.
LACS claim that shooting flushed out deer is a humane alternative to
illegal hunting. I'm sorry but in my case it is not. It is completely
ridiculous for you to suggest that me taking a few dogs into a wood and
flushing a deer out is less humane than gunning the animal down as it is
fleeing from hounds.
I simply do not believe that you think this is the case.
I am copying this letter to Stephen Otter my Chief Constable. As you
know the police are well aware of my activities and some time ago the
force legal advisor Rober Glass wrote to me to assure me it was unlikely
that I would face prosecution as it would not be in the public interest.
I fully support the police's position on this and so should you.
At the end of the day no one is prepared to take any action whatsoever
to prevent me from breaking the Hunting Act. Not you, not the RSPCA and
not the police. This is due to one simple fact. By not shooting the
flushed out deer I am not hurting them. If I obeyed the law and took
reasonable steps to shoot the deer after they are flushed out I would be
causing them massive trauma and pain.
A condition to shoot animals dead where there is no sensible argument
for it has no place in the Hunting Act. You know this, the Government
know this and the police know this. It is simply a bizzare and stupid
piece of legislation. There is a fundamental principle here and that is
that people have a perfect right to break absurd laws where the
Government is unable to enforce them. I have fought hard for the right
to break the Hunting Act and I have won it.
There is a proud heritage of breaking unjust and ridiculous laws in this
country.
Please understand that although i copy James Barrington my actions are
entirely off my own bat and not sanctioned by MWG, CA etc.
I am also posting this onto your website.
I am very proud to do just that.
Best wishes to you and your family over Christmas.
Giles
cc james Barrington
Stephen Otter
Jim Fitzpatrick MP
Joshua Kaile
Louise Robertson
John Pollock c/o west hatch
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 15:49 +0000, Douglas Batchelor wrote:
> Dear Giles,
>
> I am glad to hear that you have never killed a deer.
>
> The bit that you persistently refuse to accept is that setting your dogs
> onto deer is every bit as much hunting as killing them would be. The
> chase is an unnecessary and deliberate disturbance organised by you
> using your dogs, and that in law appears to me to be hunting with dogs
> as defined in the Act.
>
> Surely if you have the best interests of the deer at heart, you would be
> allowing them appropriate shelter on your land from the activities of
> any hunts and hunters you mention who may wish them harm. You can of
> course legally use appropriate fencing to keep the deer out of any areas
> where they might cause damage to crops or trees.
>
> Yours,
>
>
> Douglas
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giles Bradshaw
> Sent: 18 December 2009 10:54
> To: Douglas Batchelor
> Subject: letter
>
>
> I sent this to Joshua Louise and Steve too:
>
> I really don't get why the League does not accept that my method of
> managing deer is less cruel than shooting them.
>
> What seems especially ironic is that it is precisely the flushing out
> exemption which I campaign on which is used by the Hunts to carry on
> killing animals.
>
> Can't you see that?
>
> Fair enough I am pro and you are anti but why don't we appeal together
> to get the Government to recognise flaws in the law. From your point of
> view you could use this to try and get the exemption in the law under
> which the hunts are killing animals removed. Obviously I feel that
> where there is no chance of the deer being hurt then what I do should be
> legal but that could be debated.
>
> I am being completely honest when I say I have never killed a deer. I
> genuinely love the animals on my land. They are truly beautiful
> creatures. I am standing up for a humane and non lethal way of managing
> them.
>
> Do you not realise how much worse it would be for a fleeing deer to be
> mown down by bullets? It's ridiculous to argue that that is more
> 'humane'.
>
> It's just plain wrong for the Hunting Act to contain a condition that
> animals are shot dead. And it's wrong that the law is framed so it can
> be openly broken.
>
> I am sure that you accept this.
>
> best wishes for xmas.
>
> BTW I am sure we could debate this in an open manner as we all clearly
> care a lot about the issues.
>
>
>
>
Dear Douglas,
Thank you for your letter. I contacted the RSPCA regarding flushing out
the deer recently and a Mr John Pollock responded with a message in my
voicemail. He is the RSPCA officer at West Hatch.
He said that because the law is ambiguous he had had to get advice from
his legal team. Interesting in itself as you claim the law is clear.
He went on to say that he has no problem with me flushing out deer with
dogs as it (and I quote) 'seems like an ideal way to move the deer
through the wood.' The current advice from the RSPCA to me is that I
can flush but with only two dogs as long as I don't chase the deer.
Not actually what the law says of course!
I have also been writing via my MP to Jim Fitzpatrick the farming
minister. As you know defra have given varying advice on the legality
of flushing out. At first they said as it involved 'chasing away' it
was legal, then they said it is illegal, now Mr Fitzpatrick in his
letters has said the legality of my activities is 'uncertain', when
pushed he has said that flushing out is 'probably' not hunting as
defined in the Act.
Personally I don't think the man has a clue what he is talking about.
You say that I refuse to accept that flushing out and chasing the deer
is hunting. Not so, I have always argued that it is illegal under the
hunting act.
Interestingly of course the law does not actually make it clear if the
definition of hunting under the Act requires an intention to catch the
animal or not. We know it does not include all the ordinary English
meanings of the word following the Tony Wright case where the judge
found that 'searching' was not illegal.
Yes I am deliberately using my dogs to chase deer.
I recently had a number of emails from your Joshua Kaile threatening to
send some LACS monitors down to observe me intentionally using my dogs
to hunt deer. I made it very clear to Joshua that the monitors were
welcome and I would do my best to ensure they got plenty of footage of
any chase that occured and a signed statement from me that I was
deliberately using my dogs to hunt the deer.
Needless to say the monitors did not turn up which was a shame as I got
up at dawn on the Saturday as I often do and the dogs found some deer in
the woods which they chased.
I am not the slightest bit ashamed of what I do as you probably realise.
I am afraid I do regard the hunting Act as it applies to me as a bit of
a joke.
The fact is Douglas as you perfectly well know you will not lift a
finger to prevent me breaking the Hunting Act. Inspite of your alleged
support for what i do being illegal you have never taken any action
whatsoever to prevent me breaking the hunting Act. You've not even
reported me to the police.
I discussed the flushing out exemption with your Joshua Kaile and put a
direct question to him as to whether he supported it. His answer was
quite clear. 'No'.
LACS claim that shooting flushed out deer is a humane alternative to
illegal hunting. I'm sorry but in my case it is not. It is completely
ridiculous for you to suggest that me taking a few dogs into a wood and
flushing a deer out is less humane than gunning the animal down as it is
fleeing from hounds.
I simply do not believe that you think this is the case.
I am copying this letter to Stephen Otter my Chief Constable. As you
know the police are well aware of my activities and some time ago the
force legal advisor Rober Glass wrote to me to assure me it was unlikely
that I would face prosecution as it would not be in the public interest.
I fully support the police's position on this and so should you.
At the end of the day no one is prepared to take any action whatsoever
to prevent me from breaking the Hunting Act. Not you, not the RSPCA and
not the police. This is due to one simple fact. By not shooting the
flushed out deer I am not hurting them. If I obeyed the law and took
reasonable steps to shoot the deer after they are flushed out I would be
causing them massive trauma and pain.
A condition to shoot animals dead where there is no sensible argument
for it has no place in the Hunting Act. You know this, the Government
know this and the police know this. It is simply a bizzare and stupid
piece of legislation. There is a fundamental principle here and that is
that people have a perfect right to break absurd laws where the
Government is unable to enforce them. I have fought hard for the right
to break the Hunting Act and I have won it.
There is a proud heritage of breaking unjust and ridiculous laws in this
country.
Please understand that although i copy James Barrington my actions are
entirely off my own bat and not sanctioned by MWG, CA etc.
I am also posting this onto your website.
I am very proud to do just that.
Best wishes to you and your family over Christmas.
Giles
cc james Barrington
Stephen Otter
Jim Fitzpatrick MP
Joshua Kaile
Louise Robertson
John Pollock c/o west hatch
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 15:49 +0000, Douglas Batchelor wrote:
> Dear Giles,
>
> I am glad to hear that you have never killed a deer.
>
> The bit that you persistently refuse to accept is that setting your dogs
> onto deer is every bit as much hunting as killing them would be. The
> chase is an unnecessary and deliberate disturbance organised by you
> using your dogs, and that in law appears to me to be hunting with dogs
> as defined in the Act.
>
> Surely if you have the best interests of the deer at heart, you would be
> allowing them appropriate shelter on your land from the activities of
> any hunts and hunters you mention who may wish them harm. You can of
> course legally use appropriate fencing to keep the deer out of any areas
> where they might cause damage to crops or trees.
>
> Yours,
>
>
> Douglas
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giles Bradshaw
> Sent: 18 December 2009 10:54
> To: Douglas Batchelor
> Subject: letter
>
>
> I sent this to Joshua Louise and Steve too:
>
> I really don't get why the League does not accept that my method of
> managing deer is less cruel than shooting them.
>
> What seems especially ironic is that it is precisely the flushing out
> exemption which I campaign on which is used by the Hunts to carry on
> killing animals.
>
> Can't you see that?
>
> Fair enough I am pro and you are anti but why don't we appeal together
> to get the Government to recognise flaws in the law. From your point of
> view you could use this to try and get the exemption in the law under
> which the hunts are killing animals removed. Obviously I feel that
> where there is no chance of the deer being hurt then what I do should be
> legal but that could be debated.
>
> I am being completely honest when I say I have never killed a deer. I
> genuinely love the animals on my land. They are truly beautiful
> creatures. I am standing up for a humane and non lethal way of managing
> them.
>
> Do you not realise how much worse it would be for a fleeing deer to be
> mown down by bullets? It's ridiculous to argue that that is more
> 'humane'.
>
> It's just plain wrong for the Hunting Act to contain a condition that
> animals are shot dead. And it's wrong that the law is framed so it can
> be openly broken.
>
> I am sure that you accept this.
>
> best wishes for xmas.
>
> BTW I am sure we could debate this in an open manner as we all clearly
> care a lot about the issues.
>
>
>
>
)))