Rowreach
Adjusting my sails
How anyone can compare the lack of successful prosecutions for illegal hunting with the lack of prosecutions for rape is staggering.
So National Trust have voted to ban trail hunting because …
- Thread starter canteron
- Start date
palo1
Well-Known Member
Don't worry - no chance!!
palo1
Well-Known Member
You are right - illegal fox hunting. I am appalled that you might liken illegal fox hunting to rape or fraud convictions. There is a real issue with your post @ycbm because we live in a society where there is a presumption of innocence in our legislative system. This is in fact, enshrined in our Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms law (1950). In case you are not familiar with this have a look here: -
In article 11(1) it provided: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law . . ." Borrowing this language almost verbatim, article 6.2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) provided: "Everyone ..(https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd010705/regina-2.htm)
There are clearly a number of 'monitors' and sabs utterly determined to prove illegal fox hunting on each and every occasion that they possibly can. They use a variety of strategies and technology to obtain evidence and report several times a week on illegal fox hunting. They attract reasonably significant media atttention in relation to the scale of alleged criminal activity. I read report after report in various media watch emails that I follow.
Yet, the sum total of all of this 'evidence' has resulted in this number of convictions, which in themselves represent 10% of all Hunting Act convictions.
There is not only a disparity in the claims of illegal hunting in relation to convictions but also a huge failure to recognise 90% of convictions under the Hunting Act. Why is that when so much effort is put in, by various anti-hunting groups, to provide the evidence of illegality?
If anti-hunting sentiment was about breaking the law, illegal fox hunting is proven to be only a small part of that. If anti hunting sentiment is about animal welfare, then to my view and certainly statistically, there are many, many more significant issues to address although of course it is both legal and desirable in our culture to lobby about the things that are important to us. I do not condone breaking the law.
There are a huge number of crimes against wildlife which need dealing with; in fact, if we are going to use supposition as a basis for action, it might seem that Beavers suffer more from being illegally killed than foxes. For example this report: https://theferret.scot/beavers-killed-tayside-scottish-natural-heritage/ details at least 100 beavers being shot. Of course, those numbers are not related to proven convictions and other numbers are, like the vast majority of claims about illegal fox hunting 'unverified'.
It is also hard, from an alternative perspective to identify how many rare ground nesting birds suffer predation as a result of anti-hunt/sab destruction of predator traps. (I do not want to see trapping in fact but perfectly respectable wildlife charities such as the RSPB use them and they are legal). We haven't got 'proof' of that or convictions, I don't think, but if I confidently asserted that this was going on 'all the time' with every sab group engaged in that activity and 'a huge number of ground nesting birds killed as a consequence' you would refute that as, possibly 'twaddle' or 'rubbish' and probably, logically ask for proof of criminal activity.
To me, the facts suggest that anti-hunting sentiments, whilst they may stem from resentment about a variety of things including a degree of 'nuisance' value (which may also apply to cycling events etc) still have nothing to do with proven illegality. Even your assertions about the scale of the nuisance value of hunting - in that it is organised and goes on several times a week is illogical because the fact is that hunts do not hunt the same place week in, week out.
I read posts on this forum and wonder (and am frequently told) that I am deluded yet I have looked and looked for solid proof and evidence from the police and the courts of the 'wholesale' illegality of trail-hunting and I cannot find it anywhere except from the anti-hunting lobby. Yet you expect me to take that on.
Where do you actually stand in relation to the law and the presumption of innocence?
https://publications.parliament.uk/...n article 11(1) it,(1950) provided: "Everyone
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
From reading ycbm's post, she was in no way comparing the crime of rape with the crime of illegal hunting. She was comparing the conviction rate of trials for them, and fraud, (which are all low), which is quite another thing altogether.
Gallop_Away
Well-Known Member
I'll be honest our hunt doesn't put our meet list on Facebook anymore, due to the harassment we receive from local thugs....sorry sabs.
Meet cards are given out at opening meet and are available thereafter by contacting the masters or hunt secretary.
We have nothing to hide but due to constant harassment from sabs we choose not to post it on Facebook.
We have on several occasions invited the sabs out to watch the trail being laid and follow the hunt. They haven't wanted to know.
They've never found a shred of evidence that we are hunting illegally but of course that MUST be down to their presence and nothing to do with the fact we are a perfectly legal trail hunt ?
Our hunt secretary and masters are perfectly happy to divulge the locations and dates to anyone who enquires, but usually ask for some information as to why that person is enquiring i.e. they are interested in hunting with us, or have livestock in the local area etc.
Meet cards are given out at opening meet and are available thereafter by contacting the masters or hunt secretary.
We have nothing to hide but due to constant harassment from sabs we choose not to post it on Facebook.
We have on several occasions invited the sabs out to watch the trail being laid and follow the hunt. They haven't wanted to know.
They've never found a shred of evidence that we are hunting illegally but of course that MUST be down to their presence and nothing to do with the fact we are a perfectly legal trail hunt ?
Our hunt secretary and masters are perfectly happy to divulge the locations and dates to anyone who enquires, but usually ask for some information as to why that person is enquiring i.e. they are interested in hunting with us, or have livestock in the local area etc.
Gallop_Away
Well-Known Member
Also would just like to add .... well done Palo. Despite some downright rude comments made towards you on this thread and others, your replies are always polite and informative. I for one thoroughly enjoy reading your posts.
palo1
Well-Known Member
That is very kind. Thank you. It really matters to me that the debate about hunting isn't either one sided or entirely combative, offensive, rude and disrespectful so I am just doing my best!! I have a very well equipped vocabulary of profanity should any occasion ever need it but this isn't the place or the discussion for that lol!!
maggiestar
Well-Known Member
You've been very polite and informative Palo. I can see both sides of the argument but just wanted to commend you for your interesting posts. I've learned a lot!
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
That's entirely my point Palo. Because we have a system which would rather a guilty person go free than convict an innocent person by mistake, there are many, many crimes which are committed which will not result in a conviction.
You are completely falling to acknowledge how difficult it is to obtain enough evidence to get a conviction for illegal hunting, and because of that you seem able to remain in an ivory tower believing that the offence is not widespread when it is.
It may be less so since the webinar conviction, we can always hope.
.
Last edited:
palo1
Well-Known Member
I will also be asking the NT how many of those convictions for illegal fox hunting have happened on their land or under NT licences as if there are none and the NT has asserted that they are happy with the management of trail hunting on NT land you would wonder why on earth they would have justification in banning it/failing to provide licences.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
I would expect you to to take the word of many people that a crime has been committed even though they can't prove it court.
I am absolutely in favour of it even though I know it means that many guilty people go unpunished.
I believe it is worse if innocent people are convicted of a crime they didn't do.
.
palo1
Well-Known Member
I just don't get how you can confidently assert that an illegal activity is 'widespread' when you neither hunt regularly by your own admission nor is that borne out by the facts provided by both police and the Ministry of Justice. You are relying on biased views of others who share your own attitude; that is not 'evidence' but echo chamber.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
I hear what people on this forum are saying, people I trust including an ex police officer and ex fox hunters, I know what happens in my own area because hunting people talk openly about it and I have myself been invited to hunt fox in three different areas and I know a master who changed hunts out of area so that he could hunt fox.
I am listening to people who are against fox hunting, not people who are against trail hunting.
You are in denial.
You refuse to acknowledge that obtaining evidence which will stand up in court of illegal hunting is very difficult. You are then using conviction rates to fortify your belief that illegal hunting is not widespread. Do you think the number of convictions for dangerous driving accurately reflects the level of dangerous driving on the roads?
.
Fellewell
Well-Known Member
From the pro hunt This is Hunting UK FB page.
'For what we have seen is deeply disturbing and be assured it certainly does not end with the National Trust's vote to ban Now in full swing, there is a very nasty underhanded form of ethnic cleansing sweeping through the Nation at a more than alarming rate, taking out anybody's opinion who may differ from those who have a model in their mind as to just how they want our Countryside to be.'
Ethnic cleansing??? Steady on...
It may not be an ethnicity issue but hunt sabbing is certainly terrorism and we're taught as a society not to let terrorism win.
Not every hunt follower is a paragon of virtue and not every sab is a tree-hugging psychopath. The one thing they have in common is tribalism and this was very much accentuated when huntsmen and women were forced to live like fugitives when the Hunting Law law was passed and AR took over. Along with violence and their skewed idea of how animals are supposed to live.
AR like a soft target and women and children on horseback are a soft target. They could always fill in the gaps for a motive at a later date because this hollow argument for the defence of foxes doesn't hold up.
Most of the 'antis' on this thread probably moved to the countryside to pursue equestrian sport and discovered, rather annoyingly, that the urban sprawl had followed them. Hunting just got caught in the middle. We're all losing land.
southerncomfort
Well-Known Member
I know nothing about hunting and even less about our local hunt (I believe its a trail hunt), but the details of every meet are posted on all the local horsey SM groups with an open invitation for anyone to attend.
They publish the venue (a farm in the village below us) and time as well as lots of other details. They sound very welcoming and the level of detail makes me very comfortable that they are adhering to the letter of the law.
I think they are affiliated with the local PC branch.
I am vehemently anti fox hunting and not all that interested in drag/trail hunting. BUT I think it would be a crying shame if those that love drag/trail hunting were to lose it because of a refusal by the old guard to modernise. Actually I think this is probably true of all equine sports.
I think its going to take a bit of humility and a willingness to embrace the sport as it is, as well as a lot more transparency to regain public trust and confidence. But I think it can be done if their is a willingness to change.
Gallop_Away
Well-Known Member
We used to put our meet list on our public Facebook page but as I say thanks to the constant harassment by sabs the decision was made to stop. I understand this may seem underhanded, but given the behaviour of hunt sabs towards us, it was felt necessary for the safety and enjoyment of hunt followers.
Again if anyone wanted to know the location of our meets, they need only enquire with one of the hunt staff. I'm not aware of anyone being refused the information when its been asked.
Miss_Millie
Well-Known Member
1. I'm sorry but that sounds pretty overly dramatic to me. I think it's been well established on this thread that both sabs and hunters have been involved in their fair share of violence, be it verbal or physical. If sabs are terrorists then so are hunters. As pointed out a fair few times before, if legal trail hunting had kept a clean image all this time, there would be absolutely no need for sabs to exist. However, various hunts continue to prove that this is not the case, by being caught on camera hunting fox.
2. Whether you like it or not, the majority of the British public voted to end fox hunting. Most people find the idea of it disgusting, animal activist or not. Ask the average person on the street if they think fox hunting should stay illegal and they will answer yes. I also think that most regular people would not mind trail hunting to continue if it kept a completely clean image, if every hunt respected the property of others and stayed away from their livestock and pets. It is incidents like cats and lambs getting mauled and killed that really sway the opinion of the public - hunting needs a completely fresh image if it wants to survive.
palo1
Well-Known Member
@Miss_Millie ''Whether you like it or not, the majority of the British public voted to end fox hunting.''
This is not true. The Hunting Act was brought to parliament as a Private Members Bill by Michael Foster MP - this is the prerogative of MPs and in this instance Michael Foster got lucky in that he got the opportunity to bring a matter of interest to the house. Most private members bills never see the light of day!!
It was politically hijacked by Blair for reasons explained well in so many other places including because of a significant donation from PETA - that is not strictly democratic in fact.
Further, the bill was not considered to have any chance of a majority in both houses as is the legislative process in the United Kingdom (and thus representes the majority view and will of the people) so Blair invoked the Parliament Act to just about get it over the line in the Commons.
There was so much contention and lack of consensus in fact (the opposite of a majority view as you assert) that the Act had to be severely 'compromised' which is why it is so difficult for anyone to see it as useful now. Many of the things that anti-hunters hate about the act had to be encased in it in order for the act to be passed at all.
You really should read what the legislators of the act themselves had to say about it.
This is not true. The Hunting Act was brought to parliament as a Private Members Bill by Michael Foster MP - this is the prerogative of MPs and in this instance Michael Foster got lucky in that he got the opportunity to bring a matter of interest to the house. Most private members bills never see the light of day!!
It was politically hijacked by Blair for reasons explained well in so many other places including because of a significant donation from PETA - that is not strictly democratic in fact.
Further, the bill was not considered to have any chance of a majority in both houses as is the legislative process in the United Kingdom (and thus representes the majority view and will of the people) so Blair invoked the Parliament Act to just about get it over the line in the Commons.
There was so much contention and lack of consensus in fact (the opposite of a majority view as you assert) that the Act had to be severely 'compromised' which is why it is so difficult for anyone to see it as useful now. Many of the things that anti-hunters hate about the act had to be encased in it in order for the act to be passed at all.
You really should read what the legislators of the act themselves had to say about it.
palo1
Well-Known Member
That is all well and good @ycbm but I hear the opposite, equally from people I trust including serving police officers, vets, doctors, nurses, teachers, scientists, environmental agency workers - decent, respectable 'pillars of the community' if you like. I know what happens both in my local hunt and others too so that matches your experience but we have different stories to tell. So does it come down to who wants to believe who?
I get your point about dangerous driving and the difficulty of getting convictions for all sorts of illegal activities but what is relevant really is not your view or mine but the facts. The fact is that there are a great many people who want to see convictions for illegal fox hunting and work hard, sometimes breaking the law themselves to get evidence of that yet the conviction rate is tiny. Either many years of dedicated sabbing is pointless and their strategies are pretty poor or there is not enough to convict people on ergo there is not as much illegal fox hunting as they would like to say there is.
Miss_Millie
Well-Known Member
'An opinion poll in May 2017 revealed overwhelming public opposition to hunting with dogs, including the repeal of the Hunting Act 2004. 64% of voters disagreed with the statement that "the ban on fox hunting should be reversed", including 46% who "strongly disagreed". Just 11% supported the repeal of the ban. The poll was published in the aftermath of the release of the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2017 general election, which promised a vote on the repeal of the Act.[65] Only 16% of Conservative voters want the ban overturned, with 50% opposed.'
The Hunting Act may be flawed, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of people don't agree with fox hunting and do not want it to be made legal again.
Like I said it is a public image issue. Do you remember in 2018 when a hunt trespassed on Celia Hammond's cat sanctuary (in pursuit of both a deer and a fox, by the way) and killed several of her rescue cats? When something as harrowing as this happens it is hard to forget, it is terrible PR for hunting in general and will permanently turn many people against hunting as a whole, even people who were sat on the fence or not bothered either way.
The Hunting Act may be flawed, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of people don't agree with fox hunting and do not want it to be made legal again.
Like I said it is a public image issue. Do you remember in 2018 when a hunt trespassed on Celia Hammond's cat sanctuary (in pursuit of both a deer and a fox, by the way) and killed several of her rescue cats? When something as harrowing as this happens it is hard to forget, it is terrible PR for hunting in general and will permanently turn many people against hunting as a whole, even people who were sat on the fence or not bothered either way.
Rowreach
Adjusting my sails
An opinion poll is not the same as the entire electorate being given a vote on a single issue, you do realise?
Dizzy socks
Well-Known Member
It's not a terrible indicator though? In the absence of a vote? Better than anything else I've seen posted so far, anyway?
Dizzy socks
Well-Known Member
You hearing the opposite doesn't negate those who have posted negative experiencs though? There are plenty of hunts in the country, no one has to be 'wrong', everyone can be telling the truth. It's just that if we believe the people here who have posted their experiences, both positive and negative, (and, personally, I do), then that's still a lot of negative experiences - more than convictions -, indicating that the conviction rate doesn't match the incidences?
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
I don't understand your argument.
Nobody reasonable disputes that there is legal trail hunting going on in many places. That doesn't mean that illegal fox hunting is not also going on in many places.
.
Last edited:
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
How would anyone prove to the satisfaction of a court, beyond reasonable doubt, that a trail has not been laid, or that a trail was deliberately laid weak so that the hounds would hunt fox? Those are exceptionally difficult things to prove, I would have thought?
You don't believe that the man recently convicted of inciting illegal hunting is actually guilty in spite of being convicted after being recorded at length. I'm not sure how you expect prosecutions for illegal hunting to reach court or result in a conviction if it did get there.
.
Last edited:
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
I don't know anyone except fox hunting advocates who find it difficult to see the law as useful.
We go round and round in circles and every time I reach the same point. That if hunts would only give up using the scent of an animal that it's illegal for them to chase, this could all be sorted.
.
Sleighfarer
Well-Known Member
I don't think it was Peta that made the donation. There was £1m from an organisation called the Political Animal Lobby, which is not connected to them as far as I can see.
Miss_Millie
Well-Known Member
Yes I know, but it does give a strong indication as to general public opinion, which imo has a much stronger influence. You only have to look at the changes to the Modern Pentathlon to see the power of public opinion. Which is why it is so important for hunting to clean up its image, if it wishes to survive.
Rowreach
Adjusting my sails
I totally agree that hunting needs to clean up its act and I actually think it is too late for it to do so. I also think that general public opinion may be in favour of a complete end to hunting with hounds, and given that most people don't know the difference between trail hunting and drag hunting, I fear that all hunting may end up in the history books.
My point is that you can't make a claim as you did upthread that
when they didn't.
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
I think, sadly, that hunting will slowly die out. I love the spectacle of it and spent many, many years of my life going as often as I could.
The countryside is now so crowded in most places that it is very difficult for there to be enough space for everyone.
The countryside is now so crowded in most places that it is very difficult for there to be enough space for everyone.