So National Trust have voted to ban trail hunting because …

[Tiddlypom]

I cannot imagine any other sphere of life where a legal activity would be allowed to be disrupted by a group that the government itself has identified as a serious threat in terms of terrorism.

But in the case of blatant illegal hunting, which you have acknowledged does happen, what's to be done?

'Report it to the police' is the obvious, and correct, answer. But the police are woefully understaffed and underfunded, and simply don't have the resources to follow hunts round all day to enforce legal hunting. As soon as the police leave, the fox hunting starts again.

So what next? Report it to the governing body of hunting so that they can deal with the miscreants? Ha . Good luck with that.

Completely ignore a group of very determined and often very well connected law breakers who are wilfully engaging in an illegal activity on multiple days a week?

Are you even surprised that some members of the public take on what the police won't/can't cover, and the governing body is actively facilitating (webinars)?

 

[Miss_Millie]

I am sorry @Miss_Millie as I know you are an animal lover and are very well intentioned but you are wrong.

PETA and some other groups are identified as a 'risk' under PREVENT guidelines which means that individuals can be referred to the anti-terrorist Channel group. Trail Hunters are not identified as extremists in any way.

As for your references regarding the majority of the British public and the opinion poll carried out by LACS, other posters have identified why this is not an accurate statement.

Thanks for being so condescending...

Not sure if there is any point of replying to this thread anymore when everything I say gets skewed. I have already said this a billion times on this thread but I will say it again - there is violence on both sides. Sabs may be marked as a terrorist risk but hunters are just as guilty of physical and verbal assault. Until pro hunt people accept that, we will just keep going round in circles.

I have not once condoned violence of any kind, from any person, regardless of their views. However, as I have said before, hunting needs to clean up its appearance if it wishes to survive, because it has a very bad rep at present. Those who genuinely trail hunt need to distance themselves from those illegally fox hunting and make it clear as day that they want nothing to do with them.

Pro-hunters/those that hunt need to humble themselves and accept that the present situation is not good, a lot needs to change. Neither side is perfect but I hope we can all agree that breaking the law is wrong, assaulting people is wrong, trespassing is wrong - regardless of who the person is or what their beliefs are.

 

[Gallop_Away]

But in the case of blatant illegal hunting, which you have acknowledged does happen, what's to be done?

'Report it to the police' is the obvious, and correct, answer. But the police are woefully understaffed and underfunded, and simply don't have the resources to follow hunts round all day to enforce legal hunting. As soon as the police leave, the fox hunting starts again.

So what next? Report it to the governing body of hunting so that they can deal with the miscreants? Ha . Good luck with that.

Completely ignore a group of very determined and often very well connected law breakers who are wilfully engaging in an illegal activity on multiple days a week?

Are you even surprised that some members of the public take on what the police won't/can't cover, and the governing body is actively facilitating (webinars)?

But where do you draw the line? What if everyone decides to take the law into their own hands? Allowing them to continue sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion

 

[Sandstone1]

But where do you draw the line? What if everyone decides to take the law into their own hands? Allowing them to continue sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion

If no one ever decided to take the law in to their own hands a lot of out dated, cruel and evil practices would never have changed throughout history.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Indeed, where do you draw the line?

Ignore the lawbreakers and let them get on with it? What precedent does that set to others who may decide to flout other laws?

 

[Gallop_Away]

If no one ever decided to take the law in to their own hands a lot of out dated, cruel and evil practices would never have changed throughout history.

Protest by all means but there is a vast difference between protests and actively taking it upon yourself to take what action YOU feel appropriate.
Our police are regulated by procedures. Normal joe blogs deciding what action he feels is appropriate is not. Surely you can see the difference?

 

[Tiddlypom]

Our police are regulated by procedures. Normal joe blogs deciding what action he feels is appropriate is not. Surely you can see the difference?

Oh yes, I can.

But if the police can't/won't act, Joe Bloggs has a gap to step in and sort out an injustice for himself

I'm not saying that's right, but it is inevitable.

 

[GSD Woman]

It sounds like your monitors vs sabs is similar to animal welfare vs animal rights activists. They both care about the animals for the most part. I don't know how anyone can say the people who trespass, set buildings on fire and bomb them with humans inside, pour water from hose pipes through Mail slots to flood houses and I could go on and on, are anything less than terrorists.

 

[palo1]

But in the case of blatant illegal hunting, which you have acknowledged does happen, what's to be done?

'Report it to the police' is the obvious, and correct, answer. But the police are woefully understaffed and underfunded, and simply don't have the resources to follow hunts round all day to enforce legal hunting. As soon as the police leave, the fox hunting starts again.

So what next? Report it to the governing body of hunting so that they can deal with the miscreants? Ha . Good luck with that.

Completely ignore a group of very determined and often very well connected law breakers who are wilfully engaging in an illegal activity on multiple days a week?

Are you even surprised that some members of the public take on what the police won't/can't cover, and the governing body is actively facilitating (webinars)?

That is just not logical though @Tiddlypom. There are so many aspects of society where there is a degree of illegality yet vigilantes are just not tolerated. Of course the police are overstretched and that is a concern everywhere in the UK but the answer is NOT for members of the public to take on crime fighting for goodness sake. We don't tolerate vigilantes in the UK and nor should we. Allowing that would set an appallingly dangerous precedent, in all likelihood leading to any manner of witch hunts and totally unwarranted attacks and harrassment of many groups of society. Surely you can't mean this??

Hunting does need to clean up it's image thanks to the constant 'noise' of sabs but this could be said of so many things and no doubt will be around many aspects of life as we tackle climate crisis among other things.

 

[palo1]

Oh yes, I can.

But if the police can't/won't act, Joe Bloggs has a gap to step in and sort out an injustice for himself

I'm not saying that's right, but it is inevitable.

I think you are wrong. It would only be inevitable if our social fabric changed to something far less safe and tolerant. We have been heading that way of course but I don't see any appetite amongst the general public for the advancement of vigilantism. In fact, far from it. Most political parties who want public votes are advocating for more police and public services so well away from that model...

 

[Tiddlypom]

Palo, I am not condoning illegal action on either side.

 

[Gallop_Away]

Oh yes, I can.

But if the police can't/won't act, Joe Bloggs has a gap to step in and sort out an injustice for himself

I'm not saying that's right, but it is inevitable.

Well as inevitable as it may be, it shouldn't be left to individuals to deem what action they feel is appropriate. Like I say when you muddy the waters between police and everyday people, it sets a dangerous tone.
I'm sure if you asked a terrorist if they felt what they are doing is wrong, they would argue they are fighting for the greater good. I am not comparing sabs to someone who blows up children before someone jumps down my throat, I'm just pointing out how the loss of control can escalated when it comes to extremism and when people are left to take their own action to right a wrong.

 

[Koweyka]

If you saw someone being attacked in a private garden and clearly the law is being broken, would you walk off because you would be trespassing or would you walk in and intervene and stop the blatant law breaking.

 

[Gallop_Away]

If you saw someone being attacked in a private garden and clearly the law is being broken, would you walk off because you would be trespassing or would you walk in and intervene and stop the blatant law breaking.

I would call the police.....

 

[palo1]

If you saw someone being attacked in a private garden and clearly the law is being broken, would you walk off because you would be trespassing or would you walk in and intervene and stop the blatant law breaking.

That isn't really an appropriate comparison for me but what I would do would not be to trespass but to make a huge noise and call the police.

That is very, very different to parking yourself outside someone's house, or in their garden or whilst they were out walking their dog for example and hurling abuse at them because you believe they might assault someone or had previously assaulted someone. Like I say, I don't think your example is useful.

 

[GoldenWillow]

If I rang the police to say there was three men in my field with a pack of dogs that were verbally abusive when I said they had no right to be there and they were continuing to do this on a regular basis I wonder what redress I would have? This is how the hunt acted, if I rang to say the hunt were doing this I wonder how their reaction would differ?

 

[Koweyka]

I would call the police.....

So you would stand and watch and wait while someone or something was being hurt and wait for the police that could take an hour to turn up ? If a crime is being committed or believed to be committed trespass is mute, the police have always told us to get evidence if we trespass, which we do and we have never had any sort of conviction or caution as it’s always justified.

 

[Koweyka]

That isn't really an appropriate comparison for me but what I would do would not be to trespass but to make a huge noise and call the police.

That is very, very different to parking yourself outside someone's house, or in their garden or whilst they were out walking their dog for example and hurling abuse at them because you believe they might assault someone or had previously assaulted someone. Like I say, I don't think your example is useful.

Ok so if we see a fox running, clearly being chased by the hounds and at great risk of being killed what do you suggest we do ?

 

[Gallop_Away]

So you would stand and watch and wait while someone or something was being hurt and wait for the police that could take an hour to turn up ? If a crime is being committed or believed to be committed trespass is mute, the police have always told us to get evidence if we trespass, which we do and we have never had any sort of conviction or caution as it’s always justified.

Yes but as palo said you can't really compare this with the actions of sabs. In your example if someone entered the property and attempted to difuse the situation by shouting and trying to draw attention that is one thing.
It is another if the attacker ran away and you ran after him to his house screaming abuse or trying to tackle him to the floor.
Monitors may trespass but they don't actively intervene. Sabs take actions and those actions are what THEY deem proportional to the alleged offence, and that is what I would argue is dangerous

 

[palo1]

So you would stand and watch and wait while someone or something was being hurt and wait for the police that could take an hour to turn up ? If a crime is being committed or believed to be committed trespass is mute, the police have always told us to get evidence if we trespass, which we do and we have never had any sort of conviction or caution as it’s always justified.

Ok so if we see a fox running, clearly being chased by the hounds and at great risk of being killed what do you suggest we do ?

That is a very different scenario to the one you used just now. If you are witnessing illegal hunting then recording that would be the most obvious action. If you physically intervene there is a strong likelihood that you will cause issues for either fox or hounds (ie intervention by spraying hounds, calling them away onto a road for eg or causing the fox to change direction/distract a fox from it's natural evasion of a predator). At that moment in time, if hounds are chasing a fox, under the current law which I know is a disaster you may or may not be able to identify whether that fox is being deliberately hunted (ie the huntsman is totally aware of hounds chasing that fox) so whilst it is fine to record that, you may not actually be recording a crime. But that may well cause other issues. I think it must be vanishingly rare to witness that actually but at the point you could be certain that a fox was genuinely in danger, it would probably be too late to make any decisive, safe intervention I think. I can't quite imagine how you could be in that situation, fully cognizant of the facts, the legality and in a position to save a fox tbh but I have never seen a sab in that situation and haven't seen hounds near a fox for years.

This is a problem and one reason why hunters feel and assert that the actions of sabs cause exactly those sorts of problems. I accept your point of view but I disagree with it.

ETA - I understand that for you the 'legality' of the situation we are discussing here may not be as significant as the welfare of the fox and I understand that. I respect your desire to protect that animal regardless of the legality of the situation which I have alluded to but that does cause issues of integrity. I accept that you may feel very, very differently to me on that. In the same way I feel it is dire that rats can be legally poisoned but I would not, ever enter someone's property and abuse them or break up their bait traps because of my beliefs and I probably would not also try to 'rescue' rats on a property where they were legally being baited with poison in spite of my very strong views on the matter.

 

[Fred66]

Oh yes, I can.

But if the police can't/won't act, Joe Bloggs has a gap to step in and sort out an injustice for himself

I'm not saying that's right, but it is inevitable.

So you think it is acceptable for someone to break the law to try and collect evidence of a crime that might happen ?

 

[Tiddlypom]

So you think it is acceptable for someone to break the law to try and collect evidence of a crime that might happen ?

No, I don't, which you read my posts correctly I have clearly stated .

Understandable? Yes.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Well as inevitable as it may be, it shouldn't be left to individuals to deem what action they feel is appropriate. Like I say when you muddy the waters between police and everyday people, it sets a dangerous tone.

Yet again, I agree. If only the police were resourced well enough to cope.

Though I have no problem with passive monitoring, as long as no trespass or other nuisance is committed while it goes on. I have said that many times on various threads on HHO.

But if all the fecking remaining law breaking fox hunters would just pack it in, that would be grand.

 

[HanniRT]

That is not true, I have been followed and had shooters come in my fields and fire at my home, I have a marker on my address due to threats. One sab has had videos of her home posted online, the was an incident in where ”hunt people” got the wrong house, sab lived next door and they trashed the house of and elderly couple.

That is abhorrent. Which hunt trashed the house?

 

[Koweyka]

That is abhorrent. Which hunt trashed the house?

The couple lived in Staffordshire, it left them very shaken up.

We sort of expect being targeted tbh but if hunts are going to do it, they should at least get the right house ….

 

[HanniRT]

The couple lived in Staffordshire, it left them very shaken up.

We sort of expect being targeted tbh but if hunts are going to do it, they should at least get the right house ….

I'll dig out the reports.

Edit. Other than a Facebook report from Staffordshire Sabs (also asking for money in connection to the incident), I have not found anything. It will take me a little more time to check with Staffs police.

 

[Koweyka]

I'll dig out the reports.

Happened early December last year.


ELDERLY COUPLE TARGETED AS MISTAKEN FOR SABS



In a huge error of judgement, men matching the description of local terrier men (and wearing the same clothes) were spotted fleeing the scene of a crime last night, as an elderly couple were left shaking in their homes wondering what they had done to deserve this attack.

The house and car windows of the couple were smashed following a day of threats and criminal damage towards sabs attempting to stop a local hunt illegally fox hunting, where terrier men also made threats towards the homes of sabs.

After a visit by a senior member of this hunt at this ‘known’ sab address last season (the sabs who lived there are no longer with our group), a vulnerable elderly couple with no sabbing connections, who have been forced to have a year of isolation away from their family due to current restrictions and health problems, have become victims of this savage violence and stupidity.

More pictures to follow. Any information about this incident will be gratefully received by the police and can be reported anonymously if desired via Crime Stoppers.

 

[Koweyka]

I'll dig out the reports.

Edit. Other than a Facebook report from Staffordshire Sabs (also asking for money in connection to the incident), I have not found anything. It will take me a little more time to check with Staffs police.

It’s not my area so I don’t know what the outcome was for the couple, it’s just one that stuck in my mind as being particularly awful as it was an elderly couple. To be fair they were asking for donations for the couple not themselves.

 

[HanniRT]

It’s not my area so I don’t know what the outcome was for the couple, it’s just one that stuck in my mind as being particularly awful as it was an elderly couple. To be fair they were asking for donations for the couple not themselves.

I read the above post on Facebook. It is the record from Staffs police I am interested in. I'm sure I'll find them.

 

[GSD Woman]

Well as inevitable as it may be, it shouldn't be left to individuals to deem what action they feel is appropriate. Like I say when you muddy the waters between police and everyday people, it sets a dangerous tone.

This is being brought up by our Supreme Court. If it holds up the Texas abortion ban It will allow private citizens to sue anyone involved in helping a woman obtain an abortion.

I do think this correlates to the problems with trail hunting and sabs taking matters into their own hands. Film the violations without faking evidence and turn it over to the correct authorities.