So National Trust have voted to ban trail hunting because …

[J.Tiernan]

I'd also like to draw peoples attention to two things that happened in January 2019, I was involved with both so I do have first hand experience:

One was the Kimblewick terrier men pulling out a fox from an artificial earth (built post ban in 2010) which resulted in the terrier men getting suspended prison sentences. The MFHA rightly or wrongly didn't do anything until after the legal case had come to a conclusion, they then struck off both men and they weren't allowed to be terriermen anymore. One of those men was filmed the following week out on his quad bike with that hunt (the other had left the hunt)

So we have criminality proven and an obviously proven weak governing body and no one in the hunting world speaking out against the terrier men publicly, e.g. the CA or MFHA or TiHUK.
So heads down and carry on and hope it doesn't happen again, being the prevalent attitude imo.

At the same time I'd helped get a story into the times about thousands of breasted pheasants being dumped, there was no criminal case, although the environment agency may have had something to say to the game farmer/shoot organiser.
However shooting bodies lined up to speak out against what they saw was something potentially very damaging to their "industry" lots of rumination and discussions amongst shooters ensued, many publicly.

What a marked difference to that of the equine community.

 

[Tiddlypom]

The Kimblewick case was shocking, and has been brought up more than once on the forum before.

The lack of any true sanction against the hunt by the MFHA was most revealing. And the Kimblewick is the pack which is followed by none other than the head of hunting for the Countryside Alliance .

https://forums.horseandhound.co.uk/threads/kimblewick-hunt-pair-found-guilty.781967/

A reminder of what some of the delightful, country based, animal welfare at heart hunting lot get up to.

Kimblewick Hunt, New Years Day 2019.

Kimblewick Hunt: Men sentenced for releasing fox 'into hunt path' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-50562260

Covert cctv filming, no antis present. Fox prodded out of a drain then pulled out by its tail just as hounds approach. The stooges who did the prodding got suspended prison sentences, but the brains who pulled their strings did not.

https://forums.horseandhound.co.uk/threads/kimblewick-hunt-pair-found-guilty.781967/

Genuinely, post webinar publication, there aren't many people who don't now truly believe that illegal hunting is widespread, and was/is being facilitated from the top.

 

[J.Tiernan]

"and another thing"
I'm currently trying to get my head around "legal fees insurance" the fact that drag/clean boot don't have it (so I'm told)
and why would you have legal fees insurance if you were behaving legally?

now lets say that a number of hunts are completely lawful for the sake of argument (I maintain that I only know of a handful) why are those hunts paying a % of their turnover to the MFHA for legal fees insurance that they know they'll never need to access, that money will be used by other hunts who are getting into trouble, why would you want to support them?
I'm genuinely surprised that legit trail hunters aren't just joining the drag hounds association, would save them a ton of stress and money and easy to convince the public you are lawful as you are part of an organisation that isn't campaigning for law change and doesn't have these weird and wonderful side shows of terriermen and BOP and "Autumn Hunting" etc etc

 

[ycbm]

"and another thing"
I'm currently trying to get my head around "legal fees insurance" the fact that drag/clean boot don't have it (so I'm told)
and why would you have legal fees insurance if you were behaving legally?

now lets say that a number of hunts are completely lawful for the sake of argument (I maintain that I only know of a handful) why are those hunts paying a % of their turnover to the MFHA for legal fees insurance that they know they'll never need to access, that money will be used by other hunts who are getting into trouble, why would you want to support them?
I'm genuinely surprised that legit trail hunters aren't just joining the drag hounds association, would save them a ton of stress and money and easy to convince the public you are lawful as you are part of an organisation that isn't campaigning for law change and doesn't have these weird and wonderful side shows of terriermen and BOP and "Autumn Hunting" etc etc

Lots of people have legal fees insurance on their car or house policies, it's pretty standard to have it these litigious days we live in.
.

 

[J.Tiernan]

Lots of people have legal fees insurance on their car or house policies, it's pretty standard to have it these litigious days we live in.
.

So what I have heard that drag hunts don't have legal fees insurance, isn't correct and they do actually have it?

 

[ycbm]

So what I have heard that drag hunts don't have legal fees insurance, isn't correct and they do actually have it?

I haven't a clue but I think they would be short sighted not to.
.

 

[J.Tiernan]

I haven't a clue but I think they would be short sighted not to.
.

but the legal fees insurance for the hunts is mostly for the hunting act, yes they also get employment legal fees as part of the bundle which I suspect any employer would want, but I can't understand the legal fees needed for a hunt to defend the hunting act, if they are never going to need to defend themselves from the hunting act. Seems like a waste of money to me

 

[ycbm]

but the legal fees insurance for the hunts is mostly for the hunting act, yes they also get employment legal fees as part of the bundle which I suspect any employer would want, but I can't understand the legal fees needed for a hunt to defend the hunting act, if they are never going to need to defend themselves from the hunting act. Seems like a waste of money to me

Legal fees insurance is absolutely standard business practice and increasingly standard personal practice. Find something else to criticise, there's plenty!
.

 

[paddy555]

So what I have heard that drag hunts don't have legal fees insurance, isn't correct and they do actually have it?

haven't followed all the insurance posts but is this what you are referring to. Google AXA hunt legal fees. I think there other entries.
https://www.huntsabs.org.uk/axa-insuring-hunts/

 

[J.Tiernan]

Thanks Paddy555, I have read that, and all the stuff on the Hunting Leaks website, but it doesn't explain if drag/clean boot have legal insurance, although it does go in depth into the AXA policy and what it covers for trail hunters.
My point being if some hunts are legal, why would they put money into what is effectively a collective pot for hunts that break the law. Makes no sense.

 

[ycbm]

Thanks Paddy555, I have read that, and all the stuff on the Hunting Leaks website, but it doesn't explain if drag/clean boot have legal insurance, although it does go in depth into the AXA policy and what it covers for trail hunters.
My point being if some hunts are legal, why would they put money into what is effectively a collective pot for hunts that break the law. Makes no sense.

You don't seem to understand what legal fees insurance covers. Please find something more relevant to complain about or you risk devaluing your other, more valid, comments.

I am anti fox hunting. The insurance is a red herring.

 

[J.Tiernan]

thank you, it might be a red herring for you, but it isn't for me. I shall quote the hunting office:
"The priority for the legal fees cover is to protect the policy for hunting act cases"
You need to look at what the policy is actually for rather than just thinking "oh they need insurance this is irrelevant" they have public liability insurance as well.

There is no need to pay for an insurance policy to help you with legal fees for hunting act offences, if you do not commit hunting act offences, further more you would not pay for a policy knowing that you were propping up all the hunts that do hunt illegally if you wanted to move hunting forwards.

I am anti hunting, that doesn't mean I automatically agree with everyone.
When someone who knows about drag hunting indepth and knows if they do or don't have legal fees insurance that covers the hunting act, at that point I will be a bit happier, until then I'll keep digging.

 

[FestiveG]

The insurance is surely to defend against allegations of illegal hunting., these could be made against a hint who has never breached the act.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Even a fully legal hunt needs legal fees cover.

Say if a hound caused a road accident while hunting, and negligence was claimed by an injured party.

 

[Regandal]

I agree with TP, someone could accuse a legal hunt of acting illegally.

 

[J.Tiernan]

Even a fully legal hunt needs legal fees cover.

Say if a hound caused a road accident while hunting, and negligence was claimed by an injured party.

that's public liability insurance, the same as what farmers have for livestock in case of RTA's

the MFHA give you specific legal fees insurance which is seperate from public liability as part of the membership fee, in much the same way the CA give their members public liability insurance.
I won't link in to the hunting leaks website in case it's against community standards, but there are documents in there under "hunting organisations" "legal fees"

 

[J.Tiernan]

I agree with TP, someone could accuse a legal hunt of acting illegally.

so then we'd assume that clean boot hunters and drag hunters have insurance that covers them for the hunting act? fair enough, but it's an assumption and I'd like to know for sure.

 

[Rowreach]

You don't seem to understand what legal fees insurance covers. Please find something more relevant to complain about or you risk devaluing your other, more valid, comments.

I am anti fox hunting. The insurance is a red herring.

What I can't get my own head around is that there is absolutely nobody defending fox hunting, or breaking the law by hunting illegally, or the seminars, or anything else nefarious, on this thread. So I can't quite see why we're still going round this particular circle

 

[Rowreach]

that's public liability insurance, the same as what farmers have for livestock in case of RTA's

the MFHA give you specific legal fees insurance which is seperate from public liability as part of the membership fee, in much the same way the CA give their members public liability insurance.
I won't link in to the hunting leaks website in case it's against community standards, but there are documents in there under "hunting organisations" "legal fees"

Anyone with any sense, whether an individual, a company or a club, has legal fees cover in the event that something happens and they end up in court, for any number of reasons. So your assertion that only hunts that plan on breaking the law have it is ridiculous.

 

[J.Tiernan]

fair, I guess I'm the only person who has read the policy.

 

[Tiddlypom]

...

 

[Rowreach]

Ok if the new poster is who I think he is, then I am out of this thread and won't be engaging further. There are limits.

 

[J.Tiernan]

well I thought it was better not to put on a pretend name, so if anyone wanted to question me they could, sorry you don't want to communicate, but fair enough.