The League Against Cruel Sports sells off more assets

J

Judgemental

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2010
Messages
1,603
Location
The Internet makes one's location irrelevant
Visit site
I just viewed this Charlie going away at the top of the screen on the ticker and thought it is worthy of a thread.

No doubt all those fantastic people on Exmoor will be cheering loudly, indeed I think this is an excuse for a party?

The ownership of land in the West Country by the LACS has always
been an issue.

The fact they are having to liquidate assets to fund their operations is indicative of many things.

"The League Against Cruel Sports sells off more assets

Charlotte White, H&H deputy news editor

29 August, 2010

The League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) is planning to sell some of the 2,000 acres it owns on Exmoor to fund a £1million campaign against repeal of the Hunting Act.

Since the hunting ban LACS membership has dropped and the charity has sold off a number of assets.

"We are absolutely focused and determined in our aim to ensure the Hunting Act remains," said the chief executive of the charity Douglas Batchelor.

Countryside Alliance (CA) spokesman Tim Bonner said: "LACS has between 4,000 and 5,000 members, according to the latest figures, and seems to continue to exist only by selling off the family silver. It is difficult to see how it can carry on."

LACS will retain sporting rights over all the land it sells, most of which was purchased in the 1960s and 1970s, to ensure that hunting and shooting cannot ever take place there.

The sale follows the disposal of the charity's London and Somerset headquarters and land sales in 2005.

LACS has just published its accounts for 2009. They show a surplus for the year of £425,000 which includes £379,000 raised by the sale of the Somerset property — St Nicholas' Priory on its Baronsdown estate.

Former LACS director Jim Barrington, who is now a welfare adviser to the CA, said: "Selling off sanctuary land is an issue that always divides the League's membership.

"Many members feel the land should not be sold. It has led to some big bust-ups within the charity in the past."

No date has yet been set for a free vote on the Act in the House of Commons.

This article was first published in Horse & Hound (26 August, '10)"
 
Last edited:
Judgemental said:
LACS will retain sporting rights over all the land it sells, most of which was purchased in the 1960s and 1970s, to ensure that hunting and shooting cannot ever take place there.

The sale follows the disposal of the charity's London and Somerset headquarters and land sales in 2005.

LACS has just published its accounts for 2009. They show a surplus for the year of £425,000 which includes £379,000 raised by the sale of the Somerset property — St Nicholas' Priory on its Baronsdown estate.
Click to expand...

Simsar, I think you may have missed the above when you said; "Lets hope a hunting person buys it and we can hunt across it!"

I suppose if they have a deed over the sporting rights and a covenant. In theory they could retain them.

However who is going to want to buy any land with that sort of covenant, especially on Exmoor. Yes, at a price but at a fairly low one and there are people who might feel it is neither here nor there and tell the hunts not to appear.

But in practice it is very different.

I wonder which agents selling the land might be, very touchy professional subject for them as well if they are a local firm to Exmoor.

In the social and economic environment I would not want to own any land with such a covenant, because folk would always be 'on at one' to allow the hounds etc.

Does anybody know whether or not the LACS were involved in the banking crises and lost any money in Iceland?
 
Last edited:
Although expensive, and difficult, someone with enough money behind them may buy the land and start the process of removing the covenant.

LACS may find it very hard to sell with a covenant on it - I would presume they would extend that covenant to shooting as well as hunting, which makes the land on Exmoor pretty worthless...
 
Simsar said:
Jm didn't read all the bunf! Sorry.
Click to expand...

Simsar, my dear no need to apologise, none at all. There is so much going on on these forums. If one goes off-line for half an hour and the whole complextion and subject debated in the originating thread has probably changed on one's return. Kindest regards.

PS did you see the big one has topped 5000 views! Must be an issue somewhere - just love statistics.
 
Jugemental,

what a thread! Let us assume that the LACS manage to sell off land. I'm fairly sure that they will then spend the sale price, in litigation costs, whilst attempting to ensure that the new owner complies with the agreement.

As there is virtually no law of trespass, just how would the incumbent owner prevent entrance by hounds, and importantly, those trying their level best to retrieve them?

I say let the LACS keep the land. Without the sporting rights, it's worth very little. Perhaps the CA should put in for it. I'll make a healthy contribution!

If it actually goes ahead, then this has the makings of a serious spectator sport!

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
Jugemental,

what a thread! Let us assume that the LACS manage to sell off land. I'm fairly sure that they will then spend the sale price, in litigation costs, whilst attempting to ensure that the new owner complies with the agreement.

As there is virtually no law of trespass, just how would the incumbent owner prevent entrance by hounds, and importantly, those trying their level best to retrieve them?

I say let the LACS keep the land. Without the sporting rights, it's worth very little. Perhaps the CA should put in for it. I'll make a healthy contribution!

If it actually goes ahead, then this has the makings of a serious spectator sport!

Alec.
Click to expand...

This is very intersting. Trying to retain sporting rights in a Deed and Covenant is quite reasonable on paper and no doubt the lawyers will have a field day when it comes to their fees.

But trying to maintain enforcement in practice, is nearly impossible.

Suppose there is an infringiment, who does the LACS issue proceedings against for breach of covenant.

In my experince the only time Sporting Rights are retained, is when land is sold and so that the former owner can exercise those rights. Not to actually stop them.

In fact in my limited experience, it's impossible. However seems the LACs are strapped for cash and need to sell.

As you say this could be a good Spectator Sport, I shall have to start reading the Western Daily Press, they normally follow the fortunes or misfortunes of the LACS.
 
Simsar said:
Lets hope a hunting person buys it and we can hunt across it!
Click to expand...

They are retaining the sporting rights to all land they sell...

Sorry back to reading the rest of the comments. My apologies JM for not responding sooner to what is bound to be a fine thread...!
 
Alec Swan said:
Jugemental,

what a thread! Let us assume that the LACS manage to sell off land. I'm fairly sure that they will then spend the sale price, in litigation costs, whilst attempting to ensure that the new owner complies with the agreement.

If it actually goes ahead, then this has the makings of a serious spectator sport!

Alec.
Click to expand...

The sooner LACS go broke the better... Its not actually a bad plan.

Correct me if I am wrong but do "Sporting rights" not expire if not used for a certain length of time? Would the new owner not have a case there?
 
combat_claire said:
Sporting rights can be held in perpetuity and separately from the owner of the land.
Click to expand...

My grandmother has a fantastic saying for time like this. Sadly its far too rude to publish.

There must be a way of buying them - come on folks help me think of some ways of bankrupting LACS... They seem to be doing a fairly good job themselves but a little encouragement wouldn't go amiss. Can't anyone sue them for deflamation of charicter or something? Knowing the sly tricks they get up to we must be able to find something or some way...
 
J_M is right. Sporting rights can be retained, and in perpetuity, though almost always it is so that the vendor may benefit therefrom. Retaining them to simply prevent others from enjoying them would be "different", at the very least, and virtually impossible to monitor, or succeed in litigation!, or so I think.

It would make just as much sense for the CA, the CLA and the BFSS to have a whip round, and then find the LACS the funds which they need, but with "Conditions". Their idea is as daft as mine, though I'm not actually being serious, whilst I suspect that they are!!

Does anyone know who are the Bankers for the LACS, and how would I get access to their published accounts? Presumably they hide beneath the umbrella of a Charity, so, and also presumably, their accounts will be open to scrutiny.

Alec.

ETS, Paddyduo, could you not release your grandmother's quote, but with dots in the appropriate places? Failing that, PM me with it!! a.
 
Last edited:
Alec Swan said:
J_M is right. Sporting rights can be retained, and in perpetuity, though almost always it is so that the vendor may benefit therefrom. Retaining them to simply prevent others from enjoying them would be "different", at the very least, and virtually impossible to monitor, or succeed in litigation!, or so I think.

It would make just as much sense for the CA, the CLA and the BFSS to have a whip round, and then find the LACS the funds which they need, but with "Conditions". Their idea is as daft as mine, though I'm not actually being serious, whilst I suspect that they are!!

Does anyone know who are the Bankers for the LACS, and how would I get access to their published accounts? Presumably they hide beneath the umbrella of a Charity, so, and also presumably, their accounts will be open to scrutiny.

Alec.

ETS, Paddyduo, could you not release your grandmother's quote, but with dots in the appropriate places? Failing that, PM me with it!! a.
Click to expand...

Seems to me Alec Swan has hit the line in ideal scenting conditions!

Your word is my command:

Name & Registered Office:
THE LEAGUE AGAINST CRUEL SPORTS
NEW SPARLING HOUSE
HOLLOWAY HILL
GODALMING
SURREY
UNITED KINGDOM
GU7 1QZ
Company No. 04037610 and 02880406

Interestingly they have just had a remarkable number of changes to Directors Particulars:

DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MR MARK JOHN STRATTON / 01/01/2010

CH01 09/08/2010 DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MR LAWRENCE EDWIN PHIPPS / 01/01/2010

CH01 09/08/2010 DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MS PAULA LYNN CRAWFORD / 01/01/2010

CH01 09/08/2010 DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MR ANDREW MICHAEL NIGHTINGALE / 01/01/2010

CH01 09/08/2010 DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / PETER ANDERSON / 01/01/2010

CH01 09/08/2010 DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / ERIC BEECHEY / 01/01/2010

CH01 09/08/2010 DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MR IVOR STANLEY ANNETTS / 01/01/2010

CH03 09/08/2010 SECRETARY'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / DOUGLAS MACMILLAN BATCHELOR / 01/01/2010

All this information is freely available via Companies House www.companieshouse.co.uk

Just go into the site and click on Webcheck and then enter League Against Cruel Sports

For each item, it will cost you £1.00 via Debit Card accounts, latest return, company secretary, shareholding of directors etc etc.

But listen - be very careful what you say on this forum. They can hold IPC liable for defamation just like anybody else - DO DO BE CAREFUL!!!

I am not sure if there is a Debenture over the company's but you can all have fun finding out.
 
Eagle beat me to it.

All charities must publish their annual accounts to all and sundry. they must be freely and easily accessable to anyone who requests them.

Will go careful with what I say JM but... wouldn't it be nice not to have to scratch at that flea in the ear?
 
I am absolutely astonished not only by Mr Blair's revelations but by the fact the LACS is having to sell property in the West Country.

Did the LACS contribute to Labour Party funds?

IF THEY DID, WERE THEY IN A FINANCIAL POSITION TO REASONABLY GIVE MONEY TO THE LABOUR PARTY UNDER REASONABLE TRADING PROTOCOLS?

Perhaps they can enter this forum and state their case?

Coupled to the fact the LACS have two limited companies both of which have Debentures Registered.

League Against Cruel Sports (UK) Ltd Company number: 02880406

A Debenture was registered against the company on 5 January 2009

The League Against Cruel Sports Company number: 04037610

A Debenture was registered against the company on 21 July 2009.

The definition of a DEBENTURE: AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDEBTNESS OR A BOND OF A COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGING A DEBT AND PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST AT FIXED TERM INTERVALS
 
Last edited:
Judgemental said:
Did the LACS contribute to Labour Party funds?

IF THEY DID, WERE THEY IN A FINANCIAL POSITION TO REASONABLY GIVE MONEY TO THE LABOUR PARTY UNDER REASONABLE TRADING PROTOCOLS?
Click to expand...

It will be in there somewhere. It would require heavy scrutiny and going back over the years but it will be in there somewhere...

I don't have time to read the accounts properly but I did notice that they are "targeting young minds" for "educational purposes" and are activly seeking to involve themselves in schools and sending litrature written in a way that it can be used in school projects and lessons...

I am surprised that with so much set aside for a rainy day that it is not being used rather than sell the assets and take on loans...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top