The repeal

[Judgemental]

It is my understanding that most Chief Constables consider their resources much better deployed, than worrying about what a few decent, law abiding folk, in many instances pillars of the community, who make a contribution to public office and society and what they are doing when taking the air in the countryside.

Of course the French have things in the right order.

Not only do they bless their hounds and huntsmen in the nearest church to the meet, but the local Gendarme is; a) likely to be a member of the hunt and b) knows that it is in his or her interests to be seen to support the hunt who are a source of invaluable information, otherwise, he or she would simply be unable to do their job.

That said, I am aware that should any Frenchman or indeed other nationality be unwise enough to dissent (polite word for Anti or Sab - they don't really exist in France - at least not for very long) then they are left in no doubt what their fortune will be, should they fail to remove themselves from any hunt.

Perhaps we should adopt that particular position with robust resolve.

It is absurd how a section of British society has been criminalized and marginalized by, in particular Tony Blair and his dishonest government.

I use the word dishonest in the financial sense.

I have lost track of how many former Labour MPs are in prison or facing a prison sentence for fiddling their expenses.

Then there all those who did not get caught and are currently sitting in Parliament.

Hunting people make a huge contribution to the economy of this country, the rural economic infrastructure and the social cohesion, or kindred spirit that binds the countryside and country people together.

 

[Giles]

The conviction rate for MPs is certainly massively higher than for thise who go hunting!

 

[Judgemental]

The conviction rate for MPs is certainly massively higher than for thise who go hunting!

Giles that is the most excellent and erudite comment.

Perhaps it should become a slogan for car stickers and the like.

Definitely a fact that should be trailed by all who hunt and I hope the editor of Horse and Hound picks that fact up.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

It is my understanding that most Chief Constables consider their resources much better deployed, than worrying about what a few decent, law abiding folk, in many instances pillars of the community, who make a contribution to public office and society and what they are doing when taking the air in the countryside. QUOTE]

It is my understanding that the police were "steered away", from enforcing the ban by Hazel Blears on the orders of Tony Blair. Many of those actually taken to court have indeed been found guilty and not therefore law abiding.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

Of course the French have things in the right order.

Not only do they bless their hounds and huntsmen in the nearest church to the meet, but the local Gendarme is; a) likely to be a member of the hunt and b) knows that it is in his or her interests to be seen to support the hunt who are a source of invaluable information, otherwise, he or she would simply be unable to do their job.

That said, I am aware that should any Frenchman or indeed other nationality be unwise enough to dissent (polite word for Anti or Sab - they don't really exist in France - at least not for very long) then they are left in no doubt what their fortune will be, should they fail to remove themselves from any hunt.

Thankfully our police do not need to collaborate with certain groups to buy their support. Should a huntsperson become the victim of a crime it would be franky stupid for the hunt community not offer support to the police ivestigating due to the officers interest or lack of it in hunting.
France and the French people/police are a very confused lot when it comes to dissent as shown by the French strikes. The police turning a 'blind eye', whilst costing OUR economy millions at times. Not a great example the French.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

It is my understanding that most Chief Constables consider their resources much better deployed, than worrying about what a few decent, law abiding folk, in many instances pillars of the community, who make a contribution to public office and society and what they are doing when taking the air in the countryside. QUOTE]

It is my understanding that the police were "steered away", from enforcing the ban by Hazel Blears on the orders of Tony Blair. Many of those actually taken to court have indeed been found guilty and not therefore law abiding.

Tony Blair is quoted to have said:One of the domestic legislative measures i most regret.quoted in 2010.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

[QUOTEPerhaps we should adopt that particular position with robust resolve.

It is absurd how a section of British society has been criminalized and marginalized by, in particular Tony Blair and his dishonest government.

Perhaps it is better to leave law enforcement to the police not balaclava clad stewarding.
What is absurd in my opinion is suggesting a section of British Society has been criminalized. A law has been brought in for people to abide by like all other laws. You only become a criminal by breaking a law.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

Tony Blair is quoted to have said:One of the domestic legislative measures i most regret.quoted in 2010.

That is his right and doesnt make any difference to what I posted. I have started to notice you never address the valid points I make, in this instance the direction given by the then Home Secretary regarding proper policing or lack of it.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

That is his right and doesnt make any difference to what I posted. I have started to notice you never address the valid points I make, in this instance the direction given by the then Home Secretary regarding proper policing or lack of it.

-----because i ignore you, i thought that might be obvious now.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

[QUOTEHunting people make a huge contribution to the economy of this country, the rural economic infrastructure and the social cohesion, or kindred spirit that binds the countryside and country people together.[/QUOTE]

On a thread I shall not be posting on due to it being directed at an individual which I find rather childish, Fiagai posted this.........."Swap the Reich / Nazis with LACS and their ilk and their fequent misreporting of hunting activities etc and you get the same general level of garbage been directed through online media."

I wonder what the Reich/Nazis would have had to say about about a group/small community that spends/makes much of its money within its very own economic infrastructure. Social cohersion and kindred spirit only toward those behind its self made walls with distrust and dislike of those not from within.
Hunting and killing with dogs does not bind the countryside and country people together it creates a negative divide or would if legalised at a time when the countryside needs community more than ever.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

-----because i ignore you, i thought that might be obvious now.

Yes rosiefronfelen you ignore me as your last two posts show.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

your point being?

 

[Herne]

... a group/small community that spends/makes much of its money within its very own economic infrastructure...

A simple perusal of the evidence submitted to the Burn's Inquiry demonstrates that this is not the case.

The sumission of the British Equestrian Trade Association is particularly interesting, with regard to the impact of Hunting related spending on the wider equestrian industry as a whole.

Social cohersion and kindred spirit only toward those behind its self made walls with distrust and dislike of those not from within.
Hunting and killing with dogs does not bind the countryside and country people together it creates a negative divide or would if legalised at a time when the countryside needs community more than ever.

Easy to say, extremely hard to demosntrate.

Evidence of the sense of community created by Hunts, on the other hand, is legion - not least in that if hunts alienated as little as 10 or 20 percent of the farming community, hunting would immediately become impossible to organise.

Likewise, the hundreds of thousands of people who attend Hunt Meets on Boxing Day, Christmas Eve and New Year's Day, compared to the handfull of anti-hunt campaigners defintely indicate that the cohesive effect of hunts is infinitely more positive than negative.

 

[combat_claire]

Perhaps it is better to leave law enforcement to the police not balaclava clad stewarding.
What is absurd in my opinion is suggesting a section of British Society has been criminalized. A law has been brought in for people to abide by like all other laws. You only become a criminal by breaking a law.

The Hunt Monitors have however shown a huge enthusiasm for bringing spurious private prosecutions against individuals, who with a few exceptions have been largely found not guilty. The law is complex and despite abiding by the provisions contained therein this does not make you immune from the risk of private prosecution at the hands of these self-styled monitors.

The judges in the lower courts have consistently shown that even they do not truly understand the hunting act and criminalise people who have been doing their utmost to stay within the law. Tony Wright is a prime example whose case was later overturned on appeal.

Living in the West Country I am sure you are also familiar with the case of Maurice Scott who attended the police station to sort out a traffic incident involving a member of his pack and was arrested, held in the cells and eventually charged with illegal hunting alongside his huntsman and his whipper-in during 2006. The charges were eventually dropped in 2009 and I can only begin to imagine the stress that these people were under during this lengthy period.

Dragging these people through the judicial process has a huge effect on the individual and their families as the case makes its way through the legal system. This process necessarily takes time and after verdicts in the lower courts websites such as the delightful 'hunt scum gallery' takes great delight in speedily slapping 'guilty' banners over faces of hunt staff on the world wide web or uploading pictures of people whose only crime is to be following the hunt on the day a monitor attended. They aren't quite so efficient at removing these banners once the appeal verdict has found them not guilty.

I can only ask you to think how you would feel if having gone out one day and believed yourself to be acting within the current laws you were then subjected to a false allegation, plastered across the press and facing years of court cases to clear your name.

 

[combat_claire]

a group/small community that spends/makes much of its money within its very own economic infrastructure. Social cohersion and kindred spirit only toward those behind its self made walls with distrust and dislike of those not from within.
Hunting and killing with dogs does not bind the countryside and country people together it creates a negative divide or would if legalised at a time when the countryside needs community more than ever.

I think you may have a crumb stuck under your 'square brackets' key as something is going horribly wrong with your quoting ;-)

I can see that you live in the West Country so let us use an example of one village that I have become very familiar with over the past few years. Exford is a small, fairly typical village on Exmoor. It is a rural community who are bound together by their love of the countryside. Where the village deviates from the norm is that it supports two hotel/pubs, one bed and breakfast, one livery yard, several holiday cottages, one campsite, one village shop, one tea room and a garage.

During the summer months they enjoy excellent trade being close to some of the major tourism hot spots such as Dunkery, Horner, Dulverton and the like. This trade is heavily supplemented by country sports tourists who visit and spend a good deal of cash during the off-season months when traditional tourists are rare. These people book accommodation; they buy meals and drinks in the local pub; they pay for hirelings and shoot days and while visiting the area will also call in at other places of interest. A recent study has found that the value of shooting to the west country economy was a massive £32 million per annum. While the Exmoor National Park Authority makes reference to the important economic contribution that hunting makes to the area.

It is my hypothesis which is backed up by several academic studies including the PACEC report which is freely available online that country sports contribute uniquely to the rural economy during a period when traditional tourists are not visiting and this is something that should be considered in the arguments for repeal.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

your point being?

Proven.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

To be fair Herne I didnt say all of its money and you are absolutely correct about the benefit to wider equestrian industry. It should be noted also though that the money generated was not affected by the ban (regardless of the scare stories),nor would be by repeal.

"Evidence of the sense of community created by Hunts, on the other hand, is legion - not least in that if hunts alienated as little as 10 or 20 percent of the farming community, hunting would immediately become impossible to organise.

Likewise, the hundreds of thousands of people who attend Hunt Meets on Boxing Day, Christmas Eve and New Year's Day, compared to the handfull of anti-hunt campaigners defintely indicate that the cohesive effect of hunts is infinitely more positive than negative."

I am sure some in the farming community fully support the hunts. Similarly there are those who feel they should support or must support for various reasons.
The fact so few obvious anti's attend the Hunt Meets on those occasions is not hard to understand. However I know many, many friends and family's who attend those meets for the gathering/trip out and not because they support what the hunts pre ban used to do. When younger we used to go for a few drinks and a laugh. Now to meet up with those we dont see through the year. I dont disagree that many go to support the hunt but many do not and go for the hounds and the spectacle.

 

[Fiagai]

Aaaargghhhh...

Use of Quotes.....

I really cannot follow this thread!

Ok as everyone knows to quote something on a post, you hit the Quote button!

If you are editing that quote please remember that you must have the follwing characters to make the quote highlighting work

To start Quote - Please note 2 square brackets front and back
To end Quote - Please note 2 square brackets front and back with the use of a forward slash to indicate end of quote.

 

[combat_claire]

The fact so few obvious anti's attend the Hunt Meets on those occasions is not hard to understand. However I know many, many friends and family's who attend those meets for the gathering/trip out and not because they support what the hunts pre ban used to do. When younger we used to go for a few drinks and a laugh. Now to meet up with those we dont see through the year. I dont disagree that many go to support the hunt but many do not and go for the hounds and the spectacle.

I find that a very hard argument to swallow.

If you go to see the 'spectacle' then you will be fully aware of what that spectacle involves past and present. You will hardly be able to miss the speeches that have been made by hunt masters across the length and breadth of the country who exhort their followers to work hard to gain repeal and leave the assembled crowds in no doubt that the ban is very much temporary. The cheers that result from these speeches and the clapping as the hounds move off are not the cheers of people who are there to see a spectacle and don't really agree with the principles.

I am not claiming that every person stood on the street will hunt regularly or even come to another hunt meet during the season aside from the high days and holidays but I would hazard a guess that they turn out to support because they understand the importance of hunting and wish it to continue.

I would suggest that there are plenty of other places that you could visit and get a drink and catch up with friends without having to pick the exact village where the hunt are meeting.

Your friends going along to the meet but not agreeing with what the hunt stands for would be akin to me attending an English Defence League march just to see the 'spectacle' of them marching about with their banners but claiming not to support what they are calling for.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

Slow down please combat_claire, you type far quicker than I do

Any accusations made are of course investigated. It is as we know a very defensive CPS who decide if they will or will not risk going to court regardless of the crime. If people end up in court these days I do most of the time think there is a real possibility they have broken the law. If they are found not guilty then the law has still absolutely done its job.
I definately feel sorry for people wrongly accused for no reason other than spite. The effect on all concerned, family, reputation etc is cruel. Should anybody making false accusations suffer the consequences, 100%. But, that is due to the actions of the accuser, not the Hunting Act.
There are those that have been found guilty, then that conviction overturned on appeal. It does often happen with courts. That is not the fault of the Hunting Ban.
The judicial process is there for a reason and we all hope that any innocents are cleared as soon as possible well before court. Those that have been convicted do often end up in the public arena and I agree that must feel awful if eventually cleared. If I am to agree those that revel in such posting of pictures etc are out of order I happily agree but without getting into an argument hunts people are putting up names and pictures all over the internet of monitors who havent even been in a court of law. As bad if not worse and a very dangerous situation.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

I find that a very hard argument to swallow.

If you go to see the 'spectacle' then you will be fully aware of what that spectacle involves past and present. You will hardly be able to miss the speeches that have been made by hunt masters across the length and breadth of the country who exhort their followers to work hard to gain repeal and leave the assembled crowds in no doubt that the ban is very much temporary. The cheers that result from these speeches and the clapping as the hounds move off are not the cheers of people who are there to see a spectacle and don't really agree with the principles.

I am not claiming that every person stood on the street will hunt regularly or even come to another hunt meet during the season aside from the high days and holidays but I would hazard a guess that they turn out to support because they understand the importance of hunting and wish it to continue.

I would suggest that there are plenty of other places that you could visit and get a drink and catch up with friends without having to pick the exact village where the hunt are meeting.

Your friends going along to the meet but not agreeing with what the hunt stands for would be akin to me attending an English Defence League march just to see the 'spectacle' of them marching about with their banners but claiming not to support what they are calling for.

A quick reply to this post. When we attend the meet it is in our village/town on special days in our own village life and the hunt is a small part only of that day traditionally. That has nothing to do with the killing of a fox or the way in which it is killed for many, many people. It is not about picking a place to meet where the hunt will be.

 

[VoR]

Pardon me for doing such a thing, but, to go back to the original thread starter, Judgemental does make a very sensible point within what (I'm sure) is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the French way of life (I can't help thinking of the pub landlord and 'where would we be if there weren't any rules...').

The reference I relate to in particular is Chief Constables and the (potentially shrinking) resources they have available. Given that the Hunting Act has been deemed unworkable, even by it's chief architect Tony Blair, perhaps a vote on repeal should be brought forward to remove the need for police to throw any more resource in this direction and concentrate on far more serious issues which confront them?

 

[Binkle&Flip]

I am sorry combat_claire I have read your post number 15 with interest but have no time to reply. Back to work but will reply later.

 

[combat_claire]

A quick reply to this post. When we attend the meet it is in our village/town on special days in our own village life and the hunt is a small part only of that day traditionally. That has nothing to do with the killing of a fox or the way in which it is killed for many, many people. It is not about picking a place to meet where the hunt will be.

In that case why not go straight to the village pub or have drinks at home. Nobody is forcing you to stand out in the cold and watch the hunt meet. I just find it very strange that knowing full well what the hunt stands for you would still offer what amounts to tacit approval and be counted in the numbers of people supporting hunting that are later mentioned in the press coverage. If you really feel that strongly against hunting then why not take an anti-hunting banner with you and launch a peaceful protest!?

I look forward to your response to my earlier post and a mature debate.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

I think you may have a crumb stuck under your 'square brackets' key as something is going horribly wrong with your quoting ;-)

French stick combined with being a bit of a computer novice And I do rather like the smilie faces but keep getting told off for using them.

Firstly perhaps I should make clear when posting on this thread I have been doing so directly regarding the opening post therefore pre ban hunting and the possible reasons for repeal.
I fully understand your description of Exford and it sounds lovely. I agree country sports tourists are of great value to many counties and their villages but that doesnt mean it is the 'hunts', who are binding the countrysuide together. That being the point raised I disagreed with. Perhaps I am wrong but I dont suspect Exford has been affected adversly by the Hunting Act. Indeed the scaremongering from the CA regarding loss of jobs, cost to rural economies if the ban came in etc have turned out to not be true.
The hunts have continued to hunt hopefully within the law and hopefully the only threat to the hunts economy is the national economy itself which we are all facing.
As long as other forms of hunting continue, I dont understand how a positive proof that the Hunting Act didnt effect villages like Exford, can in any way be used as a suggestion repeal is needed or warranted.

 

[Giles]

I think you may have a crumb stuck under your 'square brackets' key as something is going horribly wrong with your quoting ;-)

French stick combined with being a bit of a computer novice And I do rather like the smilie faces but keep getting told off for using them.

Firstly perhaps I should make clear when posting on this thread I have been doing so directly regarding the opening post therefore pre ban hunting and the possible reasons for repeal.
I fully understand your description of Exford and it sounds lovely. I agree country sports tourists are of great value to many counties and their villages but that doesnt mean it is the 'hunts', who are binding the countrysuide together. That being the point raised I disagreed with. Perhaps I am wrong but I dont suspect Exford has been affected adversly by the Hunting Act. Indeed the scaremongering from the CA regarding loss of jobs, cost to rural economies if the ban came in etc have turned out to not be true.
The hunts have continued to hunt hopefully within the law and hopefully the only threat to the hunts economy is the national economy itself which we are all facing.
As long as other forms of hunting continue, I dont understand how a positive proof that the Hunting Act didnt effect villages like Exford, can in any way be used as a suggestion repeal is needed or warranted.

One of the problems is that LACS use the fact that hunts are acting in as near a way as possible to how they used to to create the impression that they are breaking the law. It's important to remember that the Hunting Act does not actually prevent the hounds from hunting. This of course does not sit well with those who think that animals being hunted by dogs is cruel.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

In that case why not go straight to the village pub or have drinks at home. Nobody is forcing you to stand out in the cold and watch the hunt meet. I just find it very strange that knowing full well what the hunt stands for you would still offer what amounts to tacit approval and be counted in the numbers of people supporting hunting that are later mentioned in the press coverage. If you really feel that strongly against hunting then why not take an anti-hunting banner with you and launch a peaceful protest!?

I look forward to your response to my earlier post and a mature debate.

Going straight to the pub would mean missing those friends and family that dont drink. As I have said before I am far from anti hunting. In fact I am an avid supporter now that the killing methods have been changed. Being counted in the numbers for press coverage doesnt worry me and why should it. I support hunting. Until my uncles recent retirement my family ran for many generations the local undertakers and were obviously very much part of the community. Whether or not people like myself supported killing foxes with dogs did not and should not matter. It is always great to see the hounds, the smartly dressed hunters on their so very well turned out horses. It is a great occasion. As a child I loved it as my children do now and I see no reason why we should be excluded or exclude ourselves simply because I dont want foxes killed by a pack of dogs.
When hubby was called to work in London recently I took the opportunity to take the children for a visit. One of theirs and my favourites sights were the Guardsmen changing the guard at Buckingham Palace. So smart in their scarlet tunics marching in time with the band playing. Strangely I enjoyed it even though I hate the thought of war and the killing the soldiers may have been involved in. Perhaps I should have taken an anti war banner to hold as we enjoyed the spectacle lol

 

[JenHunt]

It is my understanding that the police were "steered away", from enforcing the ban by Hazel Blears on the orders of Tony Blair. Many of those actually taken to court have indeed been found guilty and not therefore law abiding.

perhaps binkle, they were "steered away" from enforcing the ban as Hazel Blears realised, wisely, that the police have much much better things to be doing than traipsing over the countryside after law abiding folk who are quietly going about their traditions.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

One of the problems is that LACS use the fact that hunts are acting in as near a way as possible to how they used to to create the impression that they are breaking the law. It's important to remember that the Hunting Act does not actually prevent the hounds from hunting. This of course does not sit well with those who think that animals being hunted by dogs is cruel.

I fully agree with you Giles about LACS but anybody who knows about this law should understand that it was brought in to control the dispatch method of foxes, not ban hunting with hounds. In all honesty the hunts who are now trail hunting should switch to drag hunting to prevent accidents and give the antis nothing to complain about or report. As for cubbing Sorry, Autumn Hunting

 

[Binkle&Flip]

perhaps binkle, they were "steered away" from enforcing the ban as Hazel Blears realised, wisely, that the police have much much better things to be doing than traipsing over the countryside after law abiding folk who are quietly going about their traditions.

Perhaps she thought such law abiding folk if such, would abide by the law. Oh and "tradition"? Please dont go down that horrifying road to our countries shamefull past.