EAST KENT
Well-Known Member
Well thank God for that.
THE REUNION BBC Radio 4, Sunday 4th September at 11.15am
- Thread starter Ravenwood
- Start date
Well thank God for that.
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
As far as I can see what you are saying Herne is a smokescreen.
Anybody who hunts and has an interest in hunting, should avoid all these people who say, "you can't do this and you can't do that in the House of Commons".
Everybody should get out in their hunts and start bending the ears of Chariman, Masters, Secretaries and any other person who has any influence.
They must make all these MPs who were elected to Parliament on the Hunting Ticket, get on with dismantling the Hunting Act 2004.
They were all elected to the above effect and not one MP has done anything to facilitate even the remotest whiff of the Hunting Act 2004, in the House of Commons.
As East Kent, said we were all caused to vote accordingly under false pretences.
I don't care what the arithmatic of the House of Commons adds up to in terms of a majority or lack of it, it is still possible to get some amendments passed.
As I say Section 8 or at least part of it, would easily pass through both Houses of Parliament if properly conducted and with effort.
That's what really irritates, is the fact none of these MP's are putting the slightest effort into any sort of dismantling or repeal.
JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
Oh join the real world JM! VERY few Conservative MPs WERE elected 'on the hunting ticket' - although hunting support certainly helped with majorities in quite a few constituencies! The vast majority were elected on the 'get bloody Labour out ticket'! Hunting was ON the Conservative manifesto - but sorting out the country is a rather higher priority - even for most hunting people!!
Trying to do ANYTHING with the Hunting Act at this stage would be the worst case of "fiddling while Rome burns" in the last 100 years! It would also be immensely dangerous! ANY attempt to amend the Hunting Act would open up the floodgates to anti MPs to also put forward amendments strengthening the Act!! And with the numbers as they are, that's what would happen!
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
Does it seem strange, to anyone else, that the use of the words "Whips" from the viewpoint of the parliamentarians (thank God for spell check!), is a hunting term?
I agree with you, Mrs. George, if the issue went to a free vote, then without question, hunting would struggle under even more draconian and pointless conditions.
J_M, I could never be described as a defeatist, but I see no point in starting a fight, which cannot be won. The future? Who knows? For now, there are far more pressing issues for government to deal with, though whether they will actually be able to influence change, is another matter!
We are all aware of our recent history, and Blair's unbelievable admissions, but most, I suspect work on the basis, that half a loaf, is better than none at all; irksome though that may be.
Alec.
I agree with you, Mrs. George, if the issue went to a free vote, then without question, hunting would struggle under even more draconian and pointless conditions.
J_M, I could never be described as a defeatist, but I see no point in starting a fight, which cannot be won. The future? Who knows? For now, there are far more pressing issues for government to deal with, though whether they will actually be able to influence change, is another matter!
We are all aware of our recent history, and Blair's unbelievable admissions, but most, I suspect work on the basis, that half a loaf, is better than none at all; irksome though that may be.
Alec.
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
Section 8 Subsection 6 Under Search and Seizure of the Hunting Act 2004 states:
(6)The exercise of a power (by a Police Officer) under this section does not require a warrant .
For the moment and benefit of this discussion, let us forget we are talking about the Hunting Act 2004; let us say we are talking about a potential/alleged offence – any non-serious offence.
Unless it is a matter of National Security or a serious crime such a murder etc, a Police Office requires a warrant to search premises.
Somebody do please tell me when that is not the case?
Thus the hunting community are being discriminated against.
There is nothing, Mrs George, Alec, and Herne to stop a Police Officer drawing up behind you as you arrive back in your yard and parking in your yard or indeed to be waiting for you, after hunting and saying that he proposes to search your premises without a warrant because he, the constable reasonably suspects you have committed an offence under the Hunting Act 2004. Simply because you were following hounds and indeed on your feet. Anybody known to the police as a supporter of hunting can have their premises (save for a dwelling) searched at any time of day or night by a Police Officer without a warrant.
My contention is solely the issue of not needing a warrant from a Magistrate.
Somebody has started a thread asking about discrimination - if that aint discrimination I don't know what is?
I guarantee that if one of our supporting MP's bothered to do something about this, the Clerks sitting at the table of the House of Commons would give him or her a listing. OK tabling an Early Day Motion.
It is simply not justified not to have to have a warrant and anybody MP who is opposed to hunting and said but I am going to oppose the lifting of non-requirement of a police officer to have a warrant, might as well say, "police officers need not have warrants for any searching of any premises for any reason".
I have spoken to numerous people and nobody knew what Section 8 Subsection 6 says.
I blame the Countryside Alliance and individual hunts for not properly advising and spelling the clause out to their supporters.
There needs to be a wholesale wake-up call on this very specific subject.
Now Mrs George, Herne and anybody else, tell me why that particular clause could not be amended forthwith?
(6)The exercise of a power (by a Police Officer) under this section does not require a warrant .
For the moment and benefit of this discussion, let us forget we are talking about the Hunting Act 2004; let us say we are talking about a potential/alleged offence – any non-serious offence.
Unless it is a matter of National Security or a serious crime such a murder etc, a Police Office requires a warrant to search premises.
Somebody do please tell me when that is not the case?
Thus the hunting community are being discriminated against.
There is nothing, Mrs George, Alec, and Herne to stop a Police Officer drawing up behind you as you arrive back in your yard and parking in your yard or indeed to be waiting for you, after hunting and saying that he proposes to search your premises without a warrant because he, the constable reasonably suspects you have committed an offence under the Hunting Act 2004. Simply because you were following hounds and indeed on your feet. Anybody known to the police as a supporter of hunting can have their premises (save for a dwelling) searched at any time of day or night by a Police Officer without a warrant.
My contention is solely the issue of not needing a warrant from a Magistrate.
Somebody has started a thread asking about discrimination - if that aint discrimination I don't know what is?
I guarantee that if one of our supporting MP's bothered to do something about this, the Clerks sitting at the table of the House of Commons would give him or her a listing. OK tabling an Early Day Motion.
It is simply not justified not to have to have a warrant and anybody MP who is opposed to hunting and said but I am going to oppose the lifting of non-requirement of a police officer to have a warrant, might as well say, "police officers need not have warrants for any searching of any premises for any reason".
I have spoken to numerous people and nobody knew what Section 8 Subsection 6 says.
I blame the Countryside Alliance and individual hunts for not properly advising and spelling the clause out to their supporters.
There needs to be a wholesale wake-up call on this very specific subject.
Now Mrs George, Herne and anybody else, tell me why that particular clause could not be amended forthwith?
Last edited:
JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
Yawn! You're actually wrong JM. The police can enter and search any premises on grounds of 'probable cause'. Probable cause means that a reasonable person would believe that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed, or was going to be committed.
So all police need is a report that hunt X had been seen hunting foxes with hounds and ANY person who had been out with that hunt that day - or who was formally connected to that hunt - could be stopped and searched anyway (if the police could be bothered - and they're generally not!)
So all police need is a report that hunt X had been seen hunting foxes with hounds and ANY person who had been out with that hunt that day - or who was formally connected to that hunt - could be stopped and searched anyway (if the police could be bothered - and they're generally not!)
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
Then on the bais of your argument the very existence of a hunt and it's kennels could be contruded as probable cause.
However you are wrong, a police officer may not enter any premises, save in exceptional circmstances without a warrant to search for evidence, save for those premises connect with hunting.
Whether or not the police are bothered or not, is not the point. The point is that it is on the statute and is discrimanatory and should be removed forthwith.
Neither the Countryside Alliance or the MFHA are doing anything or enough to have Subsection 6 of Section 8 removed.
JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
I don't know whether it's your ability to read that is impaired JM - or if it is your ability to comprehend (and spell!!) The existence of a hunt - and its kennels - cannot be construed as 'probable cause' because various forms of hunting (drag, trail etc.) are legal, as are gun packs, and packs using a bird of prey!
And I'm NOT wrong about probable cause - there are dozens of incidents every week in every police authority where officers enter and search premises (and people) on 'probable cause'. Some of them are undoubtedly misuse of probable cause but - unless you are absolutely whiter than white - the chances of proving it (and having any evidence retrieved in the search excluded from evidence) are quite slim.
The reason the Countryside Alliance and the MFHA are doing nothing to have Subsection 6 of Section 8 removed is that they have been advised against it - both on legal grounds - and because of the risk of opening up the Act for further amendment that would be distinctly unhelpful!
You are flogging a dead horse!
And I'm NOT wrong about probable cause - there are dozens of incidents every week in every police authority where officers enter and search premises (and people) on 'probable cause'. Some of them are undoubtedly misuse of probable cause but - unless you are absolutely whiter than white - the chances of proving it (and having any evidence retrieved in the search excluded from evidence) are quite slim.
The reason the Countryside Alliance and the MFHA are doing nothing to have Subsection 6 of Section 8 removed is that they have been advised against it - both on legal grounds - and because of the risk of opening up the Act for further amendment that would be distinctly unhelpful!
You are flogging a dead horse!
Aesculus
Active Member
Although the situation has been beautifully summarised by Janet and Herne, the facts relating to the powers of a police officer are not exclusive the the Hunting Act. The powers which have existed for for some time (according to my old training manual) are as follows:-
The police are given powers to enter premises without a warrant by many Acts of Parliament.
For example, under the Gaming Act 1968 they have power to enter licensed premises to carry out inspections. Other powers include searches for drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and for firearms under the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).
In addition, they may have the right to enter premises without a warrant to deal with or prevent a breach of the peace. PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) provides them with several other powers:
To execute a warrant of arrest
To arrest someone for an arrestable offence.
To arrest someone for various offences under the Public Order Acts 1936 and 1986 - such as riot, violent disorder, affray, threatening behaviour and disorderly conduct; the Criminal Law Act 1977 - offences relating to trespass - and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 - failure to comply with an interim possession order.
To recapture a person who has escaped from lawful custody.
To arrest a child or young person who has been remanded or committed to local authority accommodation.
To save life or limb or prevent serious damage to property.
The police officer need not be in uniform unless entering under a power set out in the Public Order Acts or the Criminal Law Act. The police officer may search the premises, but the power of search is only a power to search to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose for which the power of entry is exercised
The police have powers to enter, or to enter and search, your premises for many reasons. Some of these powers are set out in PACE but the police also have power to enter and search under other statutes, for instance the Theft Act 1968. It should be noted that the police do not always need to have a search warrant, although they must always have a reason for the search.
The PACE Code of Practice, Code B, sets out how the police should conduct searches.
Powers of entry and search must be fully justified before use and the police should always consider whether their objectives could be met by other less obtrusive means. If the police exceed their powers any evidence obtained as a result may not be admissible as evidence in a trial.
I do hope this puts an end to any doubt.
Regards
Aesculus
The police are given powers to enter premises without a warrant by many Acts of Parliament.
For example, under the Gaming Act 1968 they have power to enter licensed premises to carry out inspections. Other powers include searches for drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and for firearms under the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).
In addition, they may have the right to enter premises without a warrant to deal with or prevent a breach of the peace. PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) provides them with several other powers:
To execute a warrant of arrest
To arrest someone for an arrestable offence.
To arrest someone for various offences under the Public Order Acts 1936 and 1986 - such as riot, violent disorder, affray, threatening behaviour and disorderly conduct; the Criminal Law Act 1977 - offences relating to trespass - and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 - failure to comply with an interim possession order.
To recapture a person who has escaped from lawful custody.
To arrest a child or young person who has been remanded or committed to local authority accommodation.
To save life or limb or prevent serious damage to property.
The police officer need not be in uniform unless entering under a power set out in the Public Order Acts or the Criminal Law Act. The police officer may search the premises, but the power of search is only a power to search to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose for which the power of entry is exercised
The police have powers to enter, or to enter and search, your premises for many reasons. Some of these powers are set out in PACE but the police also have power to enter and search under other statutes, for instance the Theft Act 1968. It should be noted that the police do not always need to have a search warrant, although they must always have a reason for the search.
The PACE Code of Practice, Code B, sets out how the police should conduct searches.
Powers of entry and search must be fully justified before use and the police should always consider whether their objectives could be met by other less obtrusive means. If the police exceed their powers any evidence obtained as a result may not be admissible as evidence in a trial.
I do hope this puts an end to any doubt.
Regards
Aesculus
Herne
Well-Known Member
It's gone very quiet in here...
Nothing more to say, JM?
As is the term "Riot" - as in when hounds hunt the wrong thing.
It stems from the Old English word for Rabbit, which is why, when hounds hunt rabbits, or other unintended species, the term is "Ware (as in beware) Riot".
This hunting term for groups of hounds misbehaving then passed into the legal sphere for groups of people misbehaving.
So when the Police confront an unruly Mob and "Read the Riot Act", they are actually reading the "Rabbit Act", which always rather amuses me.
Nothing more to say, JM?
Does it seem strange, to anyone else, that the use of the words "Whips" from the viewpoint of the parliamentarians (thank God for spell check!), is a hunting term?
As is the term "Riot" - as in when hounds hunt the wrong thing.
It stems from the Old English word for Rabbit, which is why, when hounds hunt rabbits, or other unintended species, the term is "Ware (as in beware) Riot".
This hunting term for groups of hounds misbehaving then passed into the legal sphere for groups of people misbehaving.
So when the Police confront an unruly Mob and "Read the Riot Act", they are actually reading the "Rabbit Act", which always rather amuses me.
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
Herne the words of wisdom from Mrs George sum up the whole situation when she said in her last post:
" The reason the Countryside Alliance and the MFHA are doing nothing to have Subsection 6 of Section 8 removed is that they have been advised against it". You are flogging a dead horse!"
So that's an end of of the whole subject. The Ban will never be repealed, indeed nothing will ever come back onto the floor of the House of Commons.
Presumably such information really reflects the position of the MFHA and the Countryside Alliance, that there is simply no hope.
My feeling it's all over, hunting is finished, kaput, gone for ever as we knew it, there is nothing more to be said! Probably going to sell the horses. There is no point in paying vast sums of money to have a hack round the countryside. I can do that in any event - for nothing.
Last edited:
JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
That is certainly NOT the position of the CA - nor the MFHA. There IS hope - and I don't think for a moment that the CA nor the MFHA have abandoned hope. I certainly haven't!! Neither has Herne - nor any serious hunting person who has thought the matter through REALISTICALLY!!
However, lots of jumping up and down is not going to work! Nor is tilting at windmills! WHEN the political climate is in our favour, then the Hunting Act will be suitably dealt with in its entireity, either by complete repeal - or via useful amendments!
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
Mrs George, I recollect my first encounter or shall we say awareness of your good self was circa 1975/78, give or take I cannot be precise as to the exact year. I was sitting in my London abode watching the television and you flashed up on the screen. Perhaps you were in company with a man called Duke. On the other hand, I might be wrong on that point?
You both seemed to have some useful horses about and you both had a great deal to say about hunting.
The following day, I happen to have a meeting with the late Bob Dean of Pearl and Dean and his partner the late Raymond Brookes-Ward.
Your television interview was a hot topic of conversation. Not that that was the purpose of the meeting.
I shall always remember Raymond saying, "what they need to do is look at the big picture".
I suppose in his and Bob Dean's professional capacity there was a certain irony in that comment.
Now, some 35 years on I have the luxury of dialogue with you via this forum and you said above:
"WHEN the political climate is in our favour, then the Hunting Act will be suitably dealt with in its entirety, either by complete repeal - or via useful amendments".
The question, in the context of the big picture is WHEN?
Last edited:
rosie fronfelen
Well-Known Member
One can hope,theres always hope but i think itwill remain on the back burner,so i'm with your opinions JM......
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
J_M,
a good post.
Alec.
a good post.
Alec.
JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
Wrong on both points, JM - I wasn't even in the UK in 1975/78!! And the ONLY time Edward Duke and I shared a tv programme was after he had sacked me - and he had 'resigned' - in a program called 'Blood on the Carpet' which was 1st screened very late in 1998-early 1999.
One could argue that the formation of the CA was an attempt to look at the big picture - although IMHO - it was too little, too late! If it had been done in the late '60s/early '70s before the AR movement got such a hold on hearts and minds regarding hunting, we probably wouldn't have a ban today!
No-one could have predicted a Conservative/LibDem Alliance running the country! Only some of the smarter economists (who no-one was listening to during the Labour administration) would have predicted the massive economic crunch the world (including the UK) has faced over the past few years!
I certainly can't predict when the economy will recover, or whether the Conservatives can get a decent working majority at the next election. The latter is probably dependent on the former happening at least 12 months BEFORE the next election!
1t34
Well-Known Member
I am a lurker not a poster on this forum. I don't represent any organisation etc. But I have read this thread and a couple of things struck me. The majority of posters are correct in their assumption that at a national level any amendments to this act would fail miserably. Its a fact and there it is, there is not enough support and more fool anyone who thinks an MP will come through on a single issue issue - when there are much more pressing issues which will be pivotal in any future election. Personally I thing the chances of much being achieved at a national level even in the medium term are slim.
However, I had a mad idea, I think the CA should explore some of the new legislation such as the Localism Bill. This offers the opportunity for local communities to set up referendums to look at local issues and is meant to deal with the burden of unnecessary regulation etc. It may seem completely off the wall (and probably is!!) But imagine a strong hunting community seeking to challenge this at a local level, perhaps two or three communities all trying this out. It could be a strong local voice taking action, avoiding the need for a national debate!!
Sorry if this is deeply unhelpful, I've just been mulling it over.
However, I had a mad idea, I think the CA should explore some of the new legislation such as the Localism Bill. This offers the opportunity for local communities to set up referendums to look at local issues and is meant to deal with the burden of unnecessary regulation etc. It may seem completely off the wall (and probably is!!) But imagine a strong hunting community seeking to challenge this at a local level, perhaps two or three communities all trying this out. It could be a strong local voice taking action, avoiding the need for a national debate!!
Sorry if this is deeply unhelpful, I've just been mulling it over.
JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
Mmm .. I'm not sure that is either mad - or unhelpful! It would have to be in VERY carefully selected areas, of course: a defeat - even at local level - would be counter-productive. I don't know how it would be best organised/managed etc. But I know someone who WOULD know if it's feasible - I'll drop him a line!
EAST KENT
Well-Known Member
Total agrreement JM, all this stuff about "the right time"..that is never, is`nt it? What a stupid world UK has become,recipe provider cancelled.
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
This is a most serious situation because there are a large number of supporters living in the belief, that the political repeal process is actually operational.
It is wholly misleading not to state the exact position and the MFHA and Countryside Alliance should be very clear as to EXACTLY WHEN a repeal will be enacted.
They are seeking support for a repeal and more imprtantly, Members of Parliament are getting themsleves elected on a ticket that they support hunting.
At the end of the day, unless a transparent postion is declared, many hunting supporters will simply vote with their cheque books by leaving them to gather moth and dust!
Herne
Well-Known Member
You two are being completely illogical about this.
If Labour had won the last election, you would not be sitting there saying "Why haven't the Conservatives delivered on repeal yet?", because the answer would be obvious - they wouldn't have the power yet.
Well this is exactly the same situation. The Conservatives may have got enough seats to lead a coalition, but the "Repeal Party" did not. The "Ban Party" is still in power, so, as in 2005, the "Repeal Party" cannot deliver yet. YET.
Thus we need to continue our work to get enough "Repeal Party" MPs into Parliament to form a majority. Then we will get repeal.
What you are doing is akin to saying “Well, I gave Cancer Research fifty quid last year and the lying so-and-sos haven’t gone and cured cancer yet. Well, that’s that. I’m not giving them any more money and if I get cancer, I’ll just go and die of it, That’ll teach ‘em!”
If Labour had won the last election, you would not be sitting there saying "Why haven't the Conservatives delivered on repeal yet?", because the answer would be obvious - they wouldn't have the power yet.
Well this is exactly the same situation. The Conservatives may have got enough seats to lead a coalition, but the "Repeal Party" did not. The "Ban Party" is still in power, so, as in 2005, the "Repeal Party" cannot deliver yet. YET.
Thus we need to continue our work to get enough "Repeal Party" MPs into Parliament to form a majority. Then we will get repeal.
What you are doing is akin to saying “Well, I gave Cancer Research fifty quid last year and the lying so-and-sos haven’t gone and cured cancer yet. Well, that’s that. I’m not giving them any more money and if I get cancer, I’ll just go and die of it, That’ll teach ‘em!”
combat_claire
Well-Known Member
This is scarily reminiscent of that select group of people who with the prospect of the ban being forced through jumped ship to France & Ireland stating that life was over as they know it. Once again this is the time for a bit of patience and support of your local packs while the political and economic situation overcomes the turbulence and not the time for diva style histrionics.
EAST KENT
Well-Known Member
So,both of us dare to disagree with you? Well that`s tough,it would`nt be France that beckons ,more like Eire. Fortunately that is a short hop over to good friends so an occasional cheapie trip is possible.
There comes a point where patiance runs thin over long awaited promises in the wind.We know all the reasons and excuses,but JM is quite correct,why pay excorbitant money to hack around the countryside trailling a pack on a pointless exercise?
The good days are gone,they will not be coming back,get used to it;therefore there is no call for un-necessary outlay on that purveyer of recipes ,raffles for gas guzzling motors that normal folk could never afford to fill anyway.
Can you point out exactly WHAT success has been achieved by the CA?? I cannot think of anything! Oh,a few good days out at Demos,they were fun,but otherwise????
There comes a point where patiance runs thin over long awaited promises in the wind.We know all the reasons and excuses,but JM is quite correct,why pay excorbitant money to hack around the countryside trailling a pack on a pointless exercise?
The good days are gone,they will not be coming back,get used to it;therefore there is no call for un-necessary outlay on that purveyer of recipes ,raffles for gas guzzling motors that normal folk could never afford to fill anyway.
Can you point out exactly WHAT success has been achieved by the CA?? I cannot think of anything! Oh,a few good days out at Demos,they were fun,but otherwise????
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
So Herne, when you say, “Thus we need to continue our work to get enough "Repeal Party" MPs into Parliament to form a majority. Then we will get repeal”.
What are you and others doing about all these Blue Foxes, the Conservative Females who keep quiet about their views on hunting until after they are elected, then when elected, declare they are anti-hunting and so we are told are the main obstacle to repeal. They need sorting out by the whips.
Or in the alternative the lovely Mrs Caroline Nokes, MP for Romsey and Waterside who was plainly elected on a hunting ticket, what has she done for the cause?
What you are saying is, 'you must support and finance all these ‘potentials’ and then they don’t deliver or in the extreme cases go against hunting'. THey all need to be compromised and frankly I don't much care how they are compromised!
I would be happy to see a bit of devious political horse-trading in the House of Commons, even if it failed, simply so we knew somebody was trying to do something?
I am afraid that if this government does not deliver that’s it, kaput, finished.
Claire, you said, “Once again this is the time for a bit of patience and support of your local packs while the political and economic situation overcomes the turbulence and not the time for diva style histrionics”.
Economic situation! Is it, next you will be telling us it’s all down to the Rogue Trader at the Union Bank of Switzerland or the Greek default.
It is a question of making and I stress making all these Conservative and LiBDem MPs vote the right way and do as they are told.
What are you and others doing about all these Blue Foxes, the Conservative Females who keep quiet about their views on hunting until after they are elected, then when elected, declare they are anti-hunting and so we are told are the main obstacle to repeal. They need sorting out by the whips.
Or in the alternative the lovely Mrs Caroline Nokes, MP for Romsey and Waterside who was plainly elected on a hunting ticket, what has she done for the cause?
What you are saying is, 'you must support and finance all these ‘potentials’ and then they don’t deliver or in the extreme cases go against hunting'. THey all need to be compromised and frankly I don't much care how they are compromised!
I would be happy to see a bit of devious political horse-trading in the House of Commons, even if it failed, simply so we knew somebody was trying to do something?
I am afraid that if this government does not deliver that’s it, kaput, finished.
Claire, you said, “Once again this is the time for a bit of patience and support of your local packs while the political and economic situation overcomes the turbulence and not the time for diva style histrionics”.
Economic situation! Is it, next you will be telling us it’s all down to the Rogue Trader at the Union Bank of Switzerland or the Greek default.
It is a question of making and I stress making all these Conservative and LiBDem MPs vote the right way and do as they are told.
Last edited:
Herne
Well-Known Member
Can you point out exactly WHAT success has been achieved by the CA?? I cannot think of anything! Oh,a few good days out at Demos,they were fun,but otherwise????
Yes, we kept hunting unbanned for far longer than any of the political commentators thought was possible when New Labour had its landslide victory in 1997.
We managed to persuade the House of Lords, even though Tony Blair became the Prime Minister to ennoble more of his cronies than any other in history, to fight the ban right out to the bitter end.
We have all but one of the national daily newspapers pretty much on our side.
We had the weak-wristed Prime Minister who allowed the debacle occur in the first place admit that it was not just a mistake, but the thing he regretted most.
We have one of the big two political Parties publicly committed to enabling repeal.
And we had the antis who drafted the ban in a situation where in order to get it though at all, they had to draft such a complicated mish-mash of self-contradictory b-ll-x that (a) hunts are able to make use of loopholes and (b) the Police and CPS hate it and want it repealed.
We are in a situation where Hunts are able to keep going for the moment and where repeal is even on the political agenda.
So, no that might not have been winning the war, but it has put us in a good place to keep fighting.
That is as a result of the Countryside Alliance’s policies since 1998.
Now, were there other policies that, had they been adopted could have won the war and avoided the Ban altogether? If yes, then maybe the Alliance got it wrong, but personally, I don’t believe so. (although I know Janet George may not agree with me on this).
I was involved in talking to MPs and Peers and they universally informed us that the “Let’s block the M25, that’ll frighten them” sort of tactics would turn more parliamentarians off than put on our side.
I’ll give you an example. I was main steward for the Countryside Alliance Action Office’s “Ring of Light” Demo in December 2003, which, mainly though the efforts of C.A.N. (Hi, Janet) got hijacked and turned into a mini-riot in Parliament Square. So, that event didn’t achieve the photo-opportunity that we had planned for it, and it made lots of hunting people feel better because they had scuffled with police and at down in the road, but what was its political effect?
How many anti-hunting MPs said “Ooo, those hunters are so big and scary – I won’t dare vote to ban hunting any more?” Answer: None.
But what did happen was that three cross-bench members of the House of Lords said that they would not support people who behaved in such appalling manner and withdrew their assistance in opposing the Ban.
So this Demo, where all the hunting folk went home thinking, “Wow, this time we really achieved something” actually quantifiably cost us support rather than gained it.
So, regardless of the fact that we might have lost the battle to prevent the ban from being imposed, you have to ask “Were there any tactics that would have worked?” and if not, if the imposition of the Ban was inevitable because of Labour’s huge majority, you then have to ask, “which tactics would put us in the best position to start fighting for Repeal”.
The answer is the tactics that were adopted by the Countryside Alliance.
Herne
Well-Known Member
Sadly, Judgemental, you have a deluded idea of how politics works.
EAST KENT
Well-Known Member
Bearing in mind the enormous immigrant population ,almost all of it urban ,do you not think getting a repeal a ridiculous ambition?
This country is hugely urban now,without a jot of country knowledge to be seen.As it stands right now I find it inconcievable that a vote for repeal would be possible.It is the will of the majority,accept it. Country people for the most part think it is ridiculous,but they are not in the majority.Sadly we are over run by urbanites,and I think it is better not to dwell on false promises and just get on with it as best we are able.
This country is hugely urban now,without a jot of country knowledge to be seen.As it stands right now I find it inconcievable that a vote for repeal would be possible.It is the will of the majority,accept it. Country people for the most part think it is ridiculous,but they are not in the majority.Sadly we are over run by urbanites,and I think it is better not to dwell on false promises and just get on with it as best we are able.
Herne
Well-Known Member
Frankly, no.
It is the duty of democracy to prevent minorities from unjust oppression - and that applies to us every bit as much as it does to racism, sexism or agism.
Fortunately for future generations of hunters, defeatism like yours is still in the minority in the Hunting World.
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." -- James Bovard
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson:
"In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities." -- Lord Acton
"In popular governments [democracies], minorities constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies..." --- John Adams
"There is no maxim which is more liable to be misapplied than that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong." James Madison (Father of the US Constitution)
"Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it." Maimonides
"It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny." -- James Fenimore Cooper
JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
No - I don't agree completely! We could have expected hunting to be banned courtesy of Mike Foster's PMB in 1997 - or with a Government Bill in 1998. After all, Labour was committed to banning hunting. The reasons for hunting's survival into the 21st C. were primarily the Countryside Rally (and rural Marches) of 1997 and the Countryside March of 1998 - BOTH organised by the British Field Sports Society (although the CA has conveniently forgotten that!
) They got Blair rather frightened of the consequences of letting hunting be banned!Then the Alliance came into being - and started a policy of 1) being 'nice' to Labour; and 2) trying to wrap hunting up in the cloak of concern for wider rural issues! The result of this was that MANY Labour MPs - and Ministers - believed that the CA was no longer as concerned about hunting - and could be 'bought off' with promises of cash for rural transport etc etc etc. The departure of Duke, the delay in replacing him - and then replacing him with someone who was NOT a campaigner (and hardly EVER opened his mouth about hunting) didn't help - the CA still had very good people, but was effectively rudderless!
That opened the door for smaller groups such as C.A.N. - and Duke's so-called Real CA - virtually ALL of whose members were disenchanted members of the CA!!
A mini Riot was CERTAINLY not part of C.A.N.'s plans - as I said earlier, C.A.N.'s members were also CA members and were perfectly entitled to be there! I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that it was ONLY C.A.N. members who acted foolishly. But the MAIN cause of the trouble that day was the behaviour of the police who were VERY heavy-handed (they had been leant on from on high to ensure no-one stormed Parliament - although there were NO plans to do THAT! The Police response was totally different from at the earlier C.A.N. demo - when we did peacefully sit down in the street, and agreed a time with senior police officers when we would clear the street! (And did!)
The ONLY reason for 'naughty' demos is to get media attention to the real arguments! C.A.N. did that pretty effectively with some mini-motorway 'blockades' - which in reality were totally trivial apart from one in Wales which went a bit overboard. But we got GOOD and primarily positive media coverage - particularly in Birmingham (because we DIDN'T block the M42 North!!
) That was my chief gripe with Duke's group when they dumped carcases at Labour Party conference - and went to ground! I had all the media coming onto me - and was happy to condemn the action out of hand as 'tasteless', 'misguided', 'environmentally irresponsible' etc. - while stressing the message that hunts WERE responsible for a huge amount of deadstock collection for farmers.IF the CA had kept up the impetus from 1998, then I think there's a chance that Tony Blair and his Ministers might not have 'rolled over' to their backbenchers; but we'll never know for sure! Hunting has always been an easy bone to throw at rabid backbenchers when Labour needed their support for something unpopular! But doubt was definitely created about the CA's resolve to defend hunting to the death!
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
There is considerable truth in terms of fact being contributed to this debate.
However the fundamental factor that so many overlook is that the issue, becomes the property of urban dwellers once it reaches the House of Commons.
Too much provincial parocialism has governed the whole thrust of the action.
At the end of the day the movers and shakers are based in London and by definition are largely urban.
The enlightened involvement of Kate Hoey was a good move.
Its all a question of the bottom line those in favour have to deliver they need to start thinking like such as Sir Alan Sugar.
In other words, stop being polite and tell our leaders exactly where they are failing and if they dont deliver, they are fired!
However the fundamental factor that so many overlook is that the issue, becomes the property of urban dwellers once it reaches the House of Commons.
Too much provincial parocialism has governed the whole thrust of the action.
At the end of the day the movers and shakers are based in London and by definition are largely urban.
The enlightened involvement of Kate Hoey was a good move.
Its all a question of the bottom line those in favour have to deliver they need to start thinking like such as Sir Alan Sugar.
In other words, stop being polite and tell our leaders exactly where they are failing and if they dont deliver, they are fired!