To Endyminion

[Ereiam_jh]

Dear Endy,

I think where we got to in a previous thread was your acknowledgement of the fact that the Huting Act as it applies to my practice is wrong, or shall we say 'anomalous'.

My understanding is that the conclusion we drew is that as the law is wrong, the crime is not and therefore I am justified in openly and peacefully breaking the law.

One thing bothers me though. You seemed to be drawing a parallel between my right to break the Hunting Act and your right to illegally trespass during your sabbing activities.

You seem to think that just because I am above the law, so should you be too.

This is, of course a complete non sequiter.

There is no parallel, you have no such right. You are not above the law.

As a land owner, my property rights mean that I can prevent you from trespassing on my land. You know that I am illegally hunting wild mammals with dogs. However this does not give you the right to enter my land and sabotage my criminal activity. While you would be welcome to monitor my crime you are not welcome to prevent me committing this crime.

I can stop you breaking a sensible law, you cannot stop me breaking the Hunting Act, because it is absurd. I can openly huint what ever animals I like with however many dogs I like on my own land.

We've already ascertained my right to break the law. Do not assume that this confers on you any such right.

We could easily prove this. I'll break the Hunting Act by openly pursuing deer with dogs on my land. You commit trespass and try and stop me. You will not be able to get the law enforced. I will.

We should all be equal before the law. Absurd laws are wronmg because the obviatethis principle.

 

[endymion]

I made myself perfectly clear.

If ANY individual views a law as unjust I feel they have a right to break it as long as it is broken in an open, non-violent manner.

This is my view and it applies to ANYONE and EVERY law.

You can not pick and choose which laws are ok to break on the basis of your own opinion.

There has long been unrest among many (not just sabs) in opposition to Englands Draconian trespass laws. I feel Scottish law is fairer on that count.

Anyway, this is all by the by. What we were discussing is a basic principle which applies to society as a whole and, funnily enough, not just you!!

Merry xmas.

 

[Jerome]

You have the patience of a saint!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Not so Endy,

I CAN chose not to obey the Hunting Avct on the basis that I disagree with it.

I DO make that choice.

I do NOT have to obey the Hunting Act.

You'd be perfectly welcome to come and watch me breaking the law.

however if you chose to SAB me by for example scaring the deer off so I couldn't hunt them woth my dogs then I could stop you under the trespass laws.

You can not prevent me breaking the Hunting Act.

I can choose which laws I can break on the basis of my personal opinion. This is because I am right.

The Hunting Act is an absurd law, that means I can break it. Indeed it is my civic duty to do so.

Happy Christmas to you too.

 

[endymion]

I had a peek at the NELS website and have lost all respect for you Giles.

Impersonating people is pathetic.

I'm not debating with ya anymore!!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

What's the point in debating with me when you quite clearly agree with me. We both acknowledge that the Hunting Act is wrong and support the right to break it with impunity.

I think the idea of debate is between people with different points of view isn't it?

There's no disagreement between us at all. If you want to throw your toys out of your pram because you've realised the self evident fact that I've been right all along then fair enough. And YOU talk about respect!

Ps If you actually used your brain and read the posts you'd realise that most of the impersonations are of me.

Mind you I have been posting under the name NELS, but there's nothing wrong with that is there?

How can I respect you when you agree with what I say and yet support NELS who place photographs of me on their despicable website calling me 'Hunt Scum'.

Have you any idea how insulting that is?

Have you any idea how vile your colleagues actually are?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I think you've realised that I have been right all along.

Yes I did post a quote from you under the name NELS.

If you read the whole thread (you'd be mad to) you'll see that many of the posts under my name aren't from me.

To me the whole thing is a laugh I'm afraid. Everyone knows what I say is right but most are too hypocritical to admit it. I do thank you for having the balls to acknowledge that I am right.

If you look at the Hunt Scum Gallery you will see what happens when people fail to admit they are in the wrong. Maybe you should read a few of the letters to the press from moralising tw@t antis demanding that I be sent to jail.

Have you any idea how insulting it is to be told you support cruelty when you do not?

I am not Hunt Scum,
I am not a coutryside terrorist
I am not cruel to animals
I just disagree with absurd laws

If I didn't use certain methods people would get away with talking total buillshit. If you really care about animal welfare then you should be absolutely honest and up front about where the law is deficient.

As you agree it is not cruel to flush out wild mammals with dogs, it is not even allways cruel to chase wild mammals with dogs. It all depends on how long they are chased or what happens to them after they are flushed out.

I'm not a 'pro' by the way. Nor are you an 'anti' these are just jevenille labels that act as excuses for people to actually think sensibly about the issues.

Oh, no doubt you've 'lost all respect for me' so you probably haven't even read this. Why do you think I am posting this? Because actually I can see that you actaually care about the issues and are willing to think with a reasonably open mind. Not like some of the hate filled little tw@ts that post or worse still gits like LACS who know the law is a cock up but are still willing to prosecute people for not setting up lines of guns in the countryside to kill foxes.

 

[celt]

What you need to remember here is that any trespass in this case would be regarded as a civil matter dealt with by a civil court whereas a breach of the hunting act is a criminal matter that comes under the realms of the criminal courts. In a nutshell the police have little or no interest in civil matters but would act upon any criminal activity.
Also I would suggest that if you do not agree with any of the nations legislations that you combat the situation by democratic means and not suggest anarchy as you do.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

In general I completely agree with you. That is why I posted tabout the Hunt Sabs assaulting children. This is precisely what happens when people feel they can disregard laws they don't agree with. The Hunt Sabs obviously feel their 'cause' justifies them in attacking young children. This is precisely where the twisted philosophy behind Hunt sabotage leads.

HOWEVER there comes a point when laws are so unjust or just plain ridiculous that they should not be obeyed. This is clearly the case with the Hunting Act.

Consider for a minute my situation. What is it exactly that I do? I regularly walk my dogs round the small areas of woodland that I own.

Why is this illegal? Because I flush out deer with my dogs. The chase is irrelevant. The law clearly makes it illegal just to flush out deer with dogs.

The problem is my 'intention'. Can I just carry on doiing the same thunbg but stop 'intending' to flush them out? No that clearly makes a mockery of the law. The Hunt sab can't just carry on spraying liquid at children but stop 'intending' to. That's ridiculous.

There are two ways open to me to start obeying the law. Firstly stop taking my dogs round my woods altogether. Secondly take on ly two dogs and shoot all of the deer thgat are flushed out.

Defra argue that it is the will of parliament that The flushed out deer be shot to prevent my dogs killing them.

The fact is that they are lying and cannot admit that the idiot MPs simply cocked up the law. No one seriously thinks I should shoot the deer. Defra's evidence that I should, shortly to be put before the House of Lords is a sham. I am not going to sacrifice animals lives simply to cover up for the incompetance of those who are meant to rule over me. Nor am I going to sacrifice my right to take my dogs through my woods.

The Hunting Act is a badly drafted anomolous piece of legislation. It makes things illegal that shouldn't be, it leaves things legal that it shouldn't. It's a complete mess. It sholuld be replaced by a law based on preventing cruelty to wild animals.

Moreover the police have made it absolutely clear that they will stand aside and allow me to illegally flush out and chase deer as much as I want, both on my farm and up on Exmoor. I always do so without cruelty and ANY sensible rational law based on preventing cruelty rather than enforcing prejudice would allow me to continue.

So I will.

The Hunbting Act is perverse because it criminalises harmless acts. In doing so it perverts the concept of crime itself. When crime is no longer a bad thin g then there is nothing wrong with being a criminal. Thise that rule over us have a duty to change absurd laws. If they fail to do so we have a duty to break them.

The laws against assaulting chilkdren and trespassing are not absurd laws. The Hunting Act is.

 

[Eagle_day]

What you need to remember here is that any trespass in this case would be regarded as a civil matter dealt with by a civil court whereas a breach of the hunting act is a criminal matter that comes under the realms of the criminal courts. In a nutshell the police have little or no interest in civil matters but would act upon any criminal activity.

Aggravated tresspass is a criminal offence.

 

[CARREG]

And disrupting a legal activity is aggravated tresspass............Carreg

 

[Jerome]

what a silly little girl

 

[CARREG]

lol..............Carreg