BeckyFlowers
Well-Known Member
????????????The reason people won't comment is because they have been asked not to. Simple.
????????????The reason people won't comment is because they have been asked not to. Simple.
They've also been asked in law not to hunt and kill defenseless animals by ripping them to shreads with screaming pack of out of control hounds but they still do it. Morons.The reason people won't comment is because they have been asked not to. Simple.
Was just about to say the same thing, once I'd finished laughing at the irony.They've also been asked in law not to hunt and kill defenseless animals by ripping them to shreads with screaming pack of out of control hounds but they still do it. Morons
The reason people won't comment is because they have been asked not to. Simple.
Surprising that it took so long for that to happen, pro hunt legal beagles will have been scrambling to find a way, any way, to get it off FB et al ."Video no longer available due to a copywriter claim by the Hunt office". Theres a surprise.
Of course. You are awaiting instructions from the hunting high ups on what it is permissible to post.The reason people won't comment is because they have been asked not to. Simple.
Palo your defense of illegal hunting beats me. I wondered why, on another thread, you knew for a certainty that people who follow a hunt which they know is hunting fox illegally are not committing a criminal offence, only the hunt officials. I guess now we know why you had felt the need to be sure of that yourself.
.
Surprising that it took so long for that to happen, pro hunt legal beagles will have been scrambling to find a way, any way, to get it off FB et al .
But the transcripts remain, and I for one have saved those to Word. Plus many folk will have saved the webinar footage to their hard drive, too.
Of course. You are awaiting instructions from the hunting high ups on what it is permissible to post.
I like you as a poster, palo1, and I’d like to believe your previous assertions that your small pack does indeed trail hunt, but those webinars have blasted any trust in what the hunting community say out of the water.
Remember that I used to hunt well before the ban - I had been out with 7 different packs over a few seasons. Once the Hunting Act came in, I believed that hunts had indeed switched to trail hunting - and I would never have condoned or followed any pack that was still illegally hunting.
Are you a politician? If not you might want to consider it as a careerThank you for your kind words Tiddlypom. I am not waiting for 'instructions' in any way lol as it is most unlikely that anyone would contact me to tell me what to say or do but I am happy enough that the body overseeing hunting has asked people, quite reasonably, not to comment on the HSA post and accusations. I have no desire to play into a HSA led dance and cannot really offer anything to a discussion; I too have watched the webinars though and read the transcripts. I have no intention of saying what I think here - it simply isn't productive for either party in the debate.
Are you a politician? If not you might want to consider it as a career
re. the 'silence' I don't actually think we have that may regulars who are hunting subscribers here anymore. It's a very quiet part of the forum in general.
. When the ban on hunting was introduced most people who wanted to continue were informed that this was the position that they would be in.
There are a few, though, and several have posted elsewhere on the forum since this thread became live - they will not be unaware of it .re. the 'silence' I don't actually think we have that may regulars who are hunting subscribers here anymore. It's a very quiet part of the forum in general.
Why did anyone need to be informed that they would not be committing a criminal offence if they followed a hunt which was hunting illegally, unless people fully intended to be hunting illegally?
I don't know why I'm arguing about this really. In Cheshire we all knew that hunts were deliberately laying no trails or false/weak trails and continuing to hunt fox. Many years ago on this forum I was accused of lying about it. I'm pleased that it can no longer plausibly be denied.
.
There are a few, though, and several have posted elsewhere on the forum since this thread became live - they will not be unaware of it .
Palo, I don’t think there are many ‘ban all forms of hunting’ folk on here. There is support for genuine trail hunting, drag hunting and hunting the clean boot (not sure on all the correct nomenclature for all of those, I only took part in the full fat version pre ban).
My own local pack went legit from the start of the 2019/20 season. Trouble was, it had long been that saying it was legit before that when it wasn’t. It was only the threat of losing access to a large tranch of country because the estate was fed up of all the bad publicity that they were bringing that forced the change to trail hunting. (I know this from first and second hand conversations with folk directly involved with followers of that pack, not from anything that the antis may have said).
They do seem to be enjoying themselves trail hunting. The antis pop in from time to time to keep an eye on them, but seem satisfied that nothing untoward is now going on.
It‘s a huge relief that peace has been restored for us residents, too.
Eh? There is no comparison between someone going to the pub and drinking within the limit to someone who rides with an illegally hunting pack.The debate seems akin to that around drink driving; it is illegal to drink and drive but people are still allowed to go to the pub.
I think posters like palo may be why the hunting office asked illegal hunters to keep quiet as they are just making things worse for themEh? There is no comparison between someone going to the pub and drinking within the limit to someone who rides with an illegally hunting pack.
The former is both morally sound and technically legal, the latter whilst it may not be technically illegal is morally utterly reprehensible. The person knows that they are involved in and supporting an illegal activity.
And then you further spoil things by calling the HSA scoop ‘hysterical’. I think not.
But I don't think anyone has an issue with legal trail, drag hunting etc. It's the mindless torture and killing of defenseless animals, after you've chased them for several miles across countryside, often through private land and properties causing other damage in their wake that is the issue.I understood palos point to be a comparison between those riding out with legal packs, and those riding with illegal packs?
The debate seems akin to that around drink driving; it is illegal to drink and drive but people are still allowed to go to the pub. Publicans and the brewery industry are not and should not be treated as complicit in drink driving offences though their occupation makes them more vulnerable to being associated with those crimes. Not everyone that goes to the pub will drive home over the limit though some will and there will be disastrous consequences. We are still licensing pubs and allowing them to serve alcohol.
.
I think it was palo in an earlier thread who pointed out that you are not breaking the law if you knowingly take part in illegal hunting but as a member of the field. It is the masters and the hunt staff who would carry the can if the case came to court.
It is fair to say that I have no time for people who are happy to use that cop out.
I understood palos point to be a comparison between those riding out with legal packs, and those riding with illegal packs?
Ok, apologies, it must have been another poster who said that.I certainly didn't say that.