Comments on: A decade on from the ban, fox hunting is still thriving

By: WilliamKGraham

WilliamKGraham — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 08:11:00 +0000

^^^^^Reset your job with leftfootforward. < ***** Find Here

By: Sabrina Lancaster

Sabrina Lancaster — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:07:00 +0000
In reply to madasafish. I wasn't aware that law enforcement always results in 'locking up' offenders. Trite answer.

By: madasafish

madasafish — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:13:00 +0000
In reply to Sabrina Lancaster. Yes. Let's start by locking up all cannabis users :-)

By: Sabrina Lancaster

Sabrina Lancaster — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:48:00 +0000
In reply to madasafish. Why should one have priority over the other? Shouldn't ALL laws be enforced?

By: Sabrina Lancaster

Sabrina Lancaster — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:47:00 +0000
In reply to greg. But it's not a problem if it's an object such as a car is it? Hence laws such as criminal damage. Morality is subjective as well as socially defined, that is why laws are made, so what starts out as subjective moral opinion can enter a process and become legislation. A minority of well-connected and well-heeled individuals such as Cameron should not be able to decide whether a law is enforced, that is when immorality trumps the law. The same has happened in Rochdale.

By: Sabrina Lancaster

Sabrina Lancaster — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:40:00 +0000
In reply to Selohesra. The generalised answer given by those who enjoy abusing animals is 'you townies don't understand the countryside'. Foxes don NOT get away or die quickly during a foxhunt. If they manage to go to earth they are dug out and dangled alive for the hounds to rip apart or terriers are put into fox earths/badger setts by hunt terriermen for the fun of an underground dogfight first. You need to educate yourself on what happens at a hunt before making presumptious statements. If you are unable or unwilling to provide safety for your ducks and chickens please don't keep them, also if you are unable to look after your children, ditto. If we take on animals we are responsible for their welfare.

By: Selohesra

Selohesra — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:34:00 +0000

In reply to Steven Anderson.

Linking fox hunting to the establishment is a bit of a give away to your metropolitan thinking – you just don’t understand the countryside (or wish to) – large numbers of working class country folk either enjoyed taking part in or made a living from hunting. Bliar thought he could get his left wing on side by forcing through a bit of class war without even realizing he was hitting the wrong target.
Its not even about animal welfare as the fox population still needs to be controlled and its not nice being shot and wounded and dying slowly under a hedge somewhere – at least with hunting they either get away or die quickly – and before you bang on about getting torn to pieces what about my ducks & chickens getting torn to pieces by foxes.

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:40:00 +0000

In reply to greg.

“Morality should trump the law as written.”

Caselaw on that, please.

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:39:00 +0000
In reply to madasafish. Or made you pay tax. Priorities.

By: Alan Kirby

Alan Kirby — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 02:16:00 +0000

A pretty good analysis of the situation, but a major reason why Hunts are still able to get away continuing to hunt wild animals with very little fear of investigation, let alone sanction is that the Hunting Act was not drawn tightly enough and is full of loopholes. Hunts and the Countryside Alliance’s clever lawyers invented ‘trail hunting’ to take advantage of this and it has mostly worked beautifully. Just 33 persons from organised Hunts have been convicted or cautioned for illegal hunting in 10 years. All of the 300 + other convictions under the Hunting Act have been committed by, usually underclass, members of the ‘lurcher brigade’ trespassing to carry out hare or fox coursing, digging out foxes with terriers, etc. Such offences were already illegal before the Hunting Act and were quite frequently prosecuted as poaching, criminal trespass etc. But as for organised Hunts they’ve been inconvenienced and affronted by it [because they think they should be above the law] but that’s about all.
Sabs and monitors are clear that most Hunts attempt to hunt live quarry most of the time and have mountainous video evidence to show this, but the evidential bar is set so very high it is extraordinarily difficult to construct a case that will stand up in court. What they’re allowed to do looks so like traditional hunting that they can nearly always get away by claiming’ accident’ or exploit one of the loopholes The prosecution has to prove that identifiable hunters intended to’engage or participate’ in the pursuit of an identifiable animal. And even when they are – very rarely convicted – the penalties are, to them, derisory. Because illegal hunting is not ‘recordable’, they don’t even get a criminal record. Extremely hard to enforce, no real deterrent. And, because offences are so hard to prosecute and convict, and of such a low level of ‘seriousness’, that gives police/CPS a reason/excuse to really not try very hard.
Protect Our Wild Animals – http://www.powa.org.uk – has been saying the Act needs significant strengthening since before it was passed, but it was only this week that the League Against Cruel Sports finally agreed we were right. We expect the other major wildlife protections to now do the same. This will provide a realistic chance of getting Labour to agree that their own Act does need amending and then all we need is them in government with a decent majority.
Don’t laugh it could happen – and if it is we’ll do our darndest to make sure a proper belt and braces job is done this time to firmly and finally rein in the hunters. Meanwhile please support our efforts at http://www.campaigntosttrengthenthehuntingact.com .