Huntsman cleared of GBH

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:27 pm

hey folks , remember that hntsman who was accused of riding down that stoopid moo of a hunt sab, when watching the vid clearly showed her mate pushing her into the path of the horse.......

well, I'm pleased to say he's been cleared at trial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37438259

by Raggamuffin Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:34 pm

The man was still an arse though. He knew that he'd hit someone, so the least he should have done was stop to see if the person he hit was OK.

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:40 pm

well you may have a point Ragga, however given the propensity for hunt sabs to beat folks with iron bars etc, I'd say discretion had the better part of valour in this case.

by Raggamuffin Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:42 pm

Lord Foul wrote:well you may have a point Ragga, however given the propensity for hunt sabs to beat folks with iron bars etc, I'd say discretion had the better part of valour in this case.

Nah. He could have stopped at a safe distance and just looked back for a second. Maybe he'll fall off his horse one day ... Razz

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:53 pm

I'd bet it wouldnt be the first time...horses are NOT the most reliable form of transport....

by Major Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:06 pm

I have been to many a hunt meet and never witnessed any nortiz at all, have read it in the papuz though.

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:40 pm

You are all joking... right?

by Major Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:49 pm

Syl wrote:You are all joking... right?

No I aam not Syl.

by Raggamuffin Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:56 pm

Clearly, the victim was not pushed by anyone, so that was a lie. He claimed he knew he "clipped" someone, but that was more than just a clip, and he just rode on and ignored it.

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:57 pm

Major wrote:
Syl wrote:You are all joking... right?

No I aam not Syl.

I didn't mean what you said Major, I meant the comments about being pleased he has been cleared of GBH....he used his horse as a weapon, there was no way he didn't know exactly what he was doing. And if as he claimed he didn't see or hear the saboteurs and their vehicle should he be riding if he is deaf and blind?
The judge who directed the jury probably belonged to the hunt. Rolling Eyes

by Major Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:01 pm

He certainly knew, his intent was obvious.

There are all sorts of people at a hunt meet, not many are aerosolz in my experience.

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:05 pm

Major wrote:He certainly knew, his intent was obvious.

There are all sorts of people at a hunt meet, not many are aerosolz in my experience.

Hmmm....people who hunt for sport....was it Oscar Wilde who accurately said "The unspeakable going after the uneatable"....something like that.

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:07 pm

there are a number of issues syl,

firstly if you watch the video carefully you will see one of those women push the other backwards INOT the path of the horse

secondly ...and this is the thing for me...

they were in that field so presumably private land...THERFORE, given the law as it stands were guilty of AGRAVATED TRESPASS

since it has been determined that being on private land with the intent to interrupt, intimidate or prevent someone from carrying out their lawful persuit is a criminal offence (as opposed to mere trespass ...which is a civil offence.)

Now it seems to me that IF you get injured whilst commiting a criminal offence then it should be a case of "on your head be it"

If you have seen the rest of that vid(or it may have been another from a slightly different view point, you will see that the guy on the horse could not have avoided the stupid woman , his angle through the gate was restricted by the moron that parked the car there and he was turning off the road into the field, his vison obstructed by the hedge.

with all good intent there should be NO reason for him to have to think "oh i must go slow through here because there might be a sab in the way". why should someone have to think for someone else....why should HE be responsibl;e for the safety and well being of someone who is acting irresponsibly in the first place (hint...you DONT stand where 1 ton of horse meat is likely to come belting down on you)

this "oh YOU must be careful, my safety is YOUR responsibility" is nonsense...Its the same sort of idiocy that says "I can get blind drunk and walk down the middle of a dark country lane and its your responsibility as a driver to not run me over"....sorry...does not compute.

to show even negligence you would have to prove that he "could resasonably forsee that someone would be there"

my argument would be of course not...no one is THAT stupid....are they???

secondly it is arguable that the woman who pushed her backwards was the negligent one, out to save her own skin. grabbed the injured one for leverage to push out of the way....and shoved her into the path of the horse

by Raggamuffin Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:09 pm

She wasn't pushed at all. The man should have been convicted of something at least - leaving the scene of an accident maybe? Does that only apply to car drivers?

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:14 pm

private land ragga....road traffic act does not apply Huntsman cleared of GBH 2190311264

yes she WAS pushed...

watch in slo-mo..at 1:17-1:19 it is fairly obvious the one who didnt get hit used the one who did as a "launch pad".... she fell BACKWARD against the horse...hitting FIRST the shoulder of the horse and THEN falling under the back legs.....

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:17 pm

and WHY should he be prosecuted for injuring someone who was enacting a criminal act...this seems to me the central point here...never mind the matter of what he was doing....the fact it was a hunt (btw a DRAG HUNT Rolling Eyes

) is irrelevant to the point in question....

why is HE responsible for the results of someone elses irresponsibility and stupidity?????

by Raggamuffin Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:21 pm

Lord Foul wrote:private land ragga....road traffic act does not apply

yes she WAS pushed...

watch in slo-mo..at 1:17-1:19 it is fairly obvious the one who didnt get hit used the one who did as a "launch pad".... she fell BACKWARD against the horse...hitting FIRST the shoulder of the horse and THEN falling under the back legs.....

I have watched it and she wasn't pushed. Anyway, the man has had the worry of a criminal case against him, so he didn't get away with it. Perhaps he should now be sued. I would support that as he was totally negligent and uncaring about what he'd done.

by Raggamuffin Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:22 pm

Lord Foul wrote:and WHY should he be prosecuted for injuring someone who was enacting a criminal act...this seems to me the central point here...never mind the matter of what he was doing....the fact it was a hunt (btw a DRAG HUNT ) is irrelevant to the point in question....

why is HE responsible for the results of someone elses irresponsibility and stupidity?????

Because he blatantly hit someone with his horse and then didn't care what he'd done. If you injure someone on private land, it doesn't matter that it's private land, it doesn't give you the right to run someone over and just leave them. I hope it doesn't end here.

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:23 pm

Lord Foul wrote:there are a number of issues syl,

firstly if you watch the video carefully you will see one of those women push the other backwards INOT the path of the horse

secondly ...and this is the thing for me...

they were in that field so presumably private land...THERFORE, given the law as it stands were guilty of AGRAVATED TRESPASS

since it has been determined that being on private land with the intent to interrupt, intimidate or prevent someone from carrying out their lawful persuit is a criminal offence (as opposed to mere trespass ...which is a civil offence.)

Now it seems to me that IF you get injured whilst commiting a criminal offence then it should be a case of "on your head be it"

If you have seen the rest of that vid(or it may have been another from a slightly different view point, you will see that the guy on the horse could not have avoided the stupid woman , his angle through the gate was restricted by the moron that parked the car there and he was turning off the road into the field, his vison obstructed by the hedge.

with all good intent there should be NO reason for him to have to think "oh i must go slow through here because there might be a sab in the way". why should someone have to think for someone else....why should HE be responsibl;e for the safety and well being of someone who is acting irresponsibly in the first place (hint...you DONT stand where 1 ton of horse meat is likely to come belting down on you)

this "oh YOU must be careful, my safety is YOUR responsibility" is nonsense...Its the same sort of idiocy that says "I can get blind drunk and walk down the middle of a dark country lane and its your responsibility as a driver to not run me over"....sorry...does not compute.

to show even negligence you would have to prove that he "could resasonably forsee that someone would be there"

my argument would be of course not...no one is THAT stupid....are they???

secondly it is arguable that the woman who pushed her backwards was the negligent one, out to save her own skin. grabbed the injured one for leverage to push out of the way....and shoved her into the path of the horse

Well fox hunting is illegal (foxes do get torn to shreds in drag hunts I believe) so if someone is staggering blind drunk down a dark country lane and gets knocked down by a car driven by an unlicenced driver...wouldn't that would put a different slant on it?

Also, hunters often gallop over fields where they don't have permission to be (I know people this has happened to) .....could be they were trespassing to.

by eddie Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:28 pm

I'm wondering why, if she was pushed, the woman who pushed her wasn't punished?

That's a mouthful of a sentence.

by Raggamuffin Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:29 pm

eddie wrote:I'm wondering why, if she was pushed, the woman who pushed her wasn't punished?

That's a mouthful of a sentence.

Because she clearly wasn't pushed ...

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:31 pm

On the video I saw I don't think she was pushed either....the woman jumped and was startled but the horse was already on top of them.

by eddie Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:I'm wondering why, if she was pushed, the woman who pushed her wasn't punished?

That's a mouthful of a sentence.

Because she clearly wasn't pushed ...

I do tend to agree, though the image is a little grainy. i was asking Vic as he appears to think she was pushed.

by eddie Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:41 pm

Watched it again, three times. Couldn't see anything like a push.

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:49 pm

we aint talking "could be's" syl

there are no foxes in a "drag hunt" the hounds are following a scent trail thats been dragged round earlier in the day......thats kinda the point..

therefore........

drag hunts are LEGAL so your point about unlicenced drivers is........... "pointless"

this woman KNOWINGLY or RECKLESSLY put herself in danger, a danger which IMO he (the rider) could not reasonably forsee.

Whoever parked that vehicle there (presumably a "sab" since it was from that vehicle the vid was taken) bears some responsibilty too...since by doing do they restricted access and vison through the gate.

further your point about the unlicenced driver is somewhat different, since the reasonable presumtion is made that an unlicenced driver is "not competant" ...and therfore one could ALWAYS argue that a competant driver would have been able to avoid such an accident.....

the fault in law comes when the driver IS licenced and otherwise competant and legal...but is lets say carrying, (but not using) drugs.

one can then ask the same question.....REGARDLESS of what that driver is doing (carrying the drugs) if in all other ways he is complying with the law relating to the act of driving his vehicle....WHY should HE be held responsible for flattening a drunk in a dark suit, wobbling down the middle of a dark country lane???

the act of carrying the drugs is irrelevant to the fact that he just removed an idiot from this sphere of existance. By all means prosecute him for carrying the drugs.....but NOT for running the dunk over.....

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:58 pm

Lord Foul wrote:we aint talking "could be's" syl

there are no foxes in a "drag hunt" the hounds are following a scent trail thats been dragged round earlier in the day......thats kinda the point..

therefore........

drag hunts are LEGAL so your point about unlicenced drivers is........... "pointless"

this woman KNOWINGLY or RECKLESSLY put herself in danger, a danger which IMO he (the rider) could not reasonably forsee.

Whoever parked that vehicle there (presumably a "sab" since it was from that vehicle the vid was taken) bears some responsibilty too...since by doing do they restricted access and vison through the gate.

further your point about the unlicenced driver is somewhat different, since the reasonable presumtion is made that an unlicenced driver is "not competant" ...and therfore one could ALWAYS argue that a competant driver would have been able to avoid such an accident.....

the fault in law comes when the driver IS licenced and otherwise competant and legal...but is lets say carrying, (but not using) drugs.

one can then ask the same question.....REGARDLESS of what that driver is doing (carrying the drugs) if in all other ways he is complying with the law relating to the act of driving his vehicle....WHY should HE be held responsible for flattening a drunk in a dark suit, wobbling down the middle of a dark country lane???

the act of carrying the drugs is irrelevant to the fact that he just removed an idiot from this sphere of existance. By all means prosecute him for carrying the drugs.....but NOT for running the dunk over.....

Foxes do get killed in drag hunts....in front of kids too.
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/farmer-appalled-hunt-young-children-witness-foxes/story-20502102-detail/story.html

Has it been established that the hunters had anymore right to be on that land than the saboteurs?

A person driving a car has a responsibility to watch out for possible hazards....so should a person riding a horse.

Not sure why so many people turn into arrogant arseholes the moment they get their foot in a stirrup....but they do.

.

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:01 pm

you need to watch that particular time frame in slo mo.....

the one that got away was flailing her arms to gain purchase.......

but even THAT is largely irrelevant to the main issue....

which is, they were on private land, carrying out a CRIMINAL act...and got injured doing so....due to a combination of a number of issues

the first and formost being...why stand there...his wasnt the FIRST horse through there so there would have been hoof prints...now I dont know about YOU...but I wouldnt stand within 6 feet of a line of hoof prints KNOWING horses were likely to be comming through there at a rate of knots...????

the whole point is...why is HER health and safety......suddenly HIS problem...

even the heath and safety at work act makes it plain that YOU are responsible for YOUR health and safety.

and although that doesnt obviously apply in these circumstances it is still a good point....

there is too much of this "my safety is your responsibilty" in ALL aspects of day to day life....from the idiot who deliberately walks ito the road forcing you to brake so he can cross to the dumbf*ck women who push pushchairs into the road "assuming" everyone will stop for them. Cos we can innit.

It is high time courts actually LOOKED where blame and responsibility lie....

why should I be held responsible if some arse comes on my property and steps on a wrong way up rake and clatters his nuts???

etc etc etc

you doing summat wrong/dumb/irresponsible/stoopid.....you get hurt....tough....
OK one should not realistically be able to set "man traps" BUT short of that ....why is YOUR health and safety MY responsibility .....even when YOU are being a pillock????

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:03 pm

Do you hunt Lord Foul?

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:05 pm

Syl wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:we aint talking "could be's" syl

there are no foxes in a "drag hunt" the hounds are following a scent trail thats been dragged round earlier in the day......thats kinda the point..

therefore........

drag hunts are LEGAL so your point about unlicenced drivers is........... "pointless"

this woman KNOWINGLY or RECKLESSLY put herself in danger, a danger which IMO he (the rider) could not reasonably forsee.

Whoever parked that vehicle there (presumably a "sab" since it was from that vehicle the vid was taken) bears some responsibilty too...since by doing do they restricted access and vison through the gate.

further your point about the unlicenced driver is somewhat different, since the reasonable presumtion is made that an unlicenced driver is "not competant" ...and therfore one could ALWAYS argue that a competant driver would have been able to avoid such an accident.....

the fault in law comes when the driver IS licenced and otherwise competant and legal...but is lets say carrying, (but not using) drugs.

one can then ask the same question.....REGARDLESS of what that driver is doing (carrying the drugs) if in all other ways he is complying with the law relating to the act of driving his vehicle....WHY should HE be held responsible for flattening a drunk in a dark suit, wobbling down the middle of a dark country lane???

the act of carrying the drugs is irrelevant to the fact that he just removed an idiot from this sphere of existance. By all means prosecute him for carrying the drugs.....but NOT for running the dunk over.....

Foxes do get killed in drag hunts....in front of kids too.
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/farmer-appalled-hunt-young-children-witness-foxes/story-20502102-detail/story.html

Has it been established that the hunters had anymore right to be on that land than the saboteurs?

Well it hasnt been established that they were NOT...AND again largely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make....

A person driving a car has a responsibility to watch out for possible hazards....so should a person riding a horse.

yes and again the point is ...reasonably forseeable hazards....not someone elses stupid irresponsibility

Not sure why so many people turn into arrogant arseholes the moment they get their foot in a stirrup....but they do.

bit like BMW drivers innit?

.

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:11 pm

Syl wrote:Do you hunt Lord Foul?

No, nor do I particularly agree with it, If any of my land owners for whom I carry out pest control need foxes sorting I use a rifle or shotgun (if I can get close enough). Far more efficient and humane IMO and far less disruptive. A hunt may get one, maybe two foxes if its lucky....I go out on "fox control" and often come away with 4 maybe 5 depending on where the problem is.....

the Issue I have with this is the "regardless of what I do MY safety is YOUR responsibility" attitude shown by these people

as I have said....you do dumb/stupid/irresponsible/criminal things ...dont come crying when it goes tits up and you get hurt....

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:15 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Syl wrote:

Foxes do get killed in drag hunts....in front of kids too.
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/farmer-appalled-hunt-young-children-witness-foxes/story-20502102-detail/story.html

Has it been established that the hunters had anymore right to be on that land than the saboteurs?

Well it hasnt been established that they were NOT...AND again largely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make....

Well you are the one who first mentioned the word trespass..... maybe the saboteurs were not and maybe the hunters were.

A person driving a car has a responsibility to watch out for possible hazards....so should a person riding a horse.

yes and again the point is ...reasonably forseeable hazards....not someone elses stupid irresponsibility

Unless he was blind and deaf he would have seen and heard the hazard, he was also being irresponsible by galloping towards them at speed.

Not sure why so many people turn into arrogant arseholes the moment they get their foot in a stirrup....but they do.

bit like BMW drivers innit?

Lol.
.

by nicko Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:16 pm

Drag Hunts are not illegal, trespass on private land is not illegal unless damage is being done. Trespassers on private land may be removed by force if they will not leave of there own accord.If they were on a drag hunt sabs have no right to disrupt a legal sport.I don't hunt but have watched the sabs threaten a hunts man and shout "we know were you live ,we will get your kids" most are unwashed out of control yobs who should get a job. That's my opinion!

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:17 pm

and did you actually READ that "news" propaganda you posted...

digging foxes with terriers is legal and approved...

the drag hunt had been and gone......and NOT in pursuit of the foxes
the foxes were shot...not torn apart by the hounds..

pile of LACS propaganda......which they are very good at

by The Devil, You Know Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:18 pm

Syl wrote:You are all joking... right?

one of my twitter pals is the lawyer who defended him. In court they got to see the full video.

by The Devil, You Know Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:19 pm

Syl wrote:
Major wrote:He certainly knew, his intent was obvious.

There are all sorts of people at a hunt meet, not many are aerosolz in my experience.

Hmmm....people who hunt for sport....was it Oscar Wilde who accurately said "The unspeakable going after the uneatable"....something like that.

it was a drag hunt, not sure they eat the cloth bag thats being dragged

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:21 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Syl wrote:Do you hunt Lord Foul?

No, nor do I particularly agree with it, If any of my land owners for whom I carry out pest control need foxes sorting I use a rifle or shotgun (if I can get close enough). Far more efficient and humane IMO and far less disruptive. A hunt may get one, maybe two foxes if its lucky....I go out on "fox control" and often come away with 4 maybe 5 depending on where the problem is.....

the Issue I have with this is the "regardless of what I do MY safety is YOUR responsibility" attitude shown by these people

as I have said....you do dumb/stupid/irresponsible/criminal things ...dont come crying when it goes tits up and you get hurt....

I get your point, but people who campaign for others often put their own safety at risk in order to make a stand against what they see as inhumane practices...green peace do it, suffragettes did it....fathers for justice do it..etc..
On the other hand no one should expect another person to deliberately hurt them...and it looked pretty deliberate to me, and I have watched it in slow motion.

Would you be so understanding if hunters tore through your land without permission.... their hounds killing your livestock or pets on the way? That happened to someone I know years ago.

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:22 pm

nicko wrote:Drag Hunts are not illegal, trespass on private land is not illegal unless damage is being done. Trespassers on private land may be removed by force if they will not leave of there own accord.If they were on a drag hunt sabs have no right to disrupt a legal sport.I don't hunt but have watched the sabs threaten a hunts man and shout "we know were you live ,we will get your kids" most are unwashed out of control yobs who should get a job. That's my opinion!

the law has changed Nicko......
As from the beginning of this year trespass with "the intent to disrupt/prevent someone from carrying out their lawful persuit" IS a criminal offence....as is "threatening/harassing someone in persuit therof"

so now even a group of anti shooting nutters walking over a shoot to "mis drive" birds or prevent shooting by their presence are guilty of a criminal offence and may be arrested on the spot.

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:23 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Syl wrote:

Hmmm....people who hunt for sport....was it Oscar Wilde who accurately said "The unspeakable going after the uneatable"....something like that.
it was a drag hunt, not sure they eat the cloth bag thats being dragged

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/farmer-appalled-hunt-young-children-witness-foxes/story-20502102-detail/story.html

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:24 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Syl wrote:You are all joking... right?

one of my twitter pals is the lawyer who defended him. In court they got to see the full video.

Does your twitter pal ride in the same hunt by any chance? Wink

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:31 pm

Syl wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Syl wrote:Do you hunt Lord Foul?

No, nor do I particularly agree with it, If any of my land owners for whom I carry out pest control need foxes sorting I use a rifle or shotgun (if I can get close enough). Far more efficient and humane IMO and far less disruptive. A hunt may get one, maybe two foxes if its lucky....I go out on "fox control" and often come away with 4 maybe 5 depending on where the problem is.....

the Issue I have with this is the "regardless of what I do MY safety is YOUR responsibility" attitude shown by these people

as I have said....you do dumb/stupid/irresponsible/criminal things ...dont come crying when it goes tits up and you get hurt....

I get your point, but people who campaign for others often put their own safety at risk in order to make a stand against what they see as inhumane practices...green peace do it, suffragettes did it....fathers for justice do it..etc..

True....and all very brave of them I'm sure.....but ....why should their safety be someone elses concern? they choose to put themselves in harms way..

On the other hand no one should expect another person to deliberately hurt them...and it looked pretty deliberate to me, and I have watched it in slow motion.

I dont think the actual hitting of the girl was deliberate....Most horses will not willingly ride down a human, and if the horse had time to react it likely would have...also he didnt have time to do anything on comming through the gate.....brakes on horse are fairly inefficient you know....

not stopping...well that was a bit mean....BUT as said, given the propensity of sabs to assault all and sundry with iron bars, AND given the number of sabs about (and thus the fact that any aid he could give would be superfluous) I dont think thats an issue beyond mere "politeness" I mean ...what GOOD could he have done??

Would you be so understanding if hunters tore through your land without permission.... their hounds killing your livestock or pets on the way? That happened to someone I know years ago.

me...I'd use the land owners right to protect my live stock (and in law that does include pets)...and shoot the hounds......simples.....

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:33 pm

I think a better ploy would be to shoot the hunters....but thankfully I wont ever be in that position.

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:36 pm

Syl wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
Syl wrote:

Hmmm....people who hunt for sport....was it Oscar Wilde who accurately said "The unspeakable going after the uneatable"....something like that.
it was a drag hunt, not sure they eat the cloth bag thats being dragged
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/farmer-appalled-hunt-young-children-witness-foxes/story-20502102-detail/story.html

and did you actually READ that "news" propaganda you posted...

digging foxes with terriers is legal and approved...

the drag hunt had been and gone......and NOT in pursuit of the foxes
the foxes were shot...not torn apart by the hounds..

pile of LACS propaganda......which they are very good at

by The Devil, You Know Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:40 pm

Syl wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
one of my twitter pals is the lawyer who defended him. In court they got to see the full video.

Does your twitter pal ride in the same hunt by any chance?

I believe he understands hunting, he is a lawyer, he does understand that very well

by The Devil, You Know Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:42 pm

Syl wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

No, nor do I particularly agree with it, If any of my land owners for whom I carry out pest control need foxes sorting I use a rifle or shotgun (if I can get close enough). Far more efficient and humane IMO and far less disruptive. A hunt may get one, maybe two foxes if its lucky....I go out on "fox control" and often come away with 4 maybe 5 depending on where the problem is.....

the Issue I have with this is the "regardless of what I do MY safety is YOUR responsibility" attitude shown by these people

as I have said....you do dumb/stupid/irresponsible/criminal things ...dont come crying when it goes tits up and you get hurt....

I get your point, but people who campaign for others often put their own safety at risk in order to make a stand against what they see as inhumane practices...green peace do it, suffragettes did it....fathers for justice do it..etc..
On the other hand no one should expect another person to deliberately hurt them...and it looked pretty deliberate to me, and I have watched it in slow motion.

Would you be so understanding if hunters tore through your land without permission.... their hounds killing your livestock or pets on the way? That happened to someone I know years ago.

did this hunt go through anyones land illegally?
most farmers will allow hunts to go across their land, those that dont can make their beliefs known and I think most hunts will respect that

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:51 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Syl wrote:
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/farmer-appalled-hunt-young-children-witness-foxes/story-20502102-detail/story.html

and did you actually READ that "news" propaganda you posted...

digging foxes with terriers is legal and approved...

the drag hunt had been and gone......and NOT in pursuit of the foxes
the foxes were shot...not torn apart by the hounds..

pile of LACS propaganda......which they are very good at

Does this suit you better?

Taken from IFAW...International fund for animal welfare

"Isn’t it easy for hunts to say they killed a fox ‘by accident’ whilst trail hunting?

Under the cover of the false alibi of trail hunting, unfortunately yes. However, if video evidence is obtained of the hunt’s behaviour during the alleged accident, it is possible to prove that it was not really an accident. If hunts are exercising their hounds or following a scent, and the hounds follow a fox, then the hunts must call the hounds back. The control of hounds is a crucial point. The whippers-in, the hunt master and others are responsible for the hounds and they must be controlled either by whip, horn, or voice command. Hunts that allow their hounds to follow a fox are breaking the law."

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:55 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Syl wrote:

I get your point, but people who campaign for others often put their own safety at risk in order to make a stand against what they see as inhumane practices...green peace do it, suffragettes did it....fathers for justice do it..etc..
On the other hand no one should expect another person to deliberately hurt them...and it looked pretty deliberate to me, and I have watched it in slow motion.

Would you be so understanding if hunters tore through your land without permission.... their hounds killing your livestock or pets on the way? That happened to someone I know years ago.
did this hunt go through anyones land illegally?
most farmers will allow hunts to go across their land, those that dont can make their beliefs known and I think most hunts will respect that

I don't know whether the hunters or the protesters were trespassing.

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:08 pm

true enough syl. BUT in the incident you posted that is NOT what happened...At least not according to the article itself....

moreover now, after the changes to the law, video evidence is likely to be impossible to obtain...or rather USEABLE video evidence....since unless obtained by a warranted police operation those obtaining it would most likely be acting illegally (in as much as they were trespassing with intent ) and evidence obtained illegally is NOT admissible in court, no matter HOW good.

Yes it is possible to circumvent/ignore the law.....just as it is possible to drink drive....

so...if we intend to ban even drag hunting...becasue "some" abuse it then perhaps we can also ban driving for the same reason, even more to the point of course is that banning driving would save 1000's of human lives and we all know the old chestnut..."if it saves but ONE life its worth it"

Huntsman cleared of GBH 2190311264

I have ridden on a properly run and controlled drag hunt...no foxes involved......
BUT...never again......Oh I didnt get thrown...I CAN ride and jump to quite a high standard, but that bloody overgrown wilful 1 ton pile of dog meat just has to have been the most uncomfortable beast I have ever had the displeasure of mounting.....my arse cheeks were black and blue for a week after

At 14 stone wight I in faiurness can only realistically ride/jump a heavy hunter...anything less would end up with a U bend in its back...but this thing...it was a) immense b) ill tempered c) deliberately foisted on me by a hunt master who has a warped sense of humour I'm sure and d) was as wide an oil tanker ....
talk about split ones difference.... What a Face

by Syl Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:16 pm

Hahaha.... alien

for the mental image you just gave me.

by Victorismyhero Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:27 pm

glad you enjoyed it syl Laughing

I'm off now ...got an early start tomorrow....off to our bit of woodland in wales....

I have to say tonight has been a pleasure....debating wht is a contentious issue, and not a cross word or insult made....

thanks to all involved.

Sleep well....may YOUR god go with you.

by The Devil, You Know Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:29 pm

Syl wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

and did you actually READ that "news" propaganda you posted...

digging foxes with terriers is legal and approved...

the drag hunt had been and gone......and NOT in pursuit of the foxes
the foxes were shot...not torn apart by the hounds..

pile of LACS propaganda......which they are very good at

Does this suit you better?

Taken from IFAW...International fund for animal welfare

"Isn’t it easy for hunts to say they killed a fox ‘by accident’ whilst trail hunting?

Under the cover of the false alibi of trail hunting, unfortunately yes. However, if video evidence is obtained of the hunt’s behaviour during the alleged accident, it is possible to prove that it was not really an accident. If hunts are exercising their hounds or following a scent, and the hounds follow a fox, then the hunts must call the hounds back. The control of hounds is a crucial point. The whippers-in, the hunt master and others are responsible for the hounds and they must be controlled either by whip, horn, or voice command. Hunts that allow their hounds to follow a fox are breaking the law."

curious how no one's been prosecuted under the anti hunting legislation, it's almost as if it was designed to be unenforceable.

by Sponsored content