hunting ban what a waste of police time

barry lurcher · November 8, 2011

the hunting ban serves no purpose what so ever ,its so complex and utterley miss directed , the police as a whole admit this , tony blair f*****g admits this , most polititions admit this ,i say to them all grow a set of bollocks and get this crap over turned. this artical was from the south wales echo totally independent without bias.

Dogs on a hunt

FIGURES showing that three Welsh police forces did not even issue a caution against any member of a registered hunt in the first five years of the hunting ban prove it is not working and should be repealed, the Countryside Alliance is claiming.

Ministry of Justice figures obtained by the pro-hunting group show that forces in South Wales, Dyfed Powys and Gwent have not cautioned, fined or convicted any individual since the act came into force into 2005.

According to the group’s report, published today, North Wales Police have cautioned one person, proceeded against two and fined one.

The Alliance claims the law is “unworkable and misdirected” and is a waste of police time.

Its report states that nearly all (97%) convictions relate to poaching or other casual hunting activities – including at least seven people who have been convicted of hunting rats.

Of the 36 individuals who were convicted under the Hunting Act in 2010, only one person was associated with a registered hunt.

Alice Barnard, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: “With the opening meets of the hunting season just around the corner, these statistics are a damning indictment of the expensive and failed Hunting Act.

“As a piece of legislation, it is has been condemned widely – including by those who created it – yet law-abiding hunts are still forced to go about their daily lives under the threat of harassment and intimidation from saboteurs, who then waste police time pursuing cases that never see the light of day.

“The evidence is now overwhelming – the Hunting Act must be repealed.”

However, an RSPCA spokeswoman defended the legislation, saying: “The Hunting Act is clearly enforceable. Our most up-to-date figures are that 130 people have so far been successfully prosecuted under the Hunting Act, with more cases pending.

“The Act has already been used to obtain more convictions than other wildlife legislation such as the Badgers Act or the Deer Act.”

She continued: “We believe that repeal of the Hunting Act would be barbaric and a backward step for a civilised society. Hunting with dogs was consigned to the history books because the majority of the public found it abhorrent.

“Those calling for a repeal of the law are effectively calling for a return to cruelty.”

A UK Government spokesman said: “The Coalition Government pledged to put forward a motion to allow a free vote on the Hunting Act. This will take place at an appropriate time and if Parliament were to vote in favour of repeal, the Government would introduce a Repeal Bill in the House of Parliament in due course.”

Traditional hunting areas such as Dorset, Leicestershire, Devon and Cornwall have seen no convictions. In contrast, most convictions under the Act have been secured in areas such as Merseyside and Humberside, which are not hunted by registered packs.

The report states: “Although the total number of hours and days of police time that have been expended in the past year pursuing registered hunts cannot be properly counted, the statistics above reinforce the fact that the Hunting Act is unworkable and police forces are wasting time and effort pursuing law-abiding hunts.”

Former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair described the Act in his memoir as “one of the domestic legislative measures I most regret”.

Describing the confusion surrounding the legislation, the report claims: “The series of ‘exemptions’ designed to allow some types of hunting to continue were the result of political wrangling and are both illogical and unclear. For instance, it is legal to hunt a rabbit, but not a hare (unless it has been shot); a rat, but not a mouse.

“It is legal to use two dogs to flush to a waiting gun, but not three. It is legal to use any number of dogs to flush a mammal (unspecified) for a bird of prey (also unspecified). It is legal to use a terrier to flush a fox from below ground to be shot to protect game birds or wild birds kept or preserved for shooting, but illegal to use the same method to protect poultry, livestock or other vulnerable wildlife.”

Read Morehttp://www.walesonli.../#ixzz1d4CydRar[/left]

barry lurcher · November 8, 2011