Not guilty!

[events co-ordinator 353]

As Barrie has said and I remind you the bulk of the cooperation between the alliance NWTF etc is done OUTSIDE the public domain and the people involved do Not make it public as this would educate our opponents Believe what you like about SACS but I Know that you will not get access to TOP CLASS LEGAL ADVICE and representation for £35 anywhere else. Come and see us at any of the gamefairs Scone/Moy/ Lowther?Midland ask for Tam or Joanna we'll give you FACTS and answer questions. Regarding the SACS website the new one went on line in the Autumn last year we've had problems with servers etc but the main problem is my old mans health and at the moment he's been involved in 4 cases in NI. 2 in Scotland and 3 in England he just needs 1 from Wales and he's got a full house. Saying that he does'nt have to justify his priorities but if all the guys he's helped all bought him a pint you would have to beat his liver to death with a stick.

[stop.end 4,082]

lol...second that...surely yous dont beleive all you hear? ... any questions or queries about who they are and how they operate.... dont find out second hand.. go ask them yourselves at a sacs tent ...youll get educated..i sure did .... and a sounder man you could not meet...

[baldockbanks courser 598]

Congratulations to the defendants in this case. Unless you’ve actually been there yourself it’s very difficult to imagine what they and their families will have gone through during this time, particularly as a result of all the media coverage and social stigma it serves to create. Media reporting in this country leaves much to be desired as we’re seeing on an almost daily basis with the Leveson Inquiry.

 

Also a big well done to Clive and his team. They have a good track record of defending such cases and their details can be found on the Contacts page of the NWTF website at http://www.terrierwork.com/contacts.htm (that’s why they’re there).

 

With regards to SACS, I’ve never been a member, nor am I connected with them, so I’ve no axe to grind either way. But with all due respect and as someone whose actually stood up in Court defending terriermen and legitimate terrierwork, I would suggest that before anyone launches too heavily into attack mode on SACS it might be worth familiarising themselves with a number of court cases very similar to the above which have all been entirely funded and successfully defended through the Legal Fees Insurance Scheme which forms part of the SACS Membership Package.

 

It is also incorrect to suggest that the CA funds court cases affecting registered hunts, but ignores those affecting terrier and lurcher men. The cases affecting hunts are funded by a Legal Fees Insurance Scheme administered by the MFHA which is in turn paid for by an annual insurance premium collected from each hunt.

What the defendants object to is the way the C.A mis lead people to believe you have public liability and legal help.

 

My own liability insurance at work covers legal costs that may be incurred with any legal action that is taken against my company.

 

The country alliance gives you free advice in the form of a 1 off phone call with a solicitor who reads quotes out of law book and has little knowledge of country law.

 

There public liability insurance is totally separate and doesn't help you when you really need it.

The CA’s role and that of other similar type organisations is (apart from other things) to defend us all from harmful legislation and landmark rulings which could result in a blanket ban (rather than attempting to deal with each and every individual case) and over the years they've done that very successfully and on several occasions particularly in respect of terrierwork. Were they to operate as is sometimes suggested, all our opponents would need to do in order to entirely destabilise that process is initiate enough cases to quickly bring them to financial ruin.

 

J.M.H.O. (but hopefully a relatively informed one) - Barrie

[baldockbanks courser 598]

What I put has got mixed up with the quote I was talking about if some one can detangle you can see my point! ( it's the bit in smaller print )

Edited June 20, 2012 by baldockbanks courser

[Barrie 1,325]

What I put has got mixed up with the quote I was talking about if some one can detangle you can see my point! ( it's the bit in smaller print )

 

 

Hi BC

 

I fully appreciate the point you make and I've no other connection with the CA other than that of an ordinary member. I simply wanted to clear up any misunderstandings regarding who pays the legal fees for court cases involving registered hunts.

 

Personally I've been a member of the BFSS/CA for over 40 years (both as an inactive and then a more active member) and my understanding throughout has always been that their members insurance cover offers exactly that which you describe ie. third party liability cover whilst engaged in a legitimate fieldsport/pest control activity and access to a legal helpline. I've never once imagined that it might also cover my legal fees for what is in effect a criminal prosecution, no matter how unjustified that prosecution might be.

 

My understanding of public liability insurance is that it covers you against claims for damage, injury etc from third parties, but not against such things as legal fees associated with a possible criminal prosecution. Putting that in coursing terms, if your dog courses a rabbit across a road causing a traffic accident and various personal injuries then hopefully you’re covered. However if you're arrested for poaching the reverse would apply.

 

Putting that in business insurance terms, if for example you're a tree surgeon and drop a tree through someone’s conservatory hopefully you’re covered. But if some tree hugger comes up and accuses you of murdering trees resulting in an altercation and criminal charges of assault I suspect you would not.

 

Legal fees insurance, particularly against possible criminal prosecution is extremely rare and expensive, and I know that the premiums paid by the MFHA are way beyond the capabilities of most if not all terrier clubs. When I first learned of the SACS legal fees cover I was sceptical to say the least, nevertheless since then I have learned of a number of cases involving terrier and lurcher men which have to the best of my knowledge been funded entirely through this scheme.

 

But with all insurance it’s important to check that it’s suitable for your own personal needs and that it covers exactly what you would want it to. I pay my CA membership each year primarily because I genuinely believe they are best placed to defend my chosen sport of terrierwork, the fact it also includes third party liability insurance cover adequate for my personal needs is a bonus. Me personally if I was also looking for legal fees insurance then I would seriously consider joining SACS too.

 

I apologise if I have in any way detracted from this thread, like you I am elated that those involved were so rightly found innocent. Such victories are very hard won and I’ve seen first hand the extent to which “tame experts” will distort the facts simply in order to improve their chances of obtaining a conviction. How some of them can sleep at night knowing full well they’ve tried and in some instances succeeded in convicting innocent men and destroying their family’s lives is something I can’t comprehend. They try to portray themselves as being compassionate…. I think of them in an entirely different way and that begins with a “c” too.

 

I hope your friends and their families have been able to come out of this with no lasting harm.

 

With the greatest of respect both to you and to them - Barrie

Edited June 20, 2012 by Barrie

[gonetoearth 5,144]

Barry although I understand the ca have a political role to play . When a programme with audience of country file makes a stand like they did in this case , should they not now with the out come being to are advantage pass comment on the conduct and blatant use of a public body sutch as the BBC by John craven his produces

[The one 8,513]

Nice result since they seem to be conditioning the public that anybody out with terriers is after badgers and not doing legal terrier work

[Barrie 1,325]

Barry although I understand the ca have a political role to play . When a programme with audience of country file makes a stand like they did in this case , should they not now with the out come being to are advantage pass comment on the conduct and blatant use of a public body sutch as the BBC by John craven his produces

 

No offence GTE.... but why just the CA ?

 

The BBC have a formal complaints process, they also have a viewers complaints program which is aired each Sunday morning. It's right that people should be angry about what's gone on, but it's also right they should direct that anger where it will do most good instead of expecting others to do it on their behalf and then using that as an excuse for doing nothing themselves.

 

J.M.H.O. - Barrie

[gonetoearth 5,144]

But Barrie that's what we join for to have articulate people to put are case across in the right way it's all well and good doing things behind the sceans , but in a high profile case craven and co used this programme in a manner witch in any other case would have been seen as bias to wards the prosecution ,the accused have a rights and I cannot bealeve they have been allowed to get away with it , they discussed a case that was going to trial they would not do it in any other court case so why in this one were they allowed the ca have a legal department this is a perfect opportunity to make a comment and show the RSPCA and others in their true light

IMHO GTE

[stop.end 4,082]

look folks... a victory was won...why??? because they fabricate lies from all angels...

 

if anyone that is envolved in any fieldsports... instead of reading the hunting life...could you please read the law in your chosen fieldsport....

 

it would not only do you good but then you would know where YOU stand ... not barrie or tam or CA...

 

at the end of the day your the person who is out with your dogs and if this is your passion .... then you would be better to be able to quote this yourself...

 

and know where you stand... these fine folks not only offer a service that lets face it... the average man in this day and age can not only not afford..

 

but would not have the legal knowledge and experience on what your standard legal aid solicitor could offer!!! but hey thats just my opinion.....

[Barrie 1,325]

But Barrie that's what we join for to have articulate people to put are case across in the right way it's all well and good doing things behind the sceans , but in a high profile case craven and co used this programme in a manner witch in any other case would have been seen as bias to wards the prosecution ,the accused have a rights and I cannot bealeve they have been allowed to get away with it , they discussed a case that was going to trial they would not do it in any other court case so why in this one were they allowed the ca have a legal department this is a perfect opportunity to make a comment and show the RSPCA and others in their true light

IMHO GTE

 

I'm sorry GTE but paying our £35 a year doesn't absolve us of our own responsibilities as well.... yes the CA could put in a complaint to the BBC. That's assuming there are actually grounds for complaints apart from the fact that you, I and others might not like it (I'm sure by the very nature of the program and certainly if any views were expressed re prosecutions, that both the BBC and the RSPCA lawyers will have gone over the program before it went out) and yes that SINGLE complaint would be noted. However if 200 or better still 2,000 license payers all wrote in complaining about the same thing it would certainly have a far greater effect. I'd strongly recommend watching the viewers complaints program on a Sunday morning, you might be surprised at the trivial nature of many of the complaints which get airtime and also at some of the program makers responses.

 

If you want to discuss it at all, just give me a call and let's not clog up this thread.

 

Regards - Barrie

Edited June 20, 2012 by Barrie

[gonetoearth 5,144]

Barrie thats what this site is for to discuss, and debate , but I cannot agree with your stance on the. CA why join if they will not be more vocal when need be , they take the money off terrier and lurcher men not just to drive around in landrovers , yes every one should contact the beeb and complain but there should be a statement issued by the ca , what happend to UNITED WE STAND . We join clubs and organisations for insurance and support , seen them come and seen them go bfss, wagbi, replaced by basc and the ca it's ok them having big tents with all the pr upon the walls at game fairs etc again and again , why keep preaching to the already converted , it's the public who sat and viewed country file that day and beleaved the propaganda they were fed and dont even proberbly know of the existence of the fmwtc or NWTF or the CA , we need to be heard not do deals in corridors ,

GTE

[Linton Lad 90]

Barrie thats what this site is for to discuss, and debate , but I cannot agree with your stance on the. CA why join if they will not be more vocal when need be , they take the money off terrier and lurcher men not just to drive around in landrovers , yes every one should contact the beeb and complain but there should be a statement issued by the ca , what happend to UNITED WE STAND . We join clubs and organisations for insurance and support , seen them come and seen them go bfss, wagbi, replaced by basc and the ca it's ok them having big tents with all the pr upon the walls at game fairs etc again and again , why keep preaching to the already converted , it's the public who sat and viewed country file that day and beleaved the propaganda they were fed and dont even proberbly know of the existence of the fmwtc or NWTF or the CA , we need to be heard not do deals in corridors ,

GTE

 

Well put Big Fella

 

Agree 100%

 

 

LL.

[Barrie 1,325]

Hi GTE

 

Then I guess on this occasion all we can do..... is agree to disagree .

 

Unfortunately it appears our discussions are pretty much irrelevant. I try my best to put my efforts where I think (rightly or wrongly) they will have best effect and I don’t believe my whinging on THL would achieve very much except to give our opponents something else to chuckle about.

 

So for that reason I’ve spent all of this morning and most of the afternoon putting together a formal complaint to the BBC and to the Broadcasting Regulator OFCOM.

 

However it appears OFCOM do not deal with complaints about bias and inaccuracy, they are the BBC Trust’s responsibility, and in order to gain access to the BBC Trust you first have to go through the BBC’s own 3 stage complaints procedure.

 

Stage 1 of the BBC complaints procedure states that you must “complain within 30 working days of the incident or event” and the Countryfile program was aired on 8^th April 2012 which is well outside that timescale. Unfortunately without completing Stage 1, you can’t move onto Stages 2 or 3, or contact the BBC Trust. So we’re stuffed either way and so are the CA.

 

Just for the record and future reference the BBC Complaints Procedures can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/

 

Kindest Regards - Barrie

Edited June 21, 2012 by Barrie

[gonetoearth 5,144]

Barrie I know and respect all the work past and present you do and agree with you on most s you say we will agree to disagree on this issue why have Kate hoey involved she should bring it up at qestion time why the beeb let a public funded body film and air a bais article on a inncedent that was going to crown court and could have influenced the case , Wasting public money and a charity using donated monies to pursue law biding people acting within the law , innocent till proven guilty but dragged thru the mire and all the mite of the media used against them , , then found innocent maybe a public appology by the produces of country file , eh lol