Hunting Ban Repeal.

[Gaz_1989 9,539]

Hunting ban?

 

What's that?

 

When did that happen?

 

:laugh:

[lanesra 3,994]

Lacs spokeswoman stated they'd spent £1 million on monitoring hunts , wonder how much went to the Uneducated on the Ground and how much went to those Upstairs in there Ivory Towers ?

[cocker 2,654]

fat cats

[graham4877 1,181]

when the wank bbc report of boxing day hunts and have a LACS supporter there spouting their shiite its a no brainer.

 

and saying stuff like 'its been illegal to hunt animals with dogs since 2005' SO EVERYBODY WHO SEES A DOG CHASIJG A RABBIT WILL REPORT IT!!!

 

and 'the rspca have just wont a case against a fox hunt' AYE FOR OVER 300 GRAND YE FOOKIN MUGS!!!!!!!!

 

ARGHHHHHHH

she also said there have been 100`s of successful prosecutions under the act, not of hunts there hasnt. if my memory serves me correct there has only been 2 or 3 the rest were individual cases that shouldnt have been prosecuted under the act as there was already legislation in place to cover there offences

5/6 now... the rest all could of being done under poaching/game acts anyway.. now just think about how many lurcher n terriers has been slotted because of the hunting act

 

Edit to say well done to the rspca and lacs.. animal lovers

my arse!

[B.P.R 2,798]

Lacs spokeswoman stated they'd spent £1 million on monitoring hunts , wonder how much went to the Uneducated on the Ground and how much went to those Upstairs in there Ivory Towers ?

 

well the hunt monitors musnt get a penny. the scruffy baastards dont even have enough money to brush their teeth, comb their hair or wipe last weeks cabbage soup off their faces!

Edited December 26, 2012 by Blue Pocket Rocket

[walshie 2,804]

Just seen on the news that the Tories have decided they won't try for a free vote on the repeal of the ban during this parliament !! Well, they are going to be voted out in 2015, and Labour will get back in, so I think I can forget about a Repeal during my lifetime !!

 

Cheers.

 

How's that? Has everyone forgotten what an awful ballsup they made in their time in power?

 

more chance of ukip winning than the torries :laugh:

 

Let's hope so!

[paulus 26]

Lacs spokeswoman stated they'd spent £1 million on monitoring hunts , wonder how much went to the Uneducated on the Ground and how much went to those Upstairs in there Ivory Towers ?

 

well the hunt monitors musnt get a penny. the scruffy baastards dont even have enough money to brush their teeth, comb their hair or wipe last weeks cabbage soup off their faces!

to quote something i read earlier, if the police or other agencies want to film someone undercover they need permision from the courts or the film can not be used in evidence in a case againts the accused, so how can the RSPCA and LACs use film gained without a courts permision in a case

[ian 1 36]

i dont think it will ever get turned over and the torries are going to put it to vote when the next election comes round and then it will be nocked back with a promise that they will get it right the next time only we are the mugs that hold on to the belief that there are going to do it when in fact there just mugging us off so we vote for them to keep them in power.

[graham4877 1,181]

i dont think it will ever get turned over and the torries are going to put it to vote when the next election comes round and then it will be nocked back with a promise that they will get it right the next time only we are the mugs that hold on to the belief that there are going to do it when in fact there just mugging us off so we vote for them to keep them in power.

If it go's to a vote and get knocked back thats it.. in the bin for a very long time!

Now just think if we could vote them out as easy as we do in.. not just every 4 years..

then they might start working for us and doing what we say

[Mitch.friend 12]

Hunt what you want when you want end of

[B.P.R 2,798]

each party feeds everybody bullshiit and tells them exactly what they want to hear. tell the hunters they will get the ban overturned, tell the working class they will reduce tax, tell the poor they will recieve higher benefits and HEY PRESTO! win the election!

 

all a bunch of lying cnuts who shut themselves inside their world and pretend to do what they thinks best. its all about fcuking coin with them.

 

UKIP ALL THE WAY.

[Mitch.friend 12]

Well said that man!

[whippet 99 2,613]

The RSPCA's six-figure spite

 

 

 

Thursday, 20 December 2012

On Monday in Oxford Magistrates' Court two men pleaded guilty to four charges, each under a minor piece of legislation which carries a maximum penalty of £5,000. Their company – one was an employee, the other a director – pleaded guilty to four identical offences. The judge fined one of the men £250 for each offence and the other £450. The company was handed four £1,000 fines. You might think that is the end of a not-very-interesting story but you would be wrong, because the offence the two pleaded guilty to was breach of the Hunting Act and the company was the Heythrop Hunt Ltd.

 

If a prosecution involving a hunt was not enough to get media juices flowing, the Heythrop Hunt happens to be the only one based in David Cameron's constituency – and the Prime Minister is known to have hunted with the Heythrop hounds.

 

Such a coincidence was bound to put the story on the front pages but the fact that it was David Cameron's local hunt was no coincidence. The two men, Julian Barnfield and Richard Sumner, and the Heythrop Hunt were not investigated by the police and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), but targeted by the RSPCA. Of the 175 packs of foxhounds in the UK, the RSPCA chose to bring only one private prosecution – against the Heythrop. Nor was this the first attempt to prosecute the Heythrop and huntsman Julian. In 2008 the CPS brought four charges against him based on allegations by animal rights activists, but that prosecution failed. Last year the RSPCA summonsed Julian on another two charges, but again the prosecution failed.

 

So this year the charity returned with a prosecution unprecedented since the Hunting Act came into force in 2005. It brought no fewer than 52 charges against the hunt, its masters and employees, detailing ten allegations of illegal hunting.

 

The trial was due to start last week and would have lasted until the end of February. The cost of defending the case would have been well into six figures and then there were the RSPCA's costs to consider. There was clearly a big legal team at work and it did not look cheap. The RSPCA did not use its in-house solicitors, but hired top-end city firm Fishburns, which was clearly ready to spend whatever it took to get a conviction.

 

Julian and Richard took a pragmatic decision that defending such a big case was practically and financially almost impossible. They accepted that on four occasions they had allowed hounds to chase foxes that had jumped up while they were hunting artificial trails. The RSPCA dropped all other charges against them and against two others who had originally been prosecuted.

 

District Judge Tim Pattinson noted that in 500 hours' hunting last season the four allegations totalled just 15 minutes of criminality. He then handed down the fines, at the low end of the scale, and came on to the sticky issue of costs.

 

The RSPCA had been extremely reluctant to divulge how much it had spent on the case and when the judge calculated the total it was clear why – it had spent £326,980.23 on solicitors, barristers and associated costs. The judge called the figure "staggering", asking whether "the public may feel RSPCA funds could be more usefully employed". While Judge Pattinson was only commenting on this case, his question has wider implications. Increasingly, the RSPCA is becoming not simply an organisation focused on protecting animal welfare, but a political campaigning group promoting an animal rights agenda. New chief executive Gavin Grant has already ruffled feathers with his threat to "name and shame" people involved in the badger cull trials and by calling for boycotts against farmers in cull areas. Judge Pattinson's question can equally be applied here: is such a campaign the best use of RSPCA funds? Indeed, is it in the best interests of animal welfare?

 

There is something monstrously hypocritical about such profligacy and waste when the RSPCA is placing fundraising advertisements, claiming that "animal cruelty, neglect and suffering are reaching unprecedented levels in modern times". Paying a handful of lawyers more than £300,000 for a few weeks' work which had no impact on animal welfare, months after announcing 130 redundancies to address deficits on its £115 million annual turnover, suggests an organisation that has lost its way.

 

RSPCA membership has plummeted to just 29,000 and, while it will not disappear overnight, unless it refocuses on real animal welfare issues rather than a political animal rights agenda, it will progressively lose the support of the moderate majority.

 

politics eeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyy

we know what it was about

[Strong Stuff 2,171]

How many of the posters on this thread were out with a hunt today?

 

Straight question.

[Giro 2,648]

Was working