Keep cruelty history – no return to bloodsports

People are entitled to know which would-be MPs want to bring back bloodsports, argues Marcus Papadopoulos

by Tribune Web Editor
Monday, August 10th, 2009

People are entitled to know which would-be MPs want to bring back bloodsports, argues Marcus Papadopoulos

A possible change of government has raised fears over anti-fox-hunting legislation. Although the next general election is a little under a year away, the campaign to “Keep Cruelty History” has already been launched.

The League Against Cruel Sports, which is credited with having played a pivotal role in the abolition of hunting with dogs in England and Wales in 2004, hopes to draw public attention to the threat posed by the reopening of the debate with a possible snap free vote on repealing the Hunting Act after the next election.

Keep Cruelty History is appealing directly to the electorate and making it known what will be at stake with regard to hunting, should the next election bring in a new government. Without endorsing any political party – this would be in breach of Charity Commission regulations – the League is urging people to take this risk into consideration when casting their votes.

Appealing to the public on the subject of hunting puts the League on fertile ground. According to recently-commissioned opinion polls, 75 per cent of people are opposed to hunting and never want to see it made legal again. In the countryside, this figure stands at 71 per cent.

While many people thought and hoped that hunting had been consigned to the past with the passing of the Hunting Act and that this cruel activity would never again rear its ugly head in our society, the possibility of wild animals once more being tormented and savaged to death by hunters is high.

Addressing the recent annual meeting of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary and de facto deputy leader of the Conservative Party, reiterated his leader’s pledge that an incoming Tory government would allow a free vote in government time on a bill to repeal the Hunting Act.

The other two main parties remain committed to the Hunting Act. The present Labour Government has made it clear that it supports the legislation and will ensure that it is effectively enforced, while Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has said that his party does not endorse repeal.

With the Conservatives currently far ahead in the opinion polls, the League is taking no chances and is directing its resources to ensuring that hunting is confined to the history books where one day those reading them will ask themselves: “How could anyone have been allowed to carry out such heinous acts in the name of sport?”

The League is providing all prospective parliamentary candidates with information about the public’s view on hunting. It has emerged that, out of 131 Conservative candidates standing in marginal seats, only two are against hunting.

The Labour Party is facing a concerted attack by elements in the hunting community who have formed an organisation called “Vote-OK”. Their guiding objective is to rid Parliament of as many anti-hunt MPs as possible by supporting, in terms of both human and financial resources, candidates standing against them. As many as 150 MPs are being targeted by Vote-OK.

The League is not encouraging support for Labour. Rather, it is informing the electorate where candidates stand on the threatened repeal of the Hunting Act.

As League chief executive Douglas Batchelor puts it: “The electorate, who as a whole care deeply for the welfare of animals, have a right to know exactly where the main parties and candidates stand on hunting. If, after hearing that information, people decide to vote for another party on the basis of a candidate’s hostile stance towards the Hunting Act, that is their decision.”

It appears that the electorate takes the subject of hunting so seriously that a majority may change their votes if they find out that candidates oppose the Hunting Act. The League recently commissioned a poll which found that 59 per cent of people would be less likely to vote for a candidate who was planning to vote for repeal.

Despite the fact that three-quarters of the British people are against hunting being made legal again, repeal of the Hunting Act is on the political agenda.

As Steve Taylor, head of campaigns and communications at the League, contends: “It is simply unacceptable for supporters of hunting in Parliament to disregard the views of the overwhelming majority of the British public. From now until the day of the general election, we will be making sure that the public know exactly what repeal of the Hunting Act would mean for British wildlife.”

The League’s campaign is raising awareness of a subject that the vast amount of the British electorate thought had been consigned to the dustbin of history. As long as hunt supporters in Parliament continue to ignore public sentiment and demand a return to cruelty, the League will do everything possible to expose what this could mean for the welfare of animals.

Marcus Papadopoulos is press officer for the League Against Cruel Sports

The only place you can read all of Tribune's articles as soon as they are published is in the magazine. To find out more about subscribing from as little as £19, click here.

About The Author

  • Richard Hall

    Anyone who thinks that more than a handful of people will change the way they vote because of the foxhunting issue has to be more barking than the foxhounds. It’s a non-issue with the vast majority, always was, always will be. How the Labour Party managed to get itself so entangled with this issue is hard to fathom; student union political posturing at its worst. In the end I have to conclude that it was indeed, as one Old Left MP put it, ‘revenge for the miners’. I’m sure the miners are appropriately grateful.

  • Richard Hall

    Anyone who thinks that more than a handful of people will change the way they vote because of the foxhunting issue has to be more barking than the foxhounds. It’s a non-issue with the vast majority, always was, always will be. How the Labour Party managed to get itself so entangled with this issue is hard to fathom; student union political posturing at its worst. In the end I have to conclude that it was indeed, as one Old Left MP put it, ‘revenge for the miners’. I’m sure the miners are appropriately grateful.

  • Steve, N Wales

    Lets recognise this for what it is. Its not about ‘revenge for the miners’ or some kind of class war. Its about whether people should have the right to chase wildlife and rip it to shreds. Many of the people involved in hunting are ‘working class’ (whatever that means). I don’t give a damn what their ‘class’ is, I don’t think anyone has the right to slaughter wildlife. If its not an important political issue why is Cameron intent on wasting Parliamentary time if the Tory’s win the election to overturning the law?

  • Steve, N Wales

    Lets recognise this for what it is. Its not about ‘revenge for the miners’ or some kind of class war. Its about whether people should have the right to chase wildlife and rip it to shreds. Many of the people involved in hunting are ‘working class’ (whatever that means). I don’t give a damn what their ‘class’ is, I don’t think anyone has the right to slaughter wildlife. If its not an important political issue why is Cameron intent on wasting Parliamentary time if the Tory’s win the election to overturning the law?

  • Giles Bradshaw

    Richard Hill is correct. What these headline grabbing polls fail to capture is how MUCH people care about fox hunting.

    Lets also not forget that people from all sides in the debate agree it is a thoroughly ineffective law.

    The Countryside Alliance would love Labour to try and make hunting a major election issue. It will show how utterly patronising and out of touch with the electorate they are and will make the argument for repeal should there be a Tory victory all the greater.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    Richard Hill is correct. What these headline grabbing polls fail to capture is how MUCH people care about fox hunting.

    Lets also not forget that people from all sides in the debate agree it is a thoroughly ineffective law.

    The Countryside Alliance would love Labour to try and make hunting a major election issue. It will show how utterly patronising and out of touch with the electorate they are and will make the argument for repeal should there be a Tory victory all the greater.

  • terence patrick hewett

    The introduction of the Hunting Act 2004 is, in microcosm, an illustration of why the Labour Party is in such trouble. The party has set itself up as a moral arbiter, and presumes to dictate to us how we should conduct our lives. It presumes to tell hunters they cannot hunt. It presumes to tell Jews who is a Jew. It presumes to tell Catholic Adoption Agencies how to conduct themselves. It presumes tell us when and where we can smoke tobacco, thus destroying pub life and a whole industry. Catholics, Jews, Smokers and Hunters are not going to vote Labour. Abortion, Eugenics, Euthanasia, the de-stabilisation of the family, the rubbishing of the churches; the list goes on and on. The Labour Party has abandoned its Methodist inspired, roughly Christian set of moral principles for a rag-bag of single issues, drawing inspiration from such people as H G Wells and Marie Stopes, and all hidden by cloaks of respectability labelled “Equality” and “Compassion.”

    Realpolitic suggests that, given our diverse society, this approach can lead only to electoral extinction. It also suggests that it would be wise to embrace, without casuistry, the Harm Principle, as articulated by John Stuart Mill and John Locke, that is; each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. Mr Papadopoulos states that 75% of people do not agree with hunting; well, there are statistics and again there are statistics. But implicit in this questionable statement is that it is OK to persecute the other 25%, which is not a good idea in principle. It seems to be ironic that, given that Mr Papadopoulos is such an expert on hunting, that he cannot recognise a false trail when he sees one; which is precisely what Mr Hague is laying for his benefit. Hunting and smoking are more likely to be tucked away in an overriding parliamentary bill on the freedom and liberty of the individual, involving a proper reform of the Upper House.

    Everybody knows what everybody else is thinking thanks to the internet, so the toleration of individual eccentricities, as expounded by persons as disparate as Voltaire and G K Chesterton would appear to be an essential as well as a civilised course. On the roadmap of electoral success, the fork in the path labelled Single Issues should have a large sign saying, Here Be Dragons.

  • terence patrick hewett

    The introduction of the Hunting Act 2004 is, in microcosm, an illustration of why the Labour Party is in such trouble. The party has set itself up as a moral arbiter, and presumes to dictate to us how we should conduct our lives. It presumes to tell hunters they cannot hunt. It presumes to tell Jews who is a Jew. It presumes to tell Catholic Adoption Agencies how to conduct themselves. It presumes tell us when and where we can smoke tobacco, thus destroying pub life and a whole industry. Catholics, Jews, Smokers and Hunters are not going to vote Labour. Abortion, Eugenics, Euthanasia, the de-stabilisation of the family, the rubbishing of the churches; the list goes on and on. The Labour Party has abandoned its Methodist inspired, roughly Christian set of moral principles for a rag-bag of single issues, drawing inspiration from such people as H G Wells and Marie Stopes, and all hidden by cloaks of respectability labelled “Equality” and “Compassion.”

    Realpolitic suggests that, given our diverse society, this approach can lead only to electoral extinction. It also suggests that it would be wise to embrace, without casuistry, the Harm Principle, as articulated by John Stuart Mill and John Locke, that is; each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. Mr Papadopoulos states that 75% of people do not agree with hunting; well, there are statistics and again there are statistics. But implicit in this questionable statement is that it is OK to persecute the other 25%, which is not a good idea in principle. It seems to be ironic that, given that Mr Papadopoulos is such an expert on hunting, that he cannot recognise a false trail when he sees one; which is precisely what Mr Hague is laying for his benefit. Hunting and smoking are more likely to be tucked away in an overriding parliamentary bill on the freedom and liberty of the individual, involving a proper reform of the Upper House.

    Everybody knows what everybody else is thinking thanks to the internet, so the toleration of individual eccentricities, as expounded by persons as disparate as Voltaire and G K Chesterton would appear to be an essential as well as a civilised course. On the roadmap of electoral success, the fork in the path labelled Single Issues should have a large sign saying, Here Be Dragons.

  • Giles Bradshaw

    I was interested in Helen Week’s recent letter complaining about the Hunting Act:

    The reason that the law falls apart when tested is that it is so poorly constructed. The reason it is so poorly constructed is that those who drafted it refused to listen to criticism. This came not only from the Countryside Alliance who continually warned it would not be enforceable but also from the Government.

    The Government failed to get a bill through that it had at least attempted to base on ‘principle and evidence’. The principle being improvement in animal welfare and the evidence being that from the Burns enquiry.

    Margaret Becket warned anti hunt MPs that “no bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable”. She pleaded with colleagues not to wreck the bill but they did just that and this is why we have the current flawed legislation.

    Helen Weeks complains about the exemptions. These were required because they refused to go down the far more sensible route of licensing hunts on the basis of animal welfare. The then Defra Minister Alun Michael warned that the attempt at a total ban “will not be workable without further amendment” and that a complete ban “would destroy the architecture of the Bill”

    One of the problems with the law is that it is unclear exactly what it does ban. I have received three responses from Defra regarding my practice of using dogs to flush out and chase wild deer. Initially they said chasing away is legal, then they said it is illegal. Now Framing minister Jim Fitzpatrick has written to me acknowledging they simply do not know.

    More worrying still is his explanation as to why the law states that deer can only be flushed out of cover if they are then shot. The farming minister explains this is to prevent people from using the flushing exemption as an excuse to break the law.

    What is the principle behind a law which requires potential victims of a crime to be shot dead in order to prevent a crime taking place?

  • Giles Bradshaw
  • Giles Bradshaw

    I was interested in Helen Week’s recent letter complaining about the Hunting Act:

    The reason that the law falls apart when tested is that it is so poorly constructed. The reason it is so poorly constructed is that those who drafted it refused to listen to criticism. This came not only from the Countryside Alliance who continually warned it would not be enforceable but also from the Government.

    The Government failed to get a bill through that it had at least attempted to base on ‘principle and evidence’. The principle being improvement in animal welfare and the evidence being that from the Burns enquiry.

    Margaret Becket warned anti hunt MPs that “no bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable”. She pleaded with colleagues not to wreck the bill but they did just that and this is why we have the current flawed legislation.

    Helen Weeks complains about the exemptions. These were required because they refused to go down the far more sensible route of licensing hunts on the basis of animal welfare. The then Defra Minister Alun Michael warned that the attempt at a total ban “will not be workable without further amendment” and that a complete ban “would destroy the architecture of the Bill”

    One of the problems with the law is that it is unclear exactly what it does ban. I have received three responses from Defra regarding my practice of using dogs to flush out and chase wild deer. Initially they said chasing away is legal, then they said it is illegal. Now Framing minister Jim Fitzpatrick has written to me acknowledging they simply do not know.

    More worrying still is his explanation as to why the law states that deer can only be flushed out of cover if they are then shot. The farming minister explains this is to prevent people from using the flushing exemption as an excuse to break the law.

    What is the principle behind a law which requires potential victims of a crime to be shot dead in order to prevent a crime taking place?

  • Giles Bradshaw
  • Giles Bradshaw

    The efficiency and effectiveness of dogs ion killing wild animals is witnessed by this description of one Billy a Bull and Terrier.

    “Thursday night, Oct. 24, at a quarter before eight o’clock, the lovers of rat-killing enjoyed a feast of delight in a prodigious raticide at the Cockpit, Westminster. The place was crowded. The famous dog Billy, of rat-killing notoriety, 26 lb. weight, was wagered, for twenty sovereigns, to kill one hundred rats in twelve minutes. The rats were turned out loose at once in a 12-feet square, and the floor whitened, so that the rats might be visible to all. The set-to began, and Billy exerted himself to the utmost. At four minutes and three quarters, as the hero’s head was covered with gore, he was removed from the pit, and his chaps being washed, he lapped some water to cool his throat. Again he entered the arena, and in vain did the unfortunate victims labour to obtain security by climbing against the sides of the pit, or by crouching beneath the hero. By twos and threes they were caught, and soon their mangled corpses proved the valour of the victor. Some of the flying enemy, more valiant than the rest, endeavoured by seizing this Quinhus Flestrum of heroic dogs by the ears, to procure a respite, or to sell their life as dearly as possible; but his grand paw soon swept off the buzzers, and consigned them to their fate. At seven minutes and a quarter, or according to another watch, for there were two umpires and two watches, at seven minutes and seventeen seconds, the victor relinquished the glorious pursuit, for all his foes lay slaughtered on the ensanguined plain. Billy was then caressed and fondled by many; the dog is estimated by amateurs as a most dextrous animal; he is, unfortunately, what the French Monsieurs call borg-ne, that is, blind of an eye.-This precious organ was lost to him some time since by the intrepidity of an inimical rat, which as he had not seized it in a proper place, turned round on its murderer, and reprived him by one bite of the privilege of seeing with two eyes in future. The dog BILLY, of rat-killing notoriety, on the evening of the 13th instant, again exhibited his surprising dexterity; he was wagered to kill one hundred rats within twelve minutes; but six minutes and twenty five seconds only elapsed, when every rat lay stretched on the gory plain, without the least symptom of life appearing.’ Billy was decorated with a silver collar, and a number of ribband bows, and was led off amidst the applauses of the persons assembled.”

  • Giles Bradshaw

    The efficiency and effectiveness of dogs ion killing wild animals is witnessed by this description of one Billy a Bull and Terrier.

    “Thursday night, Oct. 24, at a quarter before eight o’clock, the lovers of rat-killing enjoyed a feast of delight in a prodigious raticide at the Cockpit, Westminster. The place was crowded. The famous dog Billy, of rat-killing notoriety, 26 lb. weight, was wagered, for twenty sovereigns, to kill one hundred rats in twelve minutes. The rats were turned out loose at once in a 12-feet square, and the floor whitened, so that the rats might be visible to all. The set-to began, and Billy exerted himself to the utmost. At four minutes and three quarters, as the hero’s head was covered with gore, he was removed from the pit, and his chaps being washed, he lapped some water to cool his throat. Again he entered the arena, and in vain did the unfortunate victims labour to obtain security by climbing against the sides of the pit, or by crouching beneath the hero. By twos and threes they were caught, and soon their mangled corpses proved the valour of the victor. Some of the flying enemy, more valiant than the rest, endeavoured by seizing this Quinhus Flestrum of heroic dogs by the ears, to procure a respite, or to sell their life as dearly as possible; but his grand paw soon swept off the buzzers, and consigned them to their fate. At seven minutes and a quarter, or according to another watch, for there were two umpires and two watches, at seven minutes and seventeen seconds, the victor relinquished the glorious pursuit, for all his foes lay slaughtered on the ensanguined plain. Billy was then caressed and fondled by many; the dog is estimated by amateurs as a most dextrous animal; he is, unfortunately, what the French Monsieurs call borg-ne, that is, blind of an eye.-This precious organ was lost to him some time since by the intrepidity of an inimical rat, which as he had not seized it in a proper place, turned round on its murderer, and reprived him by one bite of the privilege of seeing with two eyes in future. The dog BILLY, of rat-killing notoriety, on the evening of the 13th instant, again exhibited his surprising dexterity; he was wagered to kill one hundred rats within twelve minutes; but six minutes and twenty five seconds only elapsed, when every rat lay stretched on the gory plain, without the least symptom of life appearing.’ Billy was decorated with a silver collar, and a number of ribband bows, and was led off amidst the applauses of the persons assembled.”

  • http://www.newforesthounds.co.uk Will

    So the League Against Cruel Sports are “credited with playing a pivotal role in the abolition of hunting with dogs in England and Wales in 2004″. So this means the League Against Cruel Sports are responsible for the really stupid and weak hunting ban that costs us taxpayers millions of pounds. Just think about it. They encouraged the House of Commons to waste 700 hours on this issue. Maybe that is why the country is in such a dire state now. Parliament should have been concentrating on the REAL issues. That 700 hours much have cost us taxpayers millions in MPs salaries and expenses.

    The league Against Cruel Sports have written a ban that the police and Courts must waste much time and money on trying to interepret. Most cases are dropped after lenghty and costly investigations. Only a few coursers have been convicted and they got absolute discharges (the lowest possible penalty from a Court) and NO cost. The Taxpayers funded the prosecutions. What a waste of taxpayers money and resources! Now the League want yet more money spent on enforcement, review of the Act and more prosecutions. The League is an animal rights group with no concept of reality or the trouble this country is in. The most cost-effetive way of dealing with this is to remove the ban with a one sentence Act of Parliamnet. Easy and cheap. Roll on repeal!

  • http://www.newforesthounds.co.uk Will

    So the League Against Cruel Sports are “credited with playing a pivotal role in the abolition of hunting with dogs in England and Wales in 2004″. So this means the League Against Cruel Sports are responsible for the really stupid and weak hunting ban that costs us taxpayers millions of pounds. Just think about it. They encouraged the House of Commons to waste 700 hours on this issue. Maybe that is why the country is in such a dire state now. Parliament should have been concentrating on the REAL issues. That 700 hours much have cost us taxpayers millions in MPs salaries and expenses.

    The league Against Cruel Sports have written a ban that the police and Courts must waste much time and money on trying to interepret. Most cases are dropped after lenghty and costly investigations. Only a few coursers have been convicted and they got absolute discharges (the lowest possible penalty from a Court) and NO cost. The Taxpayers funded the prosecutions. What a waste of taxpayers money and resources! Now the League want yet more money spent on enforcement, review of the Act and more prosecutions. The League is an animal rights group with no concept of reality or the trouble this country is in. The most cost-effetive way of dealing with this is to remove the ban with a one sentence Act of Parliamnet. Easy and cheap. Roll on repeal!

  • angela pinter

    I agree with Terence Patrick Hewett.
    The issue is not important enough and moreover individuals should be able to decide for themselves.
    I am very disappointed with Marcus as I used to enjoy his articles when he was at Tribune.
    THe League wants to tell others what to think on th ebasis of ‘moral high ground’ and this is unacceptable.
    Interestingly the previous press officer of League was Barry Hugill and he supported using ASBOS against hunters. This was the kind of’function creep’ Hugill was totally opposed to when he was press officer for Liberty the group which purports to suport human rights. It seems to do so in the breach.

  • angela pinter

    I agree with Terence Patrick Hewett.
    The issue is not important enough and moreover individuals should be able to decide for themselves.
    I am very disappointed with Marcus as I used to enjoy his articles when he was at Tribune.
    THe League wants to tell others what to think on th ebasis of ‘moral high ground’ and this is unacceptable.
    Interestingly the previous press officer of League was Barry Hugill and he supported using ASBOS against hunters. This was the kind of’function creep’ Hugill was totally opposed to when he was press officer for Liberty the group which purports to suport human rights. It seems to do so in the breach.

  • Kayleigh

    I find it interesting that Angela Pinter seems to think its wrong for the league to tell others what to think but feels she can decide that the issue is not important? Pot kettle black???
    What may not be important to you may be very important to someone else.
    Maybes if this country used more morals we wouldnt be in such mess in the instances of kids running round with knives and guns and the baby P incident of the lack of a mothers care?

  • Kayleigh

    I find it interesting that Angela Pinter seems to think its wrong for the league to tell others what to think but feels she can decide that the issue is not important? Pot kettle black???
    What may not be important to you may be very important to someone else.
    Maybes if this country used more morals we wouldnt be in such mess in the instances of kids running round with knives and guns and the baby P incident of the lack of a mothers care?

  • Phil

    There are serious flaws with this law. LACS and the Labour Party are now seen by many in the anti hunt movement as an impediment to progress.

    It is well known that the hunts are still going out with dogs and if they do then animals will inevitably die.

    We have to move forward and tighten the ban by removing the need for any ‘intent to hunt’ to be proved.

    Only once we have achieved this will the hunts be forced to disband.

  • Phil

    There are serious flaws with this law. LACS and the Labour Party are now seen by many in the anti hunt movement as an impediment to progress.

    It is well known that the hunts are still going out with dogs and if they do then animals will inevitably die.

    We have to move forward and tighten the ban by removing the need for any ‘intent to hunt’ to be proved.

    Only once we have achieved this will the hunts be forced to disband.

  • angela pinter

    Kayleigh
    Thanks for your comments.
    I and many others do not think that there is a sufficiently important moral issue involved. It is hardly in the same moral category as the other things you are also concerned about.

  • angela pinter

    Kayleigh
    Thanks for your comments.
    I and many others do not think that there is a sufficiently important moral issue involved. It is hardly in the same moral category as the other things you are also concerned about.

  • giles bradshaw

    I think also Angela it is hard to see exactly what ‘moral’ issue the law is meant to address.

    One can go out with a gun and blast merry hell out of all sorts of wildlife causing all sorts of suffering and having a whale of a time so it can hardly be killing for fun.

    Moreover the Hunting Act bans activities that aren’t killing for fun at all such as flushing out and chasing wild animals to disperse them as an alternative to killing for fun.

    Personally I am convinced my activities are not cruel and have carried on regardless. I think people in the Government are blissfully unaware if the utter disdain that most people hold them in and I seriously doubt their ability to get me to obey this law.

  • giles bradshaw

    I think also Angela it is hard to see exactly what ‘moral’ issue the law is meant to address.

    One can go out with a gun and blast merry hell out of all sorts of wildlife causing all sorts of suffering and having a whale of a time so it can hardly be killing for fun.

    Moreover the Hunting Act bans activities that aren’t killing for fun at all such as flushing out and chasing wild animals to disperse them as an alternative to killing for fun.

    Personally I am convinced my activities are not cruel and have carried on regardless. I think people in the Government are blissfully unaware if the utter disdain that most people hold them in and I seriously doubt their ability to get me to obey this law.

  • Phil

    Giles Bradshaw’s tedious argument re the Hunting Act is well known. A recognised flaw in the law means that he can only use his dogs to flush out deer if he then shoots them, something that he does not tire of informing us he fails to do.

    So what Giles?

    No one is going to prosecute you for not shooting the deer you flush out when it is perfectly obvious that this is merely an anomaly in the law.

    The law was not meant to target non lethal alternatives to hunting. The reason it requires flushed out deer to be shot is to stop people then chasing the deer.

  • Phil

    Giles Bradshaw’s tedious argument re the Hunting Act is well known. A recognised flaw in the law means that he can only use his dogs to flush out deer if he then shoots them, something that he does not tire of informing us he fails to do.

    So what Giles?

    No one is going to prosecute you for not shooting the deer you flush out when it is perfectly obvious that this is merely an anomaly in the law.

    The law was not meant to target non lethal alternatives to hunting. The reason it requires flushed out deer to be shot is to stop people then chasing the deer.

  • giles bradshaw

    Ah right I see so one minute what I say is utterly irrelevant because I am a leading CA member (which I’m not) and a Tory (which I’m not either) and the next minute actually I am right, the Hunting Act is flawed and it’s fine for me to break it.

    Maybe get your story straight?

  • giles bradshaw

    Ah right I see so one minute what I say is utterly irrelevant because I am a leading CA member (which I’m not) and a Tory (which I’m not either) and the next minute actually I am right, the Hunting Act is flawed and it’s fine for me to break it.

    Maybe get your story straight?

  • Cueball

    I am one person who was outraged at the amount of time wasted in Parliament on this non-issue.

    Is hunting with hounds cruel to the animal being chased? Yes, but life for any wild animal can be cruel. No one complains when the BBC shows gazelle being chased, mauled and eaten by lions. A lot of people like watching it. So why should there be a problem with humans hunting animals? We used to do it.

    The objection to hunting from a minority of people comes from their inability to understand why anyone would enjoy hunting and their desire to impose what they consider civilised on others. It isn’t about cruelty, otherwise they would have started out trying to ban the eating of meat in the UK.

    Furthermore the ban itself doesn’t work. People continue to hunt. What we need is licensing, so I hope the law is changed after the election as many people say it will be. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

  • Cueball

    I am one person who was outraged at the amount of time wasted in Parliament on this non-issue.

    Is hunting with hounds cruel to the animal being chased? Yes, but life for any wild animal can be cruel. No one complains when the BBC shows gazelle being chased, mauled and eaten by lions. A lot of people like watching it. So why should there be a problem with humans hunting animals? We used to do it.

    The objection to hunting from a minority of people comes from their inability to understand why anyone would enjoy hunting and their desire to impose what they consider civilised on others. It isn’t about cruelty, otherwise they would have started out trying to ban the eating of meat in the UK.

    Furthermore the ban itself doesn’t work. People continue to hunt. What we need is licensing, so I hope the law is changed after the election as many people say it will be. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

  • Liz

    Polls have consistently shown that if Labour makes the Hunting Act the key election issue it will be returned to Government with a sweeping 70% majority.

    Even 56% of Tory voters will switch to Labour. Because of the Hunting law.

    This issue holds the key to delivering an election landslide.

  • Liz

    Polls have consistently shown that if Labour makes the Hunting Act the key election issue it will be returned to Government with a sweeping 70% majority.

    Even 56% of Tory voters will switch to Labour. Because of the Hunting law.

    This issue holds the key to delivering an election landslide.

  • Phil

    The Hunting Act CAN be an election winner for Labour but only if we strengthen the law.

    If my the time of the next election we have forced the hunts to disband and have achieved a massive increase in prosecutions then we will have victory.

    The way to do this is to make it illegal to allow dogs not to be under tight control. This would make it impossible for packs of dogs to be taken out and the hunts wouold be forced to disband as they could not operate.

    Any accidental hunting of a wild animal by a dog should become a serious criminal offence.

    Punishment available under the law should be increased to a £100,000 fine and up to five years imprisonment.

    All ‘control’ of wildlife should be immediately banned.

    The public need to know that we are taking firm action against the hunters.

  • Phil

    The Hunting Act CAN be an election winner for Labour but only if we strengthen the law.

    If my the time of the next election we have forced the hunts to disband and have achieved a massive increase in prosecutions then we will have victory.

    The way to do this is to make it illegal to allow dogs not to be under tight control. This would make it impossible for packs of dogs to be taken out and the hunts wouold be forced to disband as they could not operate.

    Any accidental hunting of a wild animal by a dog should become a serious criminal offence.

    Punishment available under the law should be increased to a £100,000 fine and up to five years imprisonment.

    All ‘control’ of wildlife should be immediately banned.

    The public need to know that we are taking firm action against the hunters.

  • Phil

    Other countries have legislation requiring all dogs to be on a lead. I don;t see why we should not consider doing this. Also we should limit the number of dogs that can be taken out together.

    Now hunting is banned there is no need to take out packs of dogs.

  • Phil

    Other countries have legislation requiring all dogs to be on a lead. I don;t see why we should not consider doing this. Also we should limit the number of dogs that can be taken out together.

    Now hunting is banned there is no need to take out packs of dogs.

  • Richard Hall

    Congratulations Phil, you just lost the dog owners’ vote. And banned drag hunting.

  • Richard Hall

    Congratulations Phil, you just lost the dog owners’ vote. And banned drag hunting.

  • Piper

    But why stop there Phil.

    Make wearing a red coat an offence…

    and ban horseriding.

    Then you’ve really stuffed ‘em!

  • Piper

    But why stop there Phil.

    Make wearing a red coat an offence…

    and ban horseriding.

    Then you’ve really stuffed ‘em!

blog comments powered by Disqus