Hunting

It has been passed :D :D :D

Hunt ban forced through Commons

A hunt ban has reached its final parliamentary fence
Commons Speaker Michael Martin has invoked the Parliament Act meaning a ban on fox hunting will be in place by February 2005.
He told MPs the Act was being used for only the fourth time since 1949 - a move sparked by peers who earlier rejected a ban on hunting with dogs.

The bill was then given Royal Assent bringing to an end years of wrangling.

Legal action and demonstrations are now predicted in the run up to the general election, widely expected next May.

Mr Martin told MPs: "I am satisfied all the provisions of the Parliament Act have been met."

As well as fox hunting, deer-hunting and hare-coursing with dogs will now be outlawed in England and Wales.

Earlier Conservative shadow environment minister James Gray condemned the proposals as a "rank bad bill", which would be impossible to police.

They [peers] have behaved like turkeys voting for Christmas

Alun Michael
Rural Affairs Minister


Q&A: Hunting ban
Hunt supporters 'defiant'
Emotions riding high
Using the Parliament Act in such circumstances was "unprecedented", he argued.

Mr Gray said passing a ban with no delay would send a hidden message to the countryside: "a message which reads 'Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war'."

But RSPCA director of animal welfare, John Rolls, said the bill was a "watershed in the development of a more civilised society for people and animals".

The Tory leader in the Upper House, Lord Strathclyde, said the ban threatened the "livelihoods of thousands" and "drew a knife across centuries of tradition in our countryside but will not lead to a single animal being spared a violent death".

The pro-hunt Countryside Alliance has already written to Attorney General Lord Goldsmith saying it will challenge the legality of the 1949 Parliament Act in the High Court as soon as a ban gains royal assent.

The alliance is also planning to take the issue to the European Court of Human Rights.

Election campaigns

Alliance chief executive, Simon Hart, said its lawyers believed it had a good case.

Landowners could also stop cooperating with the government, he told BBC News.

And he warned anti-hunt MPs with majorities of less than 5,000 they would face a determined campaign at the next election.


Hunt opponents say a ban is needed against "appalling cruelty"

"What the last few days and few weeks have done is recruit several thousands of people to campaign to get out of Parliament the sort of people who put prejudice before principle," added Mr Hart.

Rodney Austin, senior law lecturer at University College, London said there was no possibility of the courts challenging legislation passed under the Parliament Act.

But he told BBC News the human rights case had a "slightly better" chance of success.

Compromise shunned

Tony Blair had favoured a deal proposed in the Commons on Wednesday to allow licensed hunting of foxes to continue.

On Thursday, he told reporters action would now transfer to the courts.

"But I think probably, despite the very passionate views on either side of this debate, the majority of people would have preferred to have seen a compromise accepted," he added.

Phyllis Campbell-McRae, director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, said: "Banning hunting will put Britain back at the forefront of animal welfare worldwide.

"It has been a long, hard campaign, won by the determination of tens of thousands of people in urban and rural communities who are dedicated to protecting animals from senseless and appalling cruelty."
 
Ardross, why is it going to be so easy to enforce this law when, as I've posted here before, you already have the existing problem of illegal hare coursing which the police cannot or will not do anything about?

How is the passing of this bill going to suddenly, miraculously, free up large numbers of police to deal with illegal hunting, when the much smaller, and therefore easier to police, current problem is scarcely dealt with at all?

Where are the extra police to come from? Or, if there are to be no extra police, from what existing duties will police be diverted to enforce the new law?

How will the overnight criminalisation of hitherto law-abiding citizens help the police, particularly in remote rural areas, to keep the confidence and support of the local population in it's wider fight against crime?
 
I agree entirely with Venusian . If you draw the line at hunting you must also consider Hare coursing
 
Compared to the number of people who regularly flout the law against using non hands-free phones while driving, those hunting will be a drop in the ocean.

All that's banned is the hunting. The hunts themselves aren't banned. If they want to meet and ride round the countryside for 4 or 5 hours that's fine. Perhaps if they re-invented themselves as social riding clubs, they'd get a more representative membership than they portray on the tv.
 
and if you happen to be walking your dogs ( cos they wont be allowed to be called hounds any more... ) whilst you are out on a ride - thats fine too....

But they mustnt kill anything. ( or if they do - you have to prove that you werent deliberately after it....... )

makes re-homing the hounds ( sorry - dogs! ) easier if they can still be excersised in packs...... B)
 
Stodge, you really ought to know better! Is this the very same Stodge that can make a 6f claimer at Lingfield seem like the Derby?!

"The hunts themselves aren't banned. If they want to meet and ride round the countryside for 4 or 5 hours that's fine"

Why on earth would farmers or landowners invite hunts onto their land if there's no pest control or environmental benefit to be gained from so doing?

"Perhaps if they re-invented themselves as social riding clubs, they'd get a more representative membership than they portray on the tv."

I don't think hunts get much say on how they're portrayed on TV! The TV companies normally pick the two poshest hunts, the Quorn and the Duke of Beaufort's, or that one in Essex for the annual Boxing Day punch-up because it's easy for the journos to get back to Islington.

You never get to see any of the ordinary mounted packs, let alone a remote hill-country foot-pack. They don't fit the stereotype that the TV companies have fixed in their minds.

Although hunts have, until the last few years, not been very good at PR, I really think you have to blame the media for this one.
 
The European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights is based on the Council of Europe - currently composed of forty-one states. The United Kingdom is bound by many international treaties which oblige it to respect human rights. One of the most important of these is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This treaty offers the possibility of redress where a person's civil liberties have been infringed and no remedy can be obtained from the British courts or government.

The Convention was drawn up under the auspices of the Council of Europe, an organisation of West European countries which is based in Strasbourg, France, and is quite separate from the European Community. The Convention was adopted on 4 November 1950 and came into force on 3 September 1953. Its provisions guarantee most, but not all, civil liberties, including the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from arbitrary arrest, the right to a fair trial, the right to privacy, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly and association. The rights guaranteed by the Convention have already been considered in the section on the Human Rights Act 1998.

As like stodge has already stated they have only band the hunting not the hunt, so according to the convention above freedom of assembly and association no law has been broken.

Regards
 
apak - their human rights case based it seems on freedom of association, right to respect for property and a right to a private life is very weak in my opinion
 
My dogs chase and kill rabbits most times i walk them so i guess im gonna get in big trouble come Feb 05. :o This is a complete joke. :angy:
 
Originally posted by fudge@Nov 18 2004, 11:51 PM
My dogs chase and kill rabbits most times i walk them so i guess im gonna get in big trouble come Feb 05. :o This is a complete joke. :angy:
Click to expand...
Hunting Rabbits is not covered in the bill. So you will be ok ;)
 
tally ho

very pleased to see this ban introduced

even though the penalties for breaking the law are not severe enough


the demonstrations that the rabble that goes by the name of the countryside alliance plan should be banned as well
 
That's a really sensible response isn't it........ :rolleyes:

It's not over yet - all this means is that the fight moves out of Parliament & into the courts. Tony seemed to be sweating a bit last night, he wanted the ban delayed for 18 months so he could safely get elected again - he is going to be feeling increasingly uncomfortable & embarassed over the next few months.

It isn't over yet!
 
I am against the ban, but not passionate about either side of the argument as I was reared far from Hunting fields and people. (Although I think your parliament would be better spending it's time protecting Iraqi's rather than foxes.)

However I was wondering if any considered the personal issue for the people involved. For instance my weekends are generally, squash, golf, racing, meals, drinking, (and a little family).

I am trying to rationalise how I'd feel if The Dail legislated that I can't from next February play my Sunday game of golf, or Friday game of squash etc - I imagine the gap that this created would be very angry making, irrespective of the merits of the argument.

As Brian says, it won't effect an election. 500K people hunt. 4M fish. Fishing is arguably more barbaric than hunting. Fishing will effect and election and will not be banned.
 
Do your pastimes involve killing?

Of course you could spend your Golf shouting fore!

or you could kill your opponent standing on the "T" whilst playing squash.

Drinking! i assume that you dont drink and drive.
 
Would all the people who say that fox hunting is not cruel and is a sport, please take a look at the link below, and then please tell me how this action is not cruel and what sport do you get from watching this happen. :angy:

http://www.derbyfoxes.org/fox_cruelty.htm

I am sorry for posting this link if you are squeamish then please dont look..

Regards :angy:
 
So when this ban comes in who is gonna take responsibility for all the dogs that are gonna have to be killed? And most of the old horses that are going to have to be put down as they will no longer be of much use? Oh and the estimated 8000 people who are going to be jobless?
 
Apak, anyone following a hunt would be hundreds of yards away when this fox was killed, and quite unable to see any of this, unless they had the eyes of a hawk.

By the way, I don't see how you can say it hasn't had it's neck broken. Although it's hard to be certain, it looks broken to me.

If people really want to get off on seeing animals killed uncleanly, and would like a close up view, their best bet is not fox or hare hunting (and certainly not stag hunting!), but to take up angling, or maybe work in an abattoir - I'd recommend one that does ritual slaughter, you get to see it in slo-mo!
 
Apak, anyone following a hunt would be hundreds of yards away when this fox was killed, and quite unable to see any of this, unless they had the eyes of a hawk.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that makes it right then?


By the way, I don't see how you can say it hasn't had it's neck broken. Although it's hard to be certain, it looks broken to me.
Click to expand...

How can you say it's hard to be certain and then say it looks it to me? :what:

If people really want to get off on seeing animals killed uncleanly, and would like a close up view, their best bet is not fox or hare hunting (and certainly not stag hunting!), but to take up angling, or maybe work in an abattoir - I'd recommend one that does ritual slaughter, you get to see it in slo-mo!
Click to expand...

I agree with you about fishing, but when they kill animals in an abattoir it is for food and not for fun or sport, and i have been in an abattoir and when they kill an animal they dont do it in a pack or have idiots sitting around on horseback laughing about it. :angy:

Regards
 
My favourite quote was on BBC Breakfast this morning. One of the CA bigwigs was being quizzed about the hounding (no pun intended) of MPs by members and he stated that any member caught taking part in illegal activities would be thrown out of the CA. Presumably their membership will shrink come February.....
 
Apak,

1) You made a remark about "the sport you get from watching it happen". I was trying to point out that followers would be too far back to get any sort of view of the kill.

2) You write "How can you say it's hard to be certain and then say it looks it to me?".

I had hoped that the construction of my sentence was not too difficult to understand, but clearly I was wrong. When I wrote "Although it's hard to be certain, it looks broken to me", I thought that would indicate to a reader that I felt that the neck being broken was probably the case, but I couldn't be 100% sure. I hope that clears that little problem up!

3) The point about ritual slaughter in abattoirs is that the actual death is deliberately prolonged in these practices. From the time it has it's neck slit, to the time it actually dies may take several minutes. Compare and contrast with, say, stag hunting, where the deer dies instantly - the huntsman does not try to cut the animal's throat, or deliberately fire the pistol slightly off-target to make the act of dying last longer.
 
Back
Top