Hunting

I have a new name fro ARDROSS

LURCH is the name. WHY! cos he lurches all over the board trying to get one over
me.

If you were a woman (maybe you are,you act like one) you would be known as a camp follower.One who follows her master where ever he goes.
 
I agree with Ardross the anti-hunt people will be out at every meet with every type of recording device known.
 
As tetley and Ardross have mentioned, once the the law begains in February the anti hunting people have said they know where all the hunts are and there members will be there and as it will then be against the law they will have the right to make a citizen's arrest against anyone that breaks the law.

It has also been reported that the police will make arrests if the law is broken and that once the person has been charged this will give him a criminal record and in such a case as most if not all hunters also go shooting, with a criminal record they will lose there gun licence. As most of you may know? if you have a criminal record you cant own a gun of any kind.

You will proberly find when the time comes that most of the hunting mob that are true law abiding people will not want to break the law. Thay might huff and puff a bit but thay wont want to get a criminal record.

Regards
 
apak24,

I hope you're right.

I have no objection to hunters going hunting again if the Tories get back into power and the legislation is repealed, but breaking the law amid sneering about lack of police resources to enforce it is beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned.
 
This is for the people who keep quoting that there human rights have been broken, and to oppose this ban on human rights grounds is to trivialise human rights.

It is not a human right to be allowed to ride around the country killing defenceless animals. The people of Iraq and hostages such as Margaret Hassan have had their human rights violated.

Also the claim that up to 16,000 businesses could be affected is also interesting. Nobody thought about all the typesetters made redundant by the Apple Mac or countless other similar examples.

And I wonder if those hunts that say they'll carry on illegally are aware of implications under civil law. For example, hunts themselves will no longer have the protection of public and employers' liability insurance, and people injured while hunting will not be able to claim compensation, nor will they be insured against any damage to third-party property.

It looks as if the end has come :)

and finally before i get off my soap box today, Can you imagine what will happen if they win the court case they have started, against the bid to overturn the ban which is based on claims that the 1949 Parliament Act used to force it through was invalid, because it was itself never agreed by peers? This would open up every single law that has been made since 1949 as being invalid.

Regards
 
It would in fact open up three laws apak

War Crimes Act 1991

The european elections changes

The equalisation of the age of consent

Even so it would be very disruptive

Worry not - the chances of the courts upholding the argument that the Parliamnet Act 1949 is invalid are nil - and that is a free legal opinion !!!
 
Yes but the anti-hunt people wont be allowed on the big private estates where i know for a fact they will continue hunting. :P
 
Otis Ferry is currently being interviewd by David Frost on Frost on Sunday if anyone is interested! :what:
 
Fudge & Ven are right - it'll be business as usual. I am sure that the police forces will be quite willing to give up their revenue pulling speeding fine patrols to chase about the countryside in the cold, waiting for a hunt to go past whilst they determine whether it is a drag hunt or not! :rolleyes: <_<
 
Unless the hunt is exceeding 30MPH in a built up area Shad. Is it illegal to drink and ride?

btw - saw young Ferry on Frost, and lament for his father. God knows what Bryan was up to at 21, but it wasn't sitting in a middle class debate with a rod up his arse.

That Otis badly needs a lift.
 
An, the BBC probably chose Otis on purpose, as he certainly did the pro hunt brigade absolutely no favours at all. His answers were embarrassing at best.
 
His mother showed herself to be a complete shower when she was at Bow Street Magistrates Court
 
As we have discussed on here it is not purely the snobs of society that ride in hunts, they are just normal folk like many of the people on this site. Why oh why did they choose this non celebrity to talk on their behalf, although I think the BBC knew exactly what it was doing! It was a great opportunity for the pro hunters to put their opinion across and you end up with Otis, who was struggling to answer any question with any amount of real knowledge or conviction. A lost opportunity I'm afraid.
 
On the other hand, I caught a bit of Country File on BBC1 this morning and they devoted a fair chunk of it to shooting.

One segment of the programme was devoted to a "discussion" on whether shooting is cruel and should be banned. The League Against Cruel Sports person and the Animal Aid person were almost rabid in their opposition to the sport. In particular, the Animal Aider came across really badly, he was like a kind of psycho.

So, these things tend to even themselves out
 
Animal Aid is full of pyschos, Ven......they are total scum. If you lisetened to them, everyone should be vegetarian, shouldn't wear leather, shouldn't eat dairy products or eggs & would be against all forms of racing, shooting, hunting and fishing. Oh, & they reckon that birds shouldn't be kept as pets as it's cruel. Amongst other things. :rolleyes: :brows:
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Nov 21 2004, 07:02 PM
Animal Aid is full of pyschos, Ven......they are total scum. If you lisetened to them, everyone should be vegetarian, shouldn't wear leather, shouldn't eat dairy products or eggs & would be against all forms of racing, shooting, hunting and fishing. Oh, & they reckon that birds shouldn't be kept as pets as it's cruel. Amongst other things. :rolleyes: :brows:
Click to expand...
As we can see it has now stsrted to come to name calling. This is a sign of somebody losing the case and has run out of things to put forward in to this argument, which up to now was well posted by all the members.

But to start calling people names like scum shows the person that is posting the comment true mentality.

Regards
 
Back
Top