Liberty & Livelihood

Nov 30 2004
By Sarah robert, Birmingham Post

Hunts across the West Midlands have invented a new pursuit to keep them happy once a ban is introduced next year - virtual hunting.
The new pastime will include the horses, the riders and even the hounds - only the fox will be absent.
Instead, the proposals, raised at a Midland meeting of the Council of Hunting Associations, will include chasing other prey - rats and rabbits.
Virtual hunting has been put forward as a way of retaining some of the traditions of hunting, enabling the hounds and horses to continue working and provide a liveli-hood for those within the £14.9 million a year industry.
It is also hoped that with the legislation in its current form, it would be difficult to prove whether a hunt had killed a fox.
Clare Rowson, regional director of the Countryside Alliance in the West Midlands, said: "It is obviously legal for them to meet, it is legal for them to go riding across the countryside with hounds. How do you prove they have killed a fox? Virtual hunting can take various forms. Obviously with the legislation it is perfectly legal to hunt rats and rabbits and there are a number of loopholes. There are different options we can look at, some people may go out and completely defy the ban and some may go out in a completely legal capacity."
Ms Rowson said the Hunting Act was rife with loopholes, which would be exposed by hunts while a legal challenge launched by the Countryside Alliance continued to be battled out in the courts.
At least 1,000 are employed directly by hunts nationwide and it is claimed up to 8,000 people could lose their jobs because of the hunting ban.
According to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, innocent bystanders who witness an illegal hunt, farmers whose land is used against their will, or people - including those engaged in drag hunting - whose dogs chase and kill a fox against their wishes will not be guilty of a crime.
Ms Rowson said virtual hunting will be a legal basis for hunts and clubs to continue after the ban is enforced from February and will ensure that the infrastructure of hunting survives.
The Council of Hunting Associations is holding meetings to discuss the future of both the hounds and the horses.
"They are looking at how they can hunt legally and whatever loopholes there are. They have got to weigh up all the options and what will work best for them," Ms Rowson added.
"Everybody at the meeting wants to make sure, because of the legal challenges in place and the future General Election, they can keep going for as long as it takes and when the ban is repealed they can resume conventional hunting."
Since a hunting ban was introduced in Scotland two years ago, only one member of a hunt has been charged with breaking the law.
Ms Rowson said no hunts had disbanded in Scotland since the ban was introduced.

THE INDEPENDENT.

Taxpayers are facing a bill running into millions of pounds in compensation for fox-hunting supporters over claims that next February's ban will cost them their livelihoods.

November 20, 2004
The Guardian

In a cosy pub close to the Shropshire-Worcestershire border over a fortifying drink and supper, the three-strong steering group which coordinates the work of the Countryside Action Network will meet next week to finalise its plans for rebellion and disruption.

At a "flick of a switch", the group claims, it can mobilise hundreds, even thousands of activists ready to make their views against the hunting ban known, perhaps by bombarding the government with phone calls, possibly by bringing motorways to a standstill.
Seventy miles away in the hills above Cardiff, members of the Rhondda Valley rural action group will gather over a few pints to hammer out their plans.

More radical elements favour a blockade of local airports, while the cautious say they will make their point by simply carrying on hunting, knowing that the police will have an almost impossible job finding them in the 100 square miles of mountainous terrain where they hunt.
Many more such meetings will be taking place over the coming weeks as hunters and their supporters plot how they will express their fury at the ban and at a government which, as they see it, is wrecking their way of life.

The protests planned range from legal demonstrations organised by the Countryside Alliance to unlawful "direct action" protests from "freelancers", such as the storming of the House of Commons.

Though the Countryside Alliance tries to distance itself from lawbreaking, the PR-savvy organisation is nevertheless putting together a list of media-friendly "martyrs" who are shedding their worldly goods so that when they do break the law by hunting the courts will have little option but to send them to prison.

Activists are also planning to try to force out anti-hunting MPs by campaigning for their political opponents during the general election campaign, while farmers and landowners are working out ways of disrupting services by not allowing public officials and workers access to their land.
Brian Hughes, a farrier from the Rhondda Valley and joint master of the Llangeinor hunt, is among those earmarked as a martyr.

He has already started passing his assets, such as his house, savings and a small piece of land he owns, on to his son, Michael, so that magistrates will be compelled to jail him rather than fine him once he is convicted of hunting with hounds. The hitch to the plan is that the police may not find him.

He said: "If you get your car stolen here it takes them a day to come and see you. I really don't see how they have the manpower to come and find us. Will they be sending up helicopters?
"I know local people won't inform on us because the hunt is popular and there's a mistrust of the police in these parts."

Mr Hughes, 50, would be an attractive martyr for the Countryside Alliance because he is a working man rather than a "toff" and his hunt is one of the more down-to-earth, taking in quite urban areas rather than rolling English countryside.

However, Mr Hughes said he did not feel beholden to the Countryside Alliance. He is part of the rural action group which has discussed disrupting airports.

"We don't mind doing the things the Countryside Alliance is afraid to do," he said.
Also out of the control of the Countryside Alliance are groups such as the Countryside Action Network and the more radical Real Countryside Alliance.

Janet George, spokeswoman for the network, said the group could call on 4,000 activists. While declining to go into details, she hinted the group was planning to bring a government department to its knees in the next few weeks by targeting it with hundreds of tricky requests.

George Bowyer, joint master of the Fitzwilliam hunt in Peterborough, is planning to make his point through the democratic process. He believes he can get more than 100 hunt supporters out on the streets to campaign to oust the MP for Peterborough, Helen Clark.
He said: "Her majority was cut last election. I think we can get rid of her this time."

A website, votehunting.com, has also been set up to help target MPs in marginal constituencies.
Landowners are making their point by withdrawing their cooperation with the government and other public bodies.

Farmer Josh Stratton has banned the army from train ing on the 3,500 acres he farms on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire.

He said: "The government has interfered with our way of life. We're going to screw up public services in any way we can."

In Cheshire sheep farmer Richard May has come up with the idea of not allowing officials on to his land to maintain a weir which helps to keep the Macclesfield to Stoke canal topped up.
"The hunting community is a huge network. There's a lot we can do to mess things up," he said.
Other farmers have pledged to stop access to railway lines and electricity pylons which run through their land.

Many young hunters are intent on more spectacular publicity coups.

One 22-year-old huntsman from Hampshire, who was among those who hurled flour and eggs at Labour party members during a Countryside Alliance protest in Brighton, said: "We've been inspired by the lot who got into parliament and by the Fathers4Justice mob, especially after their Buckingham Palace protest."

The huntsman, who asked not to be named but claimed affiliation with the Real Countryside Alliance, added: "There are a lot of younger hunters and followers who would love to make those sort of headlines and we're trying to work out how to do it. Watch this space - it's going to be fun."

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040037.htm#aofs

Here is the Act as it stands in its final version. Well worth a squiz if you haven't already done so.

HUNTERS in Cambridgeshire have vowed to carry on - despite a Commons vote sounding the death knell for the countryside pursuit.

MPs have voted to reject a plan to allow regulated fox hunting - but hunt members were out in force today and have vowed to continue.

The Fitzwilliam Hunt sent a defiant message when it met at Alconbury Weston.
George Bowyer, joint master of the Fitzwilliam, sent the hounds off, saying: ">
He then told the News: "We have no intention of stopping at all. How we do it is going to be something we will have to discuss with the lawyers and see what happens."
He said that if the ban goes through there would still be three months when hunting would continue. But he claimed a ban would prove un-enforceable because police would have difficulty deciding who was hunting and who was just a spectator, and there was also a question of whether hunt followers were part of the hunt.

He said seven employees of the hunt could lose their jobs and accommodation under the ban.
He added there would be "a massive knock on effect" on businesses linked to hunts including farriers and livery stables.

Mr Bowyer said six or seven hunts operated in the Huntingdon area and it would be impossible for them to go over to drag hunting, since there was already one drag hunt, the Cambridge University, which covered the area.

Sacha Wheatley, joint-master of the Cambridge Hunt and Enfield Chace, which has its kennels in Caxton, said: "I have signed a declaration saying we will carry on hunting if there's a ban.
"I think it's an unjust law. Do you just bend down to unjust laws, or do it anyway? From my personal point of view, I would say yes I will carry on hunting.
"We don't do any harm to anyone. It's the most natural way of culling foxes."
The 34-year-old said she was "very disappointed" by the vote.
"I thought the MPs might go for the licensing bill, but I am not altogether surprised. I don't really now what's going to happen now."

Huntsman Paul Roberts has also signed the declaration to carry on hunting. I think the law will be un-policeable," he said.
"Say 50 of us go out hunting. What are they going to do, arrest us all? What are they going to do with the horses and hounds then?"
Mr Roberts, who looks after the hounds at Caxton, and his wife Debbie, 36, who cares for the horses, would lose their jobs and home if a ban came in.
"I am absolutely disgusted by it. It's a class thing, nothing to do with anything else like animal welfare," said the 46-year-old.
"They see people on horses in scarlet coats and think they're toffs, but we're certainly not."

Elsewhere, The Fitzwilliam Hunt met on Wednesday in Alconbury - just hours after MPs voted to ban the practice.
The Commons voted by 321 to 204 on Tuesday night against allowing regulated hunting of foxes to continue. MPs had already rejected a Lords amendment to allow licensed hunting of foxes, stags and hares.

The Hunting Bill returned to the Lords on Wednesday. If no agreement is reached before the end of Parliament on Thursday, the Government could use the Parliament Act to force it through.

However, the Countryside Alliance could then mount a legal challenge against the legality of the Act.

Douglas Batchelor, chief executive of the League, told the News: "For the 10th time in 10 years the House of Commons has made it clear. MPs want to see a complete ban on hunting and coursing with dogs and they voted accordingly.
"We believe it's the right thing to do and in this century people engaging in blood sports for entertainment is no longer appropriate."
He said the police had "made it clear" they would enforce the ban "We live in a democracy and people are expected to observe the law," he said.

By Joshua Rozenberg and Richard Savill


Magistrates must enforce hunting laws passed by Parliament or resign from the Bench, the Constitution Secretary Lord Falconer has warned.

In a foreword to revised guidelines currently being distributed to all 28,500 JPs, Lord Falconer said that magistrates are required to enforce any law that is enacted.

"Should a magistrate be unable to meet that requirement," he continued, "I would be unlikely to consider them suitable for office."

The guidelines have always made it clear that magistrates may have to stand down if they are convicted of crimes, including motoring offences.

But Lord Falconer has revised the wording to cover a magistrate who has "indicated an intention to disobey a law with which they disagree, should it be enacted in future".

This is understood to refer to the Hunting Declaration, the supporters of which have vowed "to disobey, peacefully, any law purporting to ban hunting".

Lord Falconer said he appreciated that magistrates have the same right as other citizens to hold personal views on any issue. But he is concerned about any actions that interfere with the requirements of holding office as a magistrate.

"In particular, my view is that, were a magistrate to break any relevant law enacted by Parliament, or refuse to enforce it, that would be likely to constitute conduct incompatible with the requirements of their office," he said.

In addition, those magistrates who are found to have brought the magistracy into disrepute are liable to face disciplinary action.

Magistrates who have spoken out in support of hunting include Derek Pearce, 58, a semi-retired farmer, who has sat on the bench in North Avon for 18 years.

He has signed the Hunting Declaration, joining those who intend to defy any ban.

Mr Pearce, a churchwarden, and a member of the Beaufort Hunt, has said he expected either to be asked to stand down or to resign, if hunting becomes illegal.

"If the Lord Chancellor wants to sack me, then he can be my guest," he said in an interview last year.

"I'm not prepared to carry on being a magistrate and sit on cases involving hunting," he said.

Mr Pearce said he accepted that, ultimately, if he defied a ban he could be arrested and put in prison.

The truth is simply that there are a great number of people whose livelihoods are being attacked and who, as a result, are becoming increasingly desperate. They see a government that does not represent them, seems intent on destroying them and is simply not listening to them.
It is sad and dangerous that while we wage war on terrorism — with discussions every day about the “root causes of terrorism” — respectable, peaceful people are being victimised, marginalised and ignored. A great number of people, especially the young, are left to wonder what exactly they must do to get their voices heard....
I understand that we live in an era of urban majority, but since I am not a part of it I don’t feel qualified to lecture people who live in cities on how they should conduct their lives. And I think that when people start throwing around words such as “cruelty” to describe a person’s life, they are obligated to define exactly what they think cruelty means.

By Farmers Weekly staff

A LEGAL EXPERT has said if the Countryside Alliance challenges MPs' use of the Parliament Act to force through a Hunting Bill then the results could be 'explosive'.
Dan Tench, head of public law at Olswang, has written in The Times that if it can be proved that the 1949 Parliament Act is not valid then there will be big implications.
"Not only would the hunting Act be rendered invalid, but other legislation that has been passed using the provisions of the 1949 Act, such as the War Crimes Act 1991 and the Sexual Offences Amendment Act would also surely become void."
The CA has already announced Sir Sydney Kentridge QC as its lawyer to challenge the legality of any Bill passed under the Parliament Act 1949.
The first Parliament Act, passed in 1911, stated that should a Bill be passed by the Commons but rejected by the Lords it would still become law provided it was presented to the Lords in three successive parliamentary sessions.
This Act was passed by both the Commons and Lords.
But in 1949 the Labour government of the day decided to amend the Act so as to require only two presentations of an Act to the Lords before it would become law.
This amendment was never passed by the Lords.
It became law as it was presented to the Lords in three successive parliamentary sessions, as required by the 1911 Act.
But there is a principle of English law that states that a body can not use a power delegated to it to expand the extent of that power, reports the paper.
It will be this principle of English law that the CA will invest the future of hunting with dogs.
The House of Commons is due to receive the amended bill on Mon 15 Nov. It will be reviewed by MPs on a single day between Nov 16 – 18.

http://www.meltonmowbraytoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=752&ArticleID=886208


EFFIGIES of Tony Blair and Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael burned on top of a giant bonfire on Friday morning at a protest against the hunt ban.
More than 400 people from across the East Midlands cheered as flames consumed the dummies and a copy of the anti-foxhunting Bill on Melton Airfield.The event, organised by the Countryside Alliance, was intended as a show of defiance to the Government as it prepares to enforce a total ban on the pastime.Rutland and Melton MP Alan Duncan, who spoke at the event, said: "Today we are looking at a bonfire with two people on top who are in Parliament but are abusing it to destroy what is right. It's only fitting they should go up in smoke."MPs are in Parliament to make laws that benefit everyone, but some people in Government are abusing those laws to persecute a minority."Mr Duncan was joined on the speakers' stage by Michael Clayton, retired secretary of the Cottesmore Hunt, who said: "Some people have said it's bad taste having those two effigies on top of the bonfire, but we think it's bad taste to jeopardise people's lives and jobs with this ban."We are here today to hold this event as a warning to the Government that we will not give up."Melton Euro MP Roger Helmer joined the podium to address the crowd. He said: "This Bill is an affront to civil liberties. We know that it's not for the benefit of the countryside or the environment, or even the fox."Whatever your view on hunting, it's for those who are engaged in it to make their own decision."Richard Morley, joint master of the Belvoir, was in the crowd and said the number of people attending represented the continuing anger of the hunt community, which feels the Government is pursuing the ban as a political exercise.After the four main speakers had their say, huntsmen from five counties lit torches and a giant pyre went up in a massive display of red flames and black smoke.The huntsmen, including three from the Quorn, Belvoir and Cottesmore, blew their horns to huge cheers from the crowd.Huntsman Peter Collins, of the Quorn, was one of those who lit the pyre. He said: "It felt good lighting the bonfire. The message we're sending is that by burning the Bill, we won't accept the ban. We won't take this lying down."Organiser Phillipa Mayo said she was pleased with how the event had gone. Regarding the burned effigies, she said: "Feelings are running very high at the moment and people have to let off steam a little bit. "It's perfectly harmless in itself but it shows the kind of feelings we have in regard to this Bill."Mr Clayton told the crowd the next demonstration will be a picket in Westminster on November 11 at 9.30am, where hunt supporters are expected to gather as the Prime Minister and Cabinet hold a meeting to discuss the ban's future.The Bill is currently undergoing reading at the House of Lords, which has recommended regulation for foxhunting.