Liberty & Livelihood

EVENT: 'We will fight on' says hunt

HUNDREDS of people clapped and cheered as the defiant joint master of the Fitzwilliam Hunt vowed to hunt again next year.

George Bowyer addressed a large crowd of spectators which gathered in Stilton, near Peterborough, for the traditional Boxing Day fox hunt.

The event was held yesterday because the hunt is never held on a Sunday.
A ban on hunting with dogs is due to come into force in February, after the Hunting Act was given Royal Assent, last month.

But Mr Bowyer branded the legislation "sordid and grotesque" and said huntsmen and women would fight to make "their own moral choices".

He invited all those present to join him on February 19 – the day after the ban comes into force – when the Fitzwilliam will join 250 other hunts across the country in a rebellion.

Mr Bowyer said: "The people of rural England are slow to anger, but we are even slower to forgive and forget."

Despite the ban coming into effect in February, a planned legal challenge to the legislation by the Countryside Alliance means it could be delayed for a year or more.

Mr Bowyer said even if a ban was imposed, the hunt would continue to meet and carry out "legal activities".

The event has met outside The Bell Inn, in the village, for more than 30 years, and has run across Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire for more than 300 years.

But Maxine Kaye, from Cambridgeshire Animal Rights, who was one of a handful of protestors at yesterday's hunt, said: "I think this will be the last hunt. They may be able to hold the ban up for a while but they are just playing for time."

In September, more than 100 members of the Fitzwilliam Hunt joined protesters on a march in London.

The ban was to be delayed until July 2006 because of opposition from the House of Lords, but the Government invoked the Parliament Act to push it through.

The Government has said it will not oppose the legal challenge by the Countryside Alliance.

HUSBAND and wife Roy and Margaret Griffin were among the large crowd which gathered for the Fitzwilliam Hunt, in Stilton, yesterday.

Mrs Griffin (58), from Wisbech, said: "I have got no problem with fox hunting at all and I hope the hunt goes on for many years."I think they will find ways round the ban and it will be held up in the courts for years."It is the first time I have been to the hunt and it is excellent. There are more people here than I expected. It is a part of history and I don't see why it should be banned."

The Resistance must be ready for a long battle ahead

By Charles Moore(Filed: 28/12/2004)

Our local hunt met yesterday, as it always does at this time, on the site of the Battle of Hastings. This year, the crowd of supporters was so great that traffic stopped altogether and horses and hounds had to cram against the gates of the abbey to make room. A few yards away, on the frosty ground, is the site where Harold fell, shot through the eye, and our nation was born.

If a new Bayeux tapestry were now being weaved to depict the battle of hunting, what would it show for 2005? A great conflict on Feb 19 – the first meets after the ban becomes law – in which angry country people and unwilling policemen fight one another on more than 200 battlegrounds in England and Wales? A weird stillness, in which the fields are deserted in obedience to the law, and piles of dead hounds and horses testify to its effectiveness? Or a scene of almost complete confusion in which law enforcers stare bewildered as hunting people disappear into the middle distance without saying a word and leave it to the authorities to prove, in the absence of evidence that a court would accept, that they are committing crimes?
I'll try to answer my own question a bit later. It worries me, though, that pro-hunting people are still so politically innocent. Last week, the Government let it be known that it would not contest an injunction delaying introduction of the hunting ban until the Countryside Alliance's court challenge to the Act is complete.

This was immediately spun as a "reprieve" for hunting. It is not, because a British Government, thank goodness, still has no power to give or withhold an injunction – that is a matter for the court, and so there might well not be any injunction at all.

Besides, an injunction in this case would not delay the introduction of the ban beyond November at the latest. No, the point of the Government's little hint was to fool pro-hunting people that all might be well. Above all, it was a device to take the heat out of protest this winter, because the sole concern for Mr Blair from now on is the next election, and protest could mean electoral trouble for him.

The chairman of the Countryside Alliance, John Jackson, was therefore mistaken in welcoming the Government's words so warmly. Hunting people need to understand that the ban has been passed, and only another Act of Parliament can reverse its implementation, even if a court case is won. There are therefore no more deals to be done with the Government that introduced this Bill. Protest, ridicule, "testing" the law are what is needed. All over England and Wales, hunt committees have been meeting at night in farm-houses, almost like members of the French Resistance trying to rally from defeat in 1940. Like the maquis, they lack the firepower and technology of the occupiers, but, again like the resisters, they are superior in local knowledge, local loyalty, and their own dedication.

They believe that the ban is so stupid and so unworkable that it will be temporary, but the sensible ones – and most of them are sensible – realise the struggle to overturn it might take a long time. The Liberation, after all, took four years.

These meetings buzz with cunning plans for getting round the law, much encouraged by the way the ban in Scotland has proved unenforceable.

Here are some of the ideas. One is that hunts should turn up with a falcon, since the law permits hounds to flush out for hawking. Another is that they should take advantage of the permission for two hounds to flush out a fox on to guns, shoot the fox and use his fresh carcass as a drag. Mink hounds will become "rat-packs" (the unloved rat is not protected by the new law); beagles will, in theory, chase the rabbit. And so on, the essential point being that, in the mêlée of these legal activities, if hounds chase a fox or a hare, who can prove that the hunt meant this to happen?

I gather that senior police officers are already asking hunts how it is possible to tell whether hounds are chasing a quarry which is within or outside the law. I'm sure the hunts will explain to them that they don't know.

The additional merit of this tactic of what schoolmasters used to call "dumb insolence" is that it allows hunts to continue as legal entities. If they have no provable purpose of hunting banned quarry, they are legal.

They can therefore continue to organise and to provide services such as picking up fallen stock for farmers. They can pay their staff and keep their buildings, and get insurance. Farmers who allow hunts on to their land will not risk legal action because they will not be asked to give permission for illegality: indeed, there are plans to arm them all with letters explicitly denying such permission.

There are two big problems in all of this, of course. The first is that, if they are too goody-goody, the hunts could find themselves doing the antis' work for them, for it has always been the fantasy of those in favour of a ban that everyone can just go drag-hunting instead. The purpose of the strategy is not to make the law work in the least painful way: it is to expose the fact that the law cannot work, in order to get it changed.

The second is one of morale. The commitment of hunting people is stronger than almost any other social/ sporting/service-providing activity in this country, and it is as strong as it has ever been. But a ban will, of course, make life very difficult for the right training of hounds.
It will mean that some people drop away. To minimise all this, the resistance has to be huge on February 19. Even more important, though, it must be planned to continue for as long as it takes.

Defiant mood prompts record hunt turnout
By Nick Britten(Filed: 28/12/2004)

Hunts across England and Wales reported record turnouts yesterday in what could be the last legal Boxing Day meet.

Braving frozen ground across large parts of the countryside, huntsmen were in defiant mood, vowing that this would not be the last Christmas they would practise their sport.

Many hunts reported a vast increase in support from members of the public, while one of Britain's most senior judges said he would abstain from sitting on any case resulting from a ban.
With the ban due to come into force on Feb 18, yesterday could be the last time such a large number of organised hunts met on the same day.

Enthusiasts were in festive mood for the traditional Boxing Day meets - delayed by a day because Dec 26 fell on a Sunday - and determined to celebrate, regardless of what the future may hold.

With the Countryside Alliance challenging the ban in the High Court, and Tony Blair agreeing not to resist an injunction on the ban until the court has ruled, they are still hopeful of a reprieve.

Mark Westwood, 45, the master of the Essex and Suffolk Foxhounds, said the 1,000-strong crowd on foot at Hadleigh, Suffolk, was far larger than in previous years. "People have come here to say: 'We're behind you.' "

The hunt's senior joint master, James Buckle, 40, added: "The size of the turnout here today is indicative of how people feel. They're here saying 'Up yours' to the ban.

"We will be here next year, I am sure of that. And it won't be because we're breaking the law. We will be here because the law they are proposing is such a dog's breakfast, it will be unenforceable."

With hunts meeting in Pembrokeshire, Newtown, Flintshire, Brecon and Carmarthenshire, there was more hunting activity in Wales than any other part of Britain, the Countryside Alliance said.

In Blackmill, near Bridgend in south Wales, more than 100 members of the Llangeinor Hunt were seen off by about 700 supporters braving freezing conditions. Darren Hughes, from the Countryside Alliance, said: "There are more people here than we've had for many years. There are many people who have never hunted before who have come here today."

With the League Against Cruel Sports urging its protesters to stay away, the day passed off peacefully, although there were pockets of anti-hunt demonstrations.

Turnouts at hunts in Worcestershire were notice-ably higher than last year, with around 3,000 people gathering for meets at Broadway, Pershore and Droitwich.

Richard Thomas, one of the hunt masters at the 242-year-old Tarporley Hunt Club, Lancs, one of the oldest hunt club still in existence, said: "Hundreds of thousands will meet today, just as we are doing. The Government sees tradition as a threat. Now is the time to stand together and take on the Government. We can't allow ourselves to be confined to history."

To cheers from supporters, Mr Thomas, 34, added: "It is important we are continuing to take part in something we believe in."

The Tory MP Stephen O'Brien, who said the ban would cost 1,000 of his constituents in Eddisbury, Cheshire, their jobs, addressed supporters from the steps of the Swan Inn. He said: "We will not allow the Government to stop us from doing something we have been doing for centuries."

As in many places, the hard frost made the ground unsafe to ride, so the huntsmen made their way down the main street and on to farmland to exercise their hounds.

More than 3,500 people - one of the biggest crowds of the day - gathered to watch around 200 horses set off on the Beaufort Hunt along the Gloucestershire-Wiltshire border.

Lord Scott of Foscote, a senior judge and hunting enthusiast for 45 years, had his plans to ride with Grafton Hunt in Northamptonshire curtailed by the frost.

He said he would not sit on any hunt cases because of his well-known objection to the Bill and his hunting associations. His decision was not so much a political stance but a compliance of the conflict of interest rules, he added.

Hunting: the facts and figures(Filed: 24/11/2004)

• 252 hours: the time spent by the Commons and Lords debating foxhunting since Labour came to power in 1997.
• 18: the number of Bills (backbench and Government) introduced on hunting in the last 25 years.
• 407,000: the number of people who turned out for the September 2002 Liberty and Livelihood march through London in defence of hunting.
• 350,000: the number of members and affiliate members claimed by the Countryside Alliance, the pro-hunting umbrella group.
• 67,000: the estimated number of hunt members and supporters but with 700,000 people attending events, such as point-to-point meets, associated with hunting.
• 8,000: the estimated number of full-time equivalent jobs that are dependent on fox-hunting.
• 485: the number of different hunts (including terrier and lurcher packs as well as deerhound and other hunts) across England and Wales.
• 20,000: the number of hounds currently engaged in hunting and most of which, says the Countryside Alliance, would have to be put down once the ban is brought into force.

Hunt community goes on war footing
By Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor

HUNTSMEN and women have been ordered to make life difficult for police to enforce a ban on hunting.

All hunts in the same county have been told to meet on the same day to stretch police resources to the limit.

They have also been warned to be alert for undercover officers and hunt saboteurs who will seek to infiltrate hunt clubs and use hidden cameras to record their activities.

The extraordinary steps the hunting community will be taking were revealed yesterday as hunts across the country had what could be their last traditional Boxing Day meet. The gatherings took place yesterday because hunting rules ban the sport on Sundays.

Hundreds of people turned out to support their local hunts and witness the spectacle before it is consigned to history.

Behind the scenes, however, hunts were preparing a fight to save their sport that had been planned with military precision and checked by a team of lawyers.

The Hunting Handbook 2005, compiled by the Council for Hunting Association (CHA), has been circulated to all hunts and sets out how hunting can continue within the law. But the need to be suspicious of police and the belief that there will be many attempts at malicious prosecution are dominant themes of the 45-page document.

While hunts are told to treat police in a respectful way and to attend any liaison meetings with them, there are also clear instructions that no one should give away the hunting game plan.
The book says: “There have already been a number of instances where the police have approached hunt staff to warn them against breaking the law and inquire of their plan. Such approaches should be firmly dismissed.”

Huntspeople are also warned to watch out for “over-zealous” police officers who may “hassle” them.

Hunting chiefs clearly believe that some officers will seek to throw the book at huntspeople for any minor offence, whether or not it is connected with hunting.

Hunters have been warned that they should carry passports for their horses during a hunt. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs insists that horses must have their passports when they are away from the stable.

Checks should also be made to ensure the roadworthiness of all cars, vans and horse-boxes and that they are properly taxed and insured.

Hunts have even been told to remove all antique hunting memorabilia from hunt premises, because this equipment “might be construed as dedicated entirely to illegal purposes”. A network of defence solicitors is being drawn up.

All hunters are warned not to say anything to police or hunt saboteurs unless their are also solicitor present, and no one should accept the services of the police duty solicitor.
Some hardline huntsmen are even proposing that everyone out riding should wear the same colour jacket — green, black or red — to confuse police or hunt saboteurs and to muddle identities. This is being mooted informally and has not been authorised in the Hunting Handbook.

Simon Hart, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, and Stephen Lambert, chairman of the CHA, suggest in a forward to the book that hunts should be on a war footing.

“Remind the pessimists that hunting was severely tested during both world wars, when people left the hunting fields to fight the enemies of freedom and liberty. After that victory hunting emerged stronger than ever before. This must happen again.”

A new poll released by the alliance yesterday said that 77 per cent of the public thought the hunt law would be “confusing and difficult to police”.

Only 11 per cent agreed with the claim by Alun Michael, the Rural Affairs Minister, that the law is “easy to understand and easy to enforce”. An even greater majority — 96 per cent — did not think Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, should concentrate police resources on the enforcement of a hunt ban. Instead 34 per cent thought the priority for police should be asylum and illegal immigration, 33 per cent said tackling antisocial behaviour, 13 per cent cited the war against drugs, 10 per cent the war against terror and 4 per cent said enforcing a hunt ban; 6 per cent were “don’t knows”.

Lada Man mixes with the 4x4s
By Paul Stokes(Filed: 28/12/2004)

One car stood out among the 4x4s lining the verges outside Beverley racecourse yesterday for the Boxing Day meet of the Holderness Hunt.

The 10-year-old red Lada Niva has become an emblem of hunting with hounds as a classless pursuit through its use by Kevin Jackson, known to many as "Lada Man".
"It is worth £300 on a good day but only because it has a full tank of petrol," he says of his Russian-made fume-belching vehicle.

But he has gained vastly more positive political mileage from it than his MP, John Prescott, has from his two gleaming Jaguars.

It brought the two men head-to-head in the hunting debate after the Deputy Prime Minister's suggestion that the majority of his constituents saw hunting as all "tally-ho, tally-ho!" and nothing to do with modern Britain.

Thousands took to the common land at Beverley Westwood to lend their support to the Holderness, which was formed in 1726.

Hundreds had turned up 24 hours earlier on Boxing Day, unaware that the hunt did not go out on a Sunday.

Mr Jackson, a foot follower, gave interviews as his wife Josie distributed leaflets urging people to "Fight the Ban".

The couple, both 52, are relatively recent converts to hunting, having decided to see what it was all about when it first came under threat from the Government in 1997.

Since then they have attended many meets when they can fit them in with Mr Jackson's long-distance lorry driving and his wife's job making Yorkshire puddings at a food factory.

They set off from their home on Hull's large Brans-holme council estate at 10am for the same two traditional meets they had attended on the previous six Boxing Days.

Holderness was the first call. There they chatted to the joint huntmaster, Chris Richardson, a farmer.

Mr Richardson said: "We have always said the hunt will carry on, but within the law."
They were joined by Graham Stuart, who will defend the Conservatives' slender 781 majority over Labour in the Beverley and Holderness seat at the election.

Mr Stuart addressed the gathering over a loudspeaker to denounce the ban on hunting as "an attack on everyone's civil liberties". He said: "If you shoot or fish, they are coming for you next."
As the horn sounded the start of the hunt, the Jacksons met Ted Fussey, 64, a former builder, who rode with the hunt as a boy and was last there on Boxing Day 1951.

They shared the view that hunting was as much a pursuit of the working class as the upper class.

Mr Jackson said: "The people are here to watch a man controlling his hounds and controlling vermin. That is what gets buried in the rhetoric about the upper class."

As the hunt disappeared, the Lada headed a few miles west to the village green at Lund where the Hunsley Beacon Beagles were gathering.

Mr Jackson said: "John Prescott has never been to a hunt. We had a look and it was like coming to a friendly family. Everyone speaks to you. Country pursuits cross all social boundaries."

3:44pm (UK)
Majority Say 'Hunting Ban Difficult to Police' By Andrew Woodcock, PA Political Correspondent

More than three-quarters of voters expect the ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales to be difficult to police, according to a poll released today.

And just 4% say that enforcing the ban – due to come into effect on February 18 – should be Home Secretary Charles Clarke’s top priority, above issues like immigration, drugs, terrorism and anti-social behaviour.

The poll, commissioned by the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance, came after a Scottish court found a huntsman not guilty of hunting with dogs under the different ban already in force north of the border. He argued he was not hunting foxes, but flushing them out to be shot.

Some 77% of those questioned in the poll agreed the ban introduced by last month’s Hunting Act would prove “confusing and difficult to police”.

Only 11% thought that environment minister Alun Michael was right to describe the legislation as “easy to understand and easy to enforce”.

Huntsmen have said that they intend to use loopholes in the new law to continue their sport legally following the implementation of the ban, and the Countryside Alliance today published guidance on how to do so.

It is thought likely that some will argue that it is impossible to prove that their intention when riding to hounds is to catch and kill a fox.

The poll also found 4% of those questioned believed enforcing the ban should be Mr Clarke’s top priority next year, against 34% who said asylum and illegal immigration, 33% anti-social behaviour, 13% tackling drugs and 10% the war on terror.

Countryside Alliance chief executive Simon Hart said: “The Hunting Act is based on prejudice and bigotry, rather than any logical attempt to improve animal welfare, and as such was always going to be deeply flawed.“The public is clear that the Home Secretary has far more important issues to deal with than enforcing confusing legislation driven through Parliament to satisfy the class warriors on Labour’s backbenches.“Alun Michael has turned himself inside out trying to defend the indefensible and now we have evidence that he is not just dishonest – he is unconvincing as well.

The public understands that Labour MPs have put the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in an impossible situation by forcing through unworkable, unenforceable legislation.”

TNS questioned 1,042 adults between 21 and 23 December.

Why do you want no cry from the hounds?
Why do you want it as a distant sound?
Why do you see this as a crime?
Why do you want it to be old time?
Why can't you see that this ISN'T wrong?
Why can't hunting still belong?
Why on February cold winters day
On the nineteenth "o" five will a feeble man say?
Hunting with hounds is legally banned?
As thousands of people pray it's a Sham
But secretly some say that it will still go on
And the ever-lasting tradition will not be gone!

'L' 14yrs (Southdown and Eridge Hunt)

A SCENE that could soon be consigned to the history books will be played out today at the traditional Bank Holiday hunt.
Horses and hounds from the Fitzwilliam Hunt will gather in Stilton to enjoy a pursuit that faces extinction under new laws.

More than 40 horses and riders from the Fitzwilliam congregated at the Prince of Wales Feathers pub, in Peterborough Road, Castor, on Christmas Eve ahead of today's meet.

They then rode to nearby woods and fields off Loves Hill to enjoy the bloodsport which opponents call barbaric.

Jane Thorpe-Codman, of Nassington, near Peterborough, was among the onlookers supporting the hunt.

She said: "The hunt is part of rural Christmas tradition for many people. Everyone looks forward to it as is it a social occasion as well as a pursuit."

The Government originally said it would ban the pursuit in February next year, but legal challenges could delay the ban by a year or more.

Countryside Alliance - Fight Prejudice - home: "SUPPORT FREEDOM. FIGHT PREJUDICE"

Please sign the petition against the unjust and draconian hunting legislation.

I hope that the report in Thursday’s Times that there is a real possibility of a delay to the implementation of the Hunting Act will have come as a welcome Christmas surprise. However, we must also look at this development realistically.

The Times reported that: “Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, has agreed that he will not oppose any application from the Countryside Alliance for an injunction postponing implementation of the hunting ban before the courts have ruled on its legality”.

Contrary to the headline on the article and some subsequent comment there has been no ‘deal’ done between the Alliance and the Government. We have two very strong legal challenges, which could affect the validity of the Hunting Act. As is normal our lawyers will have been in discussion with Government lawyers about a range of issues, and ‘implementation’ is most likely to have been on their agenda.

The Government is now signalling that it would not oppose applications for delaying implementation, which would seem a sensible response to what could otherwise be a very confusing situation for everyone, and in particular the police. For our part such injunctions, if the courts were minded to grant them, might allow us to continue hunting during the period of the legal challenges. But the decision as to what interim relief might or might not allow is a matter for the courts and the courts alone.

The challenge to the Parliament Act will be heard in the High Court on 25th/26th January and if it fails at the first stage the Alliance will immediately apply for an injunction pending appeal. A Human Rights challenge to the Hunting Act will be launched around the same time

This possible scenario, however, must not and would not see any lessening of our campaigning in other areas. We must continue to hold to account those Ministers who are most responsible for allowing the enactment of unjust legislation. We must continue to prepare to hunt within the new legislation, if it ever comes into force, for as long as it takes to repeal or replace the Hunting Act. We must continue to encourage all those who believe in freedom and tolerance to engage in the General Election campaign. Finally, whatever the courts decide, the Hunting Act will not be repealed before Feb 19th, so our huge show of strength then remains firmly in the diary.

In October the campaign to save hunting reached its inevitable nadir – the passing of the Hunting Act by use of the Parliament Acts. Our opponents celebrated as if this was the end of the fight and the end of hunting. We had, however, prepared carefully and prepared well and the reaction of the rural community has come as a shock do those who did not understand the depth of our commitment.

Last week saw a possible acknowledgment of the strength of our legal challenges. Tomorrow (Boxing Day) hundreds of thousands of people will show their support for their local hunt. We will launch the Hunting Handbook which will outline the temporary forms of hunting that will be adopted until the Hunting Act is repealed. Legislation based on prejudice cannot stand the test of time. In the last few months we have shown our determination to last the course, which is why our opponents are no longer celebrating but instead are becoming increasingly concerned.

Have a great day and enjoy your hunting. This Boxing Day and the next one too!

Simon Hart

George Adams adds another press appearance to his collection...With the Fitzwilliam Hounds November 2004.

Anti-hunt lobby furious at deal to delay the ban
By Jenny Booth,
Times Online

Opponents of foxhunting have reacted with fury to the news that the bloodsport is set to continue for another year under a deal sanctioned by Tony Blair.The field sport was due to be outlawed in England and Wales on February 18 after the Parliament Act was used to force through a ban, overruling opposition from the Lords.But as the Countryside Alliance begins the lengthy process of challenging the ban through the courts, Downing Street confirmed that the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith will not put up any opposition if the Alliance asks for an injunction to delay the ban while the legal action continues.A Downing Street spokesman said: "If the Countryside Alliance is mindful to take out an injunction we are mindful not to oppose that."With two separate cases not due in court until next year, and the likelihood of appeals going as far as the House of Lords, the foxhunting ban could be delayed for many months.But John Cooper, chairman of The League Against Cruel Sports, said there was "no excuse" for delaying."We are appalled that Downing Street is giving in to threats of violence, bullying and intimidation instead of defending the decisions of Parliament and doing everything within their power to uphold the Hunting Act which now has Royal Assent," he said."There is no reason whatsoever for the law not to be enforced."Mr Cooper said the Countryside Alliance had tried and failed to delay implementation of the hunting ban in Scotland two years ago."The Scottish court rejected their case and their request for an injunction ... We have no reason to believe the English courts will not do the same."The Government is thought to be trying to avoid the campaign of civil disobedience threatened by pro-hunters in the run-up to the General Election, expected on May 5.It risks infuriating Labour backbenchers, who were the driving force behind the foxhunting ban, as well as many party supporters.Tony Blair is understood strongly to support the advice of Government law officers not to oppose the injunction.Before the ban, the Prime Minister attempted to broker a compromise to allow hunting to continue under licence. He was disappointed when the House of Lords voted for an immediate ban rather than for the 18 month delay proposed by the Government. Peers voted for the so-called "kamikaze option" to maximise embarrassment to the PM in the run-up to the election.The Alliance is expected to apply for an injunction when the case comes before the Appeal Court late next month.John Jackson, the chairman of the Alliance, a moderate who is credited with arranging the deal, said today: "On the basis of conversations that have taken place between counsel... my very clear understanding is that the Attorney General would not object to an application for an injunction suspending the operation of the Act."Both legal challenges have got very considerable legs and, in my opinion, great legal and moral right behind them."Asked if those expecting a ban in February should think again, he replied: "Absolutely, in my view."Alun Michael, the Rural Affairs Minister who has been the target of pro-hunt demonstrations, said the Government was "relaxed" about the challenges but did not expect them to succeed.Insisting it was "not a question of a secret deal", he said: "What you simply see here is the Government being reasonable as we have been all along despite the fact that this is probably the most contentious issue, although not necessarily the most important, that we’ve seen in politics."He pointed out that the February commencement date was voted for by pro-hunt peers and not MPs.James Gray, a Conservative spokesman, said police should not waste time enforcing the ban until its legality was established.Paul Flynn, an anti-hunting Labour backbencher, backed the Government’s stance. He said: "As a veteran enthusiast for a ban on bloodsports, I voted for an 18-month delay to allow hunters to adjust."In a cynical political stunt the Countryside Alliance - through the House of Lords - brought forward the ban to February 2005. We must not fall into the trap they have devised, and abide by the will of elected parliamentarians and introduce the ban in 2006."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1414312,00.html

The expectation had been that hunting would be banned from 18 February.
Now it seems almost certain that it will not be outlawed until well after an expected May election.

This follows legal moves by the Countryside Alliance to challenge the government's use of the Parliament Act to push the Hunting Bill into law despite House of Lords opposition.

The alliance is also seeking a legal injunction halting enforcement of the bill until the case is decided.

Government sources have now indicated they would not oppose such an injunction.
What this means is that, given this case is likely to go from the High Court, to the Appeal Court and then to the House of Lords, no ruling - and therefore no ban - is likely until near the end of 2005.

Such a delay is precisely the outcome sought by the prime minister.

Tony Blair has always argued that he wanted some delay so that hunts could get used to the idea of scaling down their activities.

He certainly did not want a ban coming into force ahead of a general election.

It is certainly a happy coincidence for the government.

He did not want massive protests as ministers arrived to address meetings and television pictures of horses being dragged off to the "knackers' yard" and hounds being put down.

So it is certainly a happy coincidence for the government, although the rural affairs minister Alun Michael has denied there has been any secret deal struck with the Countryside Alliance to delay the ban.

What we do know is that both sets of lawyers have been discussing this.

Ministers, braced for criticism from Labour MPs opposing any delay, point out MPs did vote for an eighteen month delay during their battles with the Lords.

To add to the dismay of anti-hunt Labour MPs, the Countryside Alliance is also launching a legal challenge under the European Human Rights Act.

One thing is for sure - after 55 years the battle over a hunting ban is not yet over.

Channel News Asia

LONDON : The British goverment has negotiated a secret legal deal that will allow fox hunting to continue next year, despite a ban passed in parliament, The Times newspaper alleged.

The attorney general, Lord Peter Goldsmith, has agreed not to oppose any request for an injunction to the ban from the pro-hunting lobby group Countryside Alliance, the newspaper said.

The law banning the blood sport of fox hunting was pushed through parliament in November, and is due to come into force on February 18. Commentators speculated widely that Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted the ban's enforcement to be delayed until 2006, since the volatile and divisive issue threatens to spill over into a general election expected in May next year.

Legal action against the ban is already before Britain's courts, while hunting supporters have threatened to follow up a long string of rowdy protests with acts of civil disobedience.

The chairman of the Countryside Alliance, John Jackson, told The Times the group's legal challenge would be heard by the High Court in London on January 25 and 26.

If the judges rule against it, the alliance is expected to apply for an immediate injunction that would keep the ban from coming into effect until the conclusion of the appeals process, The Times said.

Asked about the injunction, Jackson said it was "normal" to discuss such issues before the court hearing. "A decision by the attorney general not to oppose the injunction would, of course, be very significant", he said.

A spokesman from Blair's office said: "If the Countryside Alliance are mindful to take out an injunction, we are mindful not to oppose that."

I refer to the article in Tuesday’s Evening Telegraph (“We will rebel against ban”) about the announcement from the Countryside Alliance that 250 hunts will meet on February 19, the day after the ban on hunting with dogs comes into force.

Whilst the content of the article was accurate, I would like to state for the record that the banner headline “We will rebel against ban” was not a quote from me – even though it was put in quotation marks.

The plans announced by the Countryside Alliance are for the hunts to carry out legal activities on that day, and that is what the Fitzwilliam Hunt will be doing.

We do, of course, remain unshakeably opposed to this prejudiced, misguided and unenforceable piece of legislation and we will continue to campaign for it to be overturned.

Come February 18, any readers with dogs will be committing an offence under this Act if they “knowingly permit” their dog to chase a squirrel or kill a mouse.

In the meantime, however, a gamekeeper will be legally allowed by the same Bill to use a terrier to kill a fox in order to protect gamebirds. Birds that someone else will then pay for the pleasure of shooting.

But in the most ludicrous twist of this sordid little exercise in state-sponsored prejudice, a farmer who used a terrier in exactly the same way in order to protect his lambs or his chickens would be committing an offence.

This law is wrong, and it must go.

George Bowyer
joint master,
Fitzwilliam (Milton) Hunt,
In Peterborough Evening Telegraph

KORN rocker JONATHAN DAVIS has hit out at the recently banned British practice of fox hunting, and vowed to break the law and take part when he next visits the UK.
The government recently voted to ban the sport of hunting for foxes with dogs on the grounds of cruelty - but American Davis points out the past-time is centuries old and should be left alone.
He says, "Fox hunting? That's f**king bullshit. That's an old f**king English tradition. You don't f**k with that with that. I'd f**king go fox hunting anyway.
"How some c**ksucker going to come and stop it?"

BBC NEWS

Hunt supporters planning to oppose a ban of their activity are being warned the police will take a "zero tolerance" policy towards them.

Fox hunting will be banned from 18 February next year and police are expecting widespread protests.

Last week protesters disrupted the opening of the Rearsby Bypass in Leics.

But Nottinghamshire Police Authority chairman Councillor John Clarke has warned hunt supporters: "Break the law you'll be treated like the miners".

The Quorn Hunt in Leicestershire has told its members not to protest.

Hunt master Joss Hanbury said: "I think in this part of the world most people will stay within the law. Perhaps, in other parts of the country they might be different."

Mr Clarke emphasised that, if there are major protests by hunt supporters, policing strategy would be similar to that implemented during the miners' protests 20 years ago.

"I've asked the Chief Constable recently about how we're going to police this if it does break down - you know, civil disorder, the rest of it - and he said it will be exactly the same as when we dealt with the miners.

"There will be a strong presence of police, we had special courts for when the miners' strike was on.

"I imagine that at the same time that the Chief Constable would want special courts - late sittings, early sittings, whatever to deal with it, if it's a such a vast volume of protesters, who are breaking the law."

Officers are still considering the practicalities of enforcing the ban when it comes into force.

Concerns include access to private land - at the moment officers can go on private land to carry out an arrest, but not to check if an offence has been committed.

BBC NEWS

An attempt to derail the government's controversial plans for identity cards has failed in the House of Commons.

In the first Commons vote on the scheme, MPs voted by 385 to 93 to give the bill a second reading.

New Home Secretary Charles Clarke has dismissed fears of a "Big Brother" state but 19 Labour MPs backed an amendment to block the bill.

The Lib Dems also opposed the cards, as did 10 Tory MPs who defied their leadership's support for the project.

The bill will go to detailed debate in the Commons before being examined by the House of Lords.
Former Tory Cabinet minister Douglas Hogg's call for the bill to be rejected was defeated by 306 to 93 in a separate vote.

The figures suggest several Conservative and Labour MPs abstained.

Ministers say the cards would help prevent terrorism, organised crime and the "near slave labour" caused by illegal people trafficking.

Opponents argue ID cards are expensive, have not prevented attacks elsewhere, including the Madrid rail bombing, and threaten civil liberties.

The first cards would be issued in 2008 along with biometric passports, containing details such as fingerprints or iris scans.

Ministers have suggested Parliament could decide in 2011 or 2012 whether to make it compulsory for everybody to own, but not to carry, the cards.

There is an entirely false claim that ID cards that will usher in a Big Brother society


It would cost an estimated £415m a year to run a biometric passport scheme - and another £85m for ID cards.

In his first real test since replacing David Blunkett, Mr Clarke told MPs: "There is an entirely false claim that ID cards that will erode our civil liberties, will revisit 1984, will usher in a Big Brother society or establish some kind of totalitarian police state."

He was repeatedly pressed on how the scheme would help police if people did not always have to carry the cards.

Mr Clarke said officers believed the cards would make their job easier.

Conservative leader Michael Howard last week said his shadow cabinet had decided to back ID cards but admitted it was "not an easy issue".

Shadow home secretary David Davis said the Tories backed the principle of the scheme but wanted the details examined by a special committee.

Former Tory frontbencher Bill Cash said there was still "very deep" disquiet among senior Tories.

He brandished a copy of George Orwell's 1984 as he told MPs the plans would bring a "sea change" in the relationship between state and citizens.

And Labour backbencher Neil Gerrard claimed it was "almost inevitable" people would eventually be forced to carry the cards.

Lib Dem spokesman Mark Oaten warned: "This is about a change in society where if you look like an illegal immigrant or a terrorist you can be stopped...

"Where you will have to turn up to centres to have your fingerprint or your iris scanned, where if you visit your GP or accident and emergency department you will have to put in a scan and prove who you are."

Protesters deny Commons charges
WESTERN MORNING NEWS
13:00 - 21 December 2004

Eight pro-hunt demonstrators who entered the House of Commons chamber during a debate on a Bill to ban fox-hunting have denied charges of disorderly conduct.

The demonstrators were charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act after the incident on September 15.

The men, including 22-year-old Otis Ferry, the son of rock star Bryan Ferry, and Luke Tomlinson, 27, a close friend of the Princes William and Harry, appeared before Bow Street magistrates court.

All eight pleaded not guilty to using threatening behaviour or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

The men were granted unconditional bail.

The next hearing, a pre-trial review, will take place on January 18 next year but the men will not be required to attend.

A date for a trial is expected to be set at that hearing.

Ferry, of Keeper's Cottage, Eaton Mascott, Shrewsbury, has led the South Shropshire hunt since May.

Game shooting under attack from Labour MPs
CA - Wednesday, 15 December 2004

Labour MPs have targeted game shooting in the next stage of their campaign against country sports.

The Labour dominated Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has launched an attack on the rearing of game birds and suggested: "limiting the numbers of game birds that are able to be reared".

The committee also rejected the Game Farmers' Association's comprehensive code of practice and, bizarrely, was concerned that: "of the game birds being reared, only 40% end up being shot".

Simon Hart, Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: "Anyone who still believes that shooting is not now under serious threat should read this report. The agenda of animal rights organisations and Labour MPs is one and the same and shooting is now the top item.

"Even if DEFRA Ministers do not collude with MPs, as they have in the past, they will again be powerless to control the vast majority of their colleagues".

'BACKDOOR' BAN ON SHOOTING?
WESTERN MORNING NEWS -

The Labour Party is under mounting pressure to open the way for restrictions on the sport of shooting in its next manifesto, as animal rights campaigners celebrate their success in securing a ban on hunting.

The WMN has learned that the League Against Cruel Sports has started lobbying Labour to ensure that the current pledge to leave shooting alone is lifted in the party's election manifesto next year.

League spokesman Mike Hobday told the WMN: "The last Labour manifesto said the Government would not place any restrictions on shooting - that gave shooting a get out of jail free card, no matter what the welfare problems. That is clearly unrealistic.

"We would anticipate Labour's next manifesto taking a more sophisticated approach that will leave the way open for welfare problems to be dealt with."

Labour's animal welfare society is already carrying an article on its website entitled "Hunting down - shooting to go", and the prominent anti-hunting MP Tony Banks tabled a Commons motion last week calling for restrictions on game shooting.

The article, contributed by the group Animal Aid, called for "a ban on breeding pheasants for sport shooting".

Earlier this month the Labour-dominated Commons environment committee also called for restrictions on the rearing of pheasants for game shooting to be added to the new Animal Welfare Bill when it goes before Parliament early next year.

Although there is virtually no prospect of a total ban on shooting in the foreseeable future, there is growing evidence that game shooting could face a "backdoor ban" through a series of onerous restrictions on "animal welfare" grounds that could make the sport uneconomic.

Tim Bonner, of the Countryside Alliance, told the WMN that the lobbying, coupled with controversial Government plans to restrict the use of shotguns, posed a major threat to the Westcountry's multi-million pound shooting industry."The league's agenda was always to move on to attack shooting once they had got a ban on hunting, and it is quite clear that the agenda is being adopted by the Parliamentary Labour Party," he said."The animal rights lobby is an industry - these groups have huge resources. But in order to sustain themselves they have to move onto their next target."

Speaking in the House of Lords last week, Food and Farming Minister Lord Whitty insisted that the Government had "no intention of placing restrictions on the sport of shooting".He said he could see "no reason" why this stance should be changed in the next Labour manifesto.

However, Mr Bonner said the first moves towards a "backdoor ban" were already emerging."The Government's vision of shooting doesn't extend much beyond clay pigeons," he said."The game shooting industry, which is a huge employer in the South West, needs to realise, if it hasn't already, that restrictions are on the way."We have already had this ludicrous proposal from the Home Office that inner city gun crime could be tackled by restricting legitimate shotgun use, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to link the two."The environment committee has pointed the way to further restrictions by suggesting a limit on the number of birds that can be reared."That is an attempt to target stocking densities, which would clear out much of the commercial shooting along the south of Exmoor, for a start."The agenda of animal rights organisations and Labour MPs, is one and the same, and shooting is now the top item."Even if Defra ministers do not collude with MPs, as they have done in the past, they will be again powerless to control the vast majority of their colleagues."

The last hurrah
Dec 21 2004
Steve Dube, Western Mail

HUNDREDS of hunts throughout England and Wales will turn out for what may be the last of the traditional Boxing Day meets next Monday.

Thousands of followers, supporters and the merely curious are expected to watch the colourful spectacular, but with the League Against Cruel Sports calling off its members, there are unlikely to be any confrontations.

Meanwhile, the Farmers' Union of Wales has stepped up its campaign to persuade the Welsh Assembly to rescue the tradition in Wales by introducing its own legislation.

The union is disregarding Wales rural affairs minister Carwyn Jones's assertion that the National Assembly has no powers to make its own law following contradictory claims by Assembly Presiding Officer Dafydd Elis- Thomas.

In a meeting with FUW county branch officials in Meirionnydd, Lord Elis-Thomas said he had taken legal advice and been assured that the Assembly could legislate on the matter. The Burns inquiry accepted that there are parts of Wales where fox control is impossible without the use of hounds and over the past four years the FUW has called for responsibility for the future of hunting to be delegated to the Assembly.

The issue was raised again at the Winter Fair by the Country Land and Business Association (CLA).

"I must admit that we were a little disheartened by Carwyn Jones and First Minister Rhodri Morgan's response to the CLA appeal that the hunting ban is a measure for both England and Wales," said FUW Meirionnydd county chairman Alun Edwards.

"But we were immensely heartened when we met Dafydd Elis-Thomas who told us he had received legal advice that it would be possible to have devolutionised use to some elements of the Bill."

Mr Edwards said Lord Elis- Thomas went through some of the Bill's clauses, and showed how it would be possible to adjust it for Wales.

"He opened up the possibility of hunting being allowed in Wales with a licence," said Mr Edwards. "We were reminded of how a discussion on hunting with dogs was held in the Assembly in 2000 and that, by a majority of one vote, AMs were in favour of seeing the Assembly make a decision.

"However, the way in which powers over the Bill would be transferred to the Assembly is very complicated - and couldn't happen without the effort of parties and individuals - and it is therefore crucial the opposition parties are behind the idea."

Mr Rees said the campaign will use the arguments and evidence of the Burns inquiry, and economic arguments on how crucial to the sheep industry it is to control fox numbers and other wildlife.

"We believe it is constitutionally possible to see some of the Bill transferred to Wales. This is very good news for us and on a wider scale for the Assembly - true devolution for Wales."
Mr Edwards called on the CLA, NFU Cymru, Countryside Alliance, RSPB, National Trust and others to join the FUW in a united front on the issue.

The FUW has also warned taxpayers could be faced with a multi-million-pound Bill if the Forestry Commission is forced to fulfil its duty to control foxes. The commission currently relies heavily on packs to control foxes on their land. In a typical case, a hunt receives £200 from the commission and accounts for more than 100 foxes.

But replacing local hunts with pest control officers could run into millions of pounds.
Hunts throughout Wales will meet on Boxing Day Monday.

Stephen Robinson - Daily Telegraph
(Filed: 21/12/2004)

Until Michael Howard flunked the test yesterday and forced his reluctant frontbench Tory colleagues to endorse the looming multi-billion-pound ID card fiasco, the Tories had at least one promising vote-winning issue for next year's election campaign.

A question could have been put to the electorate along these lines: do you think that government has become over-mighty in the past eight years; and, if so, do you want to have to get into the car with your wife or husband and drive to the police station, stand and queue while your car is clamped outside, submit to a reading being taken of your iris or fingerprint, provide a signature sample and your home address, and then write out a cheque to the government for £170?

You might have a couple of children at university - that'll be another £170 for them - and don't forget the ageing parents, for they are not exempt either. Those parents might be of an age when they can get cranky and refuse to submit to some silly jobsworth, but be careful. If they refuse to allow their details to be stored on the new identity databank, they will be liable for a £2,500 fine. And if an elderly relative has to be moved into a nursing home, don't forget to tell the Home Office or you may be liable for a £1,000 fine.

One of the characteristics of the ID card Bill that makes it recognisable as a piece of New Labour legislation is that it creates 31 new powers for the Home Secretary, seven new civil fines, and eight new criminal offences.

If you like the idea of all this and can afford the £400 or so it will cost your extended family (the Tories could have said), then vote Labour and help Charles Clarke, the new Home Secretary, get one over all those he accuses of "liberal woolly thinking". On the other hand, if you are sceptical of grandiose government in general, and of ID cards in particular, the Tories might have said, then vote for us.

Mr Howard might have added that he would take the billions that Labour will spend on this scheme, and use it to improve border controls, to put more police on the streets, and bolster the security services.

He might have pointed out that we face a real and immediate terrorist threat and that ID cards will not be fully operational for at least seven years, even assuming the technology works. The Tories might have remarked on how America's Department of Homeland Security, no slouchers in the war on terror, have no plans for a national ID card, but prefer to concentrate their efforts on border control and intelligence.

They might have mentioned that the real terrorist threat we face might actually come from within the pool of 26 million short-term visitors to British ports and airports every year, and that, if none of these foreigners needs an ID card, then why should your elderly parents in Cheltenham?

The Tories might, heaven forbid, have said they would not raise or spend the billions the ID scheme would cost because Conservatives believe in small government and want to cut taxes, not raise them.

But Mr Howard could not bear the thought of looking "weak on terror", so preferred to make his front-bench team seem ridiculous yesterday in forcing them to fall in line behind a scheme that will cost billions, make us no safer and ultimately prove highly unpopular. He has deprived millions of people like me with an innate scepticism towards government of a real choice next year. At the very moment when one senses that voters are growing uneasy at the controlling instincts of New Labour, the Tory front bench has endorsed Big Government on stilts.

The concept of the ID card is one that appeals to people in principle, as the poll tax did in its early days. Problems came then, as they will with the ID cards, when it was implemented and the bills came in. When the costs escalate, and people are faced with ensuring that all their family comply with the new law, then hostility will spread.

One of the oddest aspects of ID cards is that they really will not make us any safer from terrorist attack, and we know this from no less an authority than David Blunkett, the former home secretary. Back in 2002, when the Government was "consulting" on the principle of an ID system, the Home Office preferred to call it a voluntary "entitlement card" to help citizens access government services.

In the course of a revealing Commons exchange in July of that year, Chris Mullin, a Labour MP, asked Mr Blunkett if he could confirm a card would be of "little or no use in combating terrorism". Surprisingly perhaps, the former home secretary freely acknowledged this to be the case, arguing that "it is important that we do not pretend" that a card "would be an overwhelming factor in combating international terrorism".

Mr Blunkett proved quite prescient in his candid admission, for ID cards in Spain did not prevent the Madrid railway bombings. How odd that Michael Howard now dismisses Mr Blunkett's warning and sees in ID cards an indispensable tool to guard against terrorist attack.
The Government remains cagey about going into specifics on the overall cost, suggesting £3.1 billion will cover it, which is an absurd underestimate. That does not include the price of scanners to read the cards, or general compliance costs, and this figure will rise enormously; one reason why Gordon Brown remains highly sceptical.

Industry estimates suggest the true figure will be more like £10 billion, and, if recent experience of government IT projects is a reliable guide, it could be double that. When an ambitious plan for a new NHS national online database emerged from a Downing Street seminar chaired by Tony Blair in 2002, it was allocated £2.3 billion of central funding. The Commons public accounts committee now thinks total expenditure will exceed £30 billion, with one member describing the cost overruns as "terrifying".

It is not difficult to see how this ID card scheme could become New Labour's defining fiasco. People will resent the cost and the intrusion, but the serious trouble could come when the police are required to enforce it in areas with high Muslim populations, where many might prefer not to register. The Government and the Conservatives seem blithe about what this might do for race relations in this country.

The Tories have failed to see that this debate is about much more than a piece of plastic. It is about our attitude to government, and its attitude to us. I would not expect New Labour to understand that point, but if the Tories do not understand it either, there is no point in someone like me voting for them any more.

In selfish terms, I was relieved to see Michael Howard take the easy way out and endorse ID cards, because it freed me of any sense that I should have to vote for his party. No longer will I have to profess enthusiasm about Tory policies, or pretend that I see the green shoots of a Conservative revival.

For the first time I shall vote for the Liberal Democrats, because they do understand that the identity card debate is about the just role of government, and I suspect tens of thousands of instinctive Conservatives will do the same next year.

From Sporting Shooter.

" The Government expected him to be the Abu Hamza of the backwoods. While he was being held by police at Charing Cross after breaking into the Commons, West Mercia Constabulary arrived at his cottage in Shropshire in two unmarkedcars, three marked cars and four vans full of police and dogs. they went through his house thoroughly for six hours. They didn't break anything but he still has scuff marks on his wall from their boots where they scrambled into his attic. They took away his computer, they found the key to his gun cabinet, they took away a .22 and 12-bore ( they won't say when he'll get them back) but they didn't take his humane killer, which is also on his firearm cerificate."

BY RICCARDINO

..."Gangs of marauding foxes are now parading themselves throughout the semi-rural areas of Scotland. Before the ban in Scotland foxes, or Charlie as they affectionately call themselves, were kept under control humanely and sweetly by foxhounds. Now all has changed. They are forming gangs and terrorising the inhabitants of small to medium sized towns, demanding pizzu, or payment of money, in return for protection. The police now believe that there is a Sicilian influence having investigated reports of Sicilian flavour sausages being taken in broad daylight from local butchers. Also, the family of a missing huntsman were delivered a package with the strong scent of foxes and containing a red hunting jacket and a salmon. The police are dredging the local loch.

A few residents have tried to combat the sheer dominance of the foxes. However, their attempts at justice were mercilessly beaten down by the foxes and their chickens eaten. There were even threats that cats (the size of lions) and obese children (deep fried Mars Bar addiction is also a problem) would be taken in the night by the fox gangs.

Such is the current bare-faced cheek of the foxes that they are now going out at night and lamping the local farmers. Scores have been killed. One local farmer said the current situation is "shite".

MPs have said that they will look into the reports of the fox menace, but only after Christmas because it's really hard to get hold of iPods at the moment and MPs are having to fly to London to try the new Apple Store in Tottenham Court Road.

A fox representative denied any responsibility for the missing villagers and huntspeople saying that it was simply the bad weather that had caused so many deaths. The fox, who wanted to remain anonymous, (we'll call him Mr Fox) said, "I'm absolutely appalled that people should think that we are terrorising people and have any link with the Cosa Nostra. Anyway, if anybody was 'accidentally' killed whilst our group were roaming the countryside on a wintery morning, it's not our fault - and any fatalities would have been dispatched quickly and painfully, ah, I mean painLESSLY, by a quick bite to the back of the neck - what's the f**king problem, jeez!"

Commons hunt protesters charged - BBC ONLINE

Eight protesters who stormed the House of Commons chamber during a debate on the Hunting Bill have been charged with disorderly conduct.

The men were arrested in September after bursting into the chamber causing a hunting ban debate to be halted.

Those charged included Otis Ferry, the 22-year-old son of rock star Bryan Ferry and Luke Tomlinson, 27, a close friend of princes William and Harry.They were charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, police said.

Five of the eight men held an impromptu news conference outside Charing Cross Police Station on Monday evening, after the charges were formerly put to them.The men's solicitor Matthew Knight, said that at no time had it occurred to the men that they were committing a criminal offence.
We have done nothing wrong beyond the obvious which was to stand up for our rightS "There is no offence of trespassing in the House of Commons - it is not a criminal offence," he said."

If Parliament wanted to make entering the House of Commons chamber on foot a criminal offence it should have done so, but it can't do so retrospectively."We are not prosecuted for that. We are prosecuted for a Public Order Act offence. We are not guilty of it."

They will appear at Bow Street Magistrates' Court on 21 December, a police spokesman said.

Otis Ferry, a former Eton pupil and joint leader of the South Shropshire Hunt, said: "I have no regrets."We have done nothing wrong beyond the obvious which was to stand up for our rights and not act like a sheep like the rest of the country."

One of the men, David Redvers, 34, from Hartpury, Gloucestershire, said he and the other seven protesters would plead not guilty to the charges.

The other protesters are John Holliday, 37, a huntsman from Ledbury, Herefordshire, Robert Thame, 34, who plays polo with Princes Charles in Team Highgrove, auctioneer Andrew Elliot, 42, from Bromesberrow, near Ledbury, point-to-point jockey Richard Wakeham, 34, from York, and former royal chef Nick Wood, 41.

The 15 September protest came on the same day as a huge pro-hunting demonstration in Parliament Square.Four of the men ran out from behind the speaker's chair while another wrestled past a doorkeeper from a different entrance.

The five tried to confront MPs before they were bundled out of the chamber and later led away handcuffed by police.Three others had been intercepted by security staff as they tried to join the five in the chamber.

Speaker Michael Martin later said the men had used a forged letter to gain access to the House of Commons and had been helped to get close to the chamber by a parliamentary pass holder.

In November, the use of the Parliament Act meant a total ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales.However, many pro-hunt activists remained defiant after the law was passed, saying they would ignore the ban and continue to hunt.

Last week, the Countryside Alliance said more than 250 hunts would meet legally the day after the ban on hunting with dogs comes into force.The alliance said the 19 February meets would show the new law was "impossibly difficult to determine" and open to different interpretations.

I dreamed and lo this is my dream
The cranks had had their way:
Foxhunting was forbid by law
For ever and a day.

No more across the English grass
Will eager sportsmen ride;
No more the scarlet coats be seen
At winter coverside.

But what of Master Reynard whom
This law was passed to save
From death that so befits him
As a brigand, wild and brave?

Alas! I saw quite clearly what
Must now become his fate,
With none to stand between him and
The chicken farmers' hate:

The shot at dusk, the shot at dawn,
The snatched, uncertain aim;
The wounds that only slowly kill,
The wounds that only maim,

The bitter gripe of poison and
The burning, rending pain;
The broken teeth and bleeding jaws
That bite the trap in vain.

The rolly cubs on summer dawns
That scrapped and played a game
Are dying now by inches, for
Their dam comes not again:

She's lying at a dyke back with
A gin upon her pad -
A broken, bleeding sacrifice
To sentiment run mad.

Special Branch 'is paying for agents inside hunts'
By Daniel Foggo and Melissa Kite
(Filed: 12/12/2004)

Special Branch is trying to recruit hunt members as paid informants before the sport becomes illegal next year.

Officers have approached at least a dozen leading members of the Countryside Alliance and suggested that they warn police about potentially illegal protests and hunts. In return, the Special Branch "handlers" said expenses would be paid and told at least one prospective informant that they would be financially "well looked after".

Tim Bonner, an alliance spokesman, said: "We have 13 regional directors and all of the ones I have spoken to have been approached.

"Most of them have longstanding relations with Special Branch because hunting people are targets for animal rights extremists, but this is an entirely new development which has only occurred since the Bill started to be pushed through Parliament."

The reports are at odds with statements by ministers that a softly-softly approach will be taken to policing the ban. David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, said last month that the legislation will be enforced "sensitively" and will not eat into resources.

However, it would seem that resources are being poured into policing the ban even before it becomes law.

Peter Lister, the chairman of the Coquetdale and Border Coarsing Club, said that he was approached by Special Branch in September, shortly after the demonstration in Parliament Square.

He said: "I have had regular contact with a female SB officer who is attached to Durham Constabulary for a couple of years because of local animal rights activity and after the debacle in Parliament Square she rang and said she wanted to come to my house and bring a colleague.

"She introduced him as Ian. We discussed Parliament Square and they asked for my general reactions. I said I had been disgusted with the police and some of our own supporters.

"Ian then said, 'On that basis, would you mind giving us some more information?'. I said, if someone was going to break the law, other than the law banning hunting, I would tell you. They said, 'We need to put your information on a more formal footing'. They said that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act states that if I gave information on people the police would be prepared to meet my expenses. She said, 'We will make sure you are well looked after'.

"At that point I lost the plot. I told them that I am law-abiding but I will be the first person to get arrested and jailed if necessary for breaking the hunting ban come February."

Barry Henderson, the alliance's director for Cheshire and North Wales, said: "I have had contact with a local plain-clothes officer from North Wales for a couple of years and the relationship is meant to be for our own security, but recently it has changed and now he phones me every week and asks what we are 'up to'.

"Then I got a phone call from Cheshire police asking for a meeting. I thought it was about an attack on my car by hunt saboteurs. They came to my house and instead of asking about the attack they made 'an approach'.

"They said they wanted to put my relationship with them on a formal footing and said they would 'protect my anonymity'. I told them that anything I had to say to them would be on the record and in public."

Brian Fanshaw, the chairman of the Council of Hunting Associations, said: "This is the quickest way of divorcing the police from hunting people."

The Special Branch yesterday refused to comment.

PETERBOROUGH EVENING TELEGRAPH

MEMBERS of the Fitzwilliam Hunt are set to join a major rebellion against the fox-hunting ban, a day after it comes into force.

Joint master George Bowyer said the hunt would almost certainly join 250 other hunts across the country to test the new law on February 19.

The protest plans follow a landmark ruling in Scotland where the first attempt to prosecute a huntsman accused of breaching the ban failed.

A ban is already in place in Scotland, but the test case raised doubts about the enforcement of a ban in England and Wales.Mr Bowyer said next year's meetings would demonstrate that the legislation was "shot through with loopholes".

He said: "It is extremely likely we will be involved. The plans were only announced recently, but I would be very surprised if we were not out there testing the law.

"The recent test case demonstrates what we are saying. They banned hunting in Scotland several years ago, but there are still hunts going on as before, and that's going to happen in England as well."

Trevor Adams (46) was charged with deliberately hunting a fox with 20 hounds, but he walked free after a Scottish court ruled that he was not "hunting" but "searching" for a fox.

He argued he was operating a pest control service, using dogs to flush out foxes so people with guns could shoot them.

The ruling effectively legalised a new form of hunting with hounds.

The Fitzwilliam Hunt has been running for more than 300 years and runs across Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire.

In September, more than 100 members of the hunt joined thousands of protesters in a march in London protesting against plans to ban fox-hunting.

But last month, the Hunting Act was given the Royal Assent from the Queen.

The ban was going to be delayed until July 2006 because of opposition from the House of Lords, but the Government invoked the Parliament Act to push it through.

The Enemy! Ousted at the next election?? She will be unemployed if the Fitzwilliam have anything to do with it!

The FT had this to say:

The former teacher, who won her seat in 1997 with a 7,323 majority, has hit the headlines in the past by comparing herself with Princess Diana after her husband cheated on her. But Peterborough's own people's princess is more popularly known as the "android" for her blind loyalty to Labour leaders. Christened "top toady" by satirist and former Labour adviser Alistair Beaton, who quotes her expressing "great happiness" at a government response to a select committee report on housing, praising the environment minister's "superb, excellent and dynamic lead", and the government's "high-level political leadership on sustainable development".

Which reminds me Helen Clark was quoted in today's daily Mail as saying 'She has never experienced sexism or sexual harrassment in the commons'. George joked that it was hardly a revelation because David Blunkett already has a girlfriend...

Friday, 10 December 2004
Hunts will meet as normal on 19th February

Over 250 packs of foxhounds, hare hounds, deer hounds and other hunts and clubs will meet as normal on Saturday 19th February, the day after the Hunting Act comes into force in England and Wales.

The meets will be widely advertised and held at locations well placed to allow everyone who supports freedom and tolerance to support their local hunt. All hunts and clubs across the country will make it clear that they intend to hunt within the law, and will have gained permission from landowners to carry out legal hunting activities.

Hunts and clubs across the country will continue to meet in the short period between February and the end of the hunting season.

Simon Hart, Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance commented: "The 19th February will be an opportunity for the rural community, and all who support liberty, to show their determination to fight this ridiculous and unenforceable legislation until it is repealed."

COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE 10TH DECEMBER 2004

A man who was accused of illegal fox hunting in the Scottish Borders has been acquitted.

In a test case for Scotland's anti-hunting legislation, Trevor Adams was found not guilty at Jedburgh Sheriff Court.

Sheriff Kevin Drummond ruled that the former master of the Buccleuch Hunt was searching and not hunting.

BBC ONLINE

The new law banning hunting with dogs is "so poorly drafted" no-one can define the offence, pro-hunt MPs say.

The accusation came after it emerged a Devon man had been told he could use his four dogs to "chase away unwanted animals" from his farm.

Because he did not intend to kill deer or foxes it was not hunting.

Lib Dem MP Lembit Opik said ministers had invented a new category of hunting - chasing away - and asked how police were supposed to interpret the rules.

North Devon landowner Giles Bradshaw was put in touch with the Middle Way Group, of which Mr Opik is a co-chairman, after he had been in contact with the rural affairs ministry, Defra.

He had asked whether his technique of using his four dogs to frighten off deer and foxes would be outlawed under the Hunting Act.

Mr Bradshaw was initially told it was an offence - prompting him to complain.

The Middle Way group also said Mr Bradshaw would be put in a position where he would have to buy a rifle to shoot animals that would have previously gone free.

In a later conversation Mr Bradshaw was told that according to Defra's lawyers chasing away unwanted animals was "not in fact hunting as described in the Hunting Act 2004 therefore you would not be committing an offence".


Mr Opik said: "Hunting with dogs and flushing are not defined in the Hunting Act.

"Now Defra have also invented a completely new category of hunting - 'chasing away' which isn't even covered by the Act.

"However, all these activities involve the use of dogs to chase wild mammals.

"How is the village bobby who sees a group of people with dogs supposed to distinguish between illegal hunting, exempt hunting, drag hunting, unintentional hunting, a hunt exercising hounds or simply chasing away?"

Tory MP Peter Luff, another co-chairman of Middle Way, said that the legislation was "so poorly drafted nobody appears able to properly define the offence".


"It is no wonder the government desperately wants to move on from this disastrous law. However, I seriously doubt the countryside will be that accommodating."

Mike Hobday, of the League Against Cruel Sports, said: "There is no confusion, it is a matter of simple common sense.

"If Mr Bradshaw is setting his dogs to chase wild animals then he is hunting them and that will be a criminal offence.

"If all the dogs are doing is barking at the deer, then nobody can define that as hunting."

When you believe in something, you make time for it.

This quote from the BUGS forum certainly struck a chord. Since September 15th I have been on no less than 10 demonstrations (roughly 1 per week!). I think you can all guess what they were about! (for those that are still scratching their heads they were all pro-hunting demos)

Every one involved either juggling around my schedule or skipping work to go along (luckily work were very supportive of my cause). When I have been on Fees demos I again skipped a work commitment at OTC to go along and walk through central London in the pissing rain (remember that one?) - it wouldn't have affected my year but I still went along to fight for future students.

When it comes to issues that are important to you then where there is a will to attend you will always find a way, be that getting up at 4.30am, blagging lifts or risking public transport..

Here endeth the sermon

Claire xxxx

Oscar Wilde memorably dismissed foxhunting as “the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable”. The parliamentary campaign to ban what a minority are entitled to regard as part of their way of life has, though, been a case of the implacable in full pursuit of the illogical. Hundreds of hours of parliamentary time have been wasted, many more hundreds of hours of courtroom time lie ahead and perhaps thousands of hours of police time might be consumed if and when this measure is implemented. It has been a ludicrous spectacle politically and utterly divisive socially. Nothing positive will come of it. This has been an episode of parliamentary madness.

It also reflects especially badly on the Prime Minister. On Tuesday night he finally chose to cast a vote in the House of Commons on this question. He opted to back the compromise option, namely allowing hunting to continue but under a strict system of licence and regulation. He did so on the basis that it was “in the best interests of the country”. He could not, how- ever, inspire many government colleagues to join him. A reasonable proposal went down by a 117-vote margin.

Tony Blair can only blame himself for this outcome. If the “middle way”, which he has come round to supporting publicly, is in the best interests of the country now, it surely must have been so for the past seven years. Yet Mr Blair has consistently failed to declare his hand, signalling a distaste for the hunting ban through nods and winks, newspaper leaks and by proxy, courtesy of supporters sent out to be shot politically on behalf of their master. He has continually deluded himself that something, almost anything, might eventually turn up to relieve him of this issue. Now he has been hunted down by Labour MPs as a consequence of his own indecision.

Mr Blair might hope that his belated vote will be taken as a conciliatory gesture. It will not. If anything, the Prime Minister has left himself in the worst of all worlds. Labour MPs and party activists will be irritated that his pre- vious claims to favour an outright ban were insincere, while those who aspire to continue with their pastime have no reason to thank a man who could have blocked this illiberal measure at an earlier stage in proceedings, but conspicuously declined to do so.

The broader impression left is that of a paradoxical prime minister. Mr Blair has shown admirable courage in foreign affairs — not just in Iraq, but on Kosovo and Sierra Leone as well. Yet he has been incapable of mobilising the moderate and rational wing of his party through leadership on the infinitely less awkward matter of the precise methods by which the fox population is kept within sensible numbers. Tough restrictions on foxhunting are appropriate. A total ban is excessive.

This should not, nevertheless, be an excuse for those who have lost in the House of Commons to engage in anti-parliamentary militancy. There will be an opportunity for them to challenge both the legality of the Parliament Act 1949 and to explore whether the Human Rights Act offers them succour. They should do so patiently and in a measured tone and not suggest that they believe the law of the land — if that is what the ban becomes incorporated within — is a thing that they are entitled to approach à la carte. Responsibility must be the order of the hour. It is an immense pity that Mr Blair himself did not act responsibly when it really would have counted.

It’s nice to know that New Labour have their priorities right. They forced through the law banning hunting with dogs – having wasted 700 hours of Parliamentary time – in a spasm of class envy, hatred and intolerance. Helen Clark is one of many Labour MPs content to criminalise a whole group of people she doesn’t agree with, yet, not long ago, voted for Sinn Fein MPs to remain in the House of Commons – not taking their seats – but pocketing thousands of pounds of public money in expenses. What a weird sense of what is right and wrong! Meanwhile, after eight years of Blair’s empty promises, one in three 11-year-olds leaves primary school unable to write properly, more than a million violent crimes were committed last year, tax has risen by the equivalent of £5,000 per household since 1997, 5,000 people die of infections caught in hospitals each year, and four in five failed asylum seekers are never removed from the UK. In Peterborough, our police force remains under-funded, our local hospital has lost its 3-star rating because of NHS bureaucracy, and Labour’s legacy to the city will be an ugly Category B prison, on the site where once stood a beacon of excellence that made Peterborough the great manufacturing city it was. People were prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt in 2001. They now realise that all they will leave behind is a story of spin, deceit and failure – at our expense.

Stewart Jackson
Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Peterborough

THE master of a hunt has vowed to fight a fox-hunting ban by ousting the Government.
George Bowyer, joint master of the Fitzwiliam Hunt, spoke out after the ban was last night rubber-stamped to begin in February.The ban was going to be delayed until July 2006 because of stubborn opposition from the House of Lords.But the Hunting Act was given the Royal Assent from the Queen last night after the Parliament Act was invoked to overrule the resistance, meaning hunting with hounds will be banned in England and Wales within three months. Mr Bowyer said today: "We're going to fight this. We have got three challenges we're going to mount. Three avenues we're going to be following."They are also are expected to mount a case under human rights legislation, and to challenge the legitimacy of the 1949 Parliament Act itself, on the grounds that it was never passed by the House of Lords.The Act was invoked for only the fourth time in 55 years, after peers rejected a final opportunity for compromise by voting down a proposal to delay the ban.Mr Bowyer said the third route of attack was to vote out Labour who brought the ban in.He said: "There is a General Election coming up and we have more active campaigners than any political candidate. "We're going to campaign to get the people who have abused us removed from their positions through democracy. "We'll find out how much they like their democracy when it comes back to bite them on the behind."They used the political process to attack us, we'll use the political process to attack them."The Fitzwilliam Hunt has been running for more than 300 years and runs across Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire.In September more than 100 members of the Fitzwilliam Hunt joined thousands of protesters in a march in London protesting against plans to ban fox-hunting.One of the members of the hunt, Jane Thorpe-Codman, from Nassington, was seen on television with blood streaming down her face after claiming she was pushed to the floor by a baton-wielding police officer during a protest outside the House of Commons.Mr Bowyer was also in the thick of the chaotic scenes as five hunt supporters stormed the House of Commons, and hundreds outside were involved in bloody clashes with police.

Pro-hunt demo threat to London's 2012 bid
Mark Townsend and Denis Campbell
Sunday December 5, 2004
The Observer

London's bid to stage the 2012 Olympics could be severely damaged by pro-hunt supporters planning a massive display of civil disobedience as inspectors for the Games visit the city.

Hunting leaders have warned the organisers of the capital's bid that the country will be 'at war' as International Olympic Committee delegates arrive in February for a make-or-break assessment of London's facilities. Their visit coincides with the coming into force of the new hunting ban on 18 February - an act that is likely to trigger the largest display of collective law-breaking in British history.

A possible repeat of the scenes of chaos and violence that accompanied a previous pro-hunting demonstration in Parliament Square will worry 2012 bid leaders in case it damages the capital's security reputation.

A country's stability is considered to be a key criterion for assessing a candidate city's fitness to stage the Games. Scenes of mayhem in central London would not help the capital's cause.

The Countryside Alliance has warned that it is planning another protest in Parliament Square on Friday 18 February, the first day fox-hunting will be illegal.

At least a million people are expected to flout the ban by electing to go fox hunting the following day, according to the Countryside Alliance.

'The question of law and order in Britain will become directly relevant,' said Alliance spokesman Tim Bonner.

'It will be a strange situation for the IOC delegates. As they sit chewing their cornflakes over breakfast they will find themselves gazing at newspaper pictures of fox hunters putting two fingers up to the government.'

Officials for the London bid admit they have been contacted by the Countryside Alliance over the timing of the IOC's trip. The four-day visit by the 12-member 2012 evaluation commission from 16-19 February is vital to London's chances as the inspectors' verdict plays a key role in deciding whether the capital or rivals Paris, Madrid, New York and Moscow is awarded the Games when a final decision is made in July.

The fact the inspectors' visit occurs at a time when the country is riven by restlessness and mass protests could have a decisive effect, particularly as extreme pro-hunt protesters could deliberately use the visit to vent their anger at the ban by disrupting London's transport system.

'The country will be at war,' said Bonner. 'How does that impact on the International Olympic Committee and the government's ability to deliver?'

The inspectors will spend their time listening to presentations on all 17 aspects of London's bid, visiting existing and proposed venues such as Wimbledon and the new Wembley Stadium, using the city's much-derided public transport system, and attending a dinner in their honour.

However, London 2012 bid communications chief Mike Lee insisted last night that the protesters' plans would not damage London's chances, and that the IOC inspectors would not be affected by the threatened anti-ban events on the Friday and Saturday.

'The Countryside Alliance have made contact with the bid to indicate that Saturday 19 February is an important date for them, and we have noted that information,' said Lee. 'But the way the itinerary for the evaluation commission visit is organised, it's unlikely that the response to the legislation coming into force would have a disruptive effect on the commission's work because there's very little travelling [around London] in the course of their visit'.

Most of the inspectors' time would be spent in a hotel listening to presentations from 2012 bid leaders and asking questions, and only one day - either the Wednesday or Thursday they are in Britain - will involve travelling around the city examining sites and transport arrangements. So events taking place on the Friday or Saturday would not impact significantly on the commission, added Lee.