Tuesday, December 28, 2004
HUNTS ON A WAR FOOTING
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”.
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”.
