Saturday, January 29, 2005
NO CRIMINAL RECORD
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1461506,00.html
January 29, 2005
Hunt rebels will not be given a criminal recordBy Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor ANY huntsman or woman found guilty of breaking the hunt ban laws will avoid a criminal record, police have disclosed.
The news was a fillip for hunt supporters after they failed yesterday to clear the first fence in their legal challenge to the ban in the High Court.
An appeal hearing is to take place on February 8 before the country’s most senior judge, Lord Woolf, QC, the Lord Chief Justice. Lord Justice Kay, sitting with Mr Justice Collins, rejected arguments from the Countryside Alliance and ruled that the hunting ban was lawful because the Parliament Act 1949 used to force through the ban was valid.
In guidance to police forces Nigel Yeo, the assistant chief constable of Sussex, on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) public order working group, states that offences under the hunting Act carry a fine of up to £5,000 but: “They are not recordable or notifiable under the national crime recording standards and I am also advised by Home Office lawyers that persons convicted of offences under the Hunting Act will not secure a criminal record.”
The Times has reported before that many senior officers are worried about the difficulties of policing a ban. Forces are reminded that the Hunting Act “confers power to arrest, not a duty” and are told that as far as hunting is concerned the main responsibility for the police is “the prevention of harm to all people involved”.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questioned Mr Yeo’s interpretation “There will be a criminal record but it won’t be a recordable offence,” a spokeswoman said. “It won’t be on the police national computer and so police will not automatically know who has committed an offence. But people will have to declare it on appplications for jobs and firearms offences.” She said that the Government would have laws in place to make it a recordable offence by next autumn.
Anti-hunt campaigners were incredulous that after fighting for so long for laws to end the cruelty of hunting that offenders might not even get a criminal record. The RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports are to raise the matter with ministers and police chiefs.
Alun Michael, the Rural Affairs Minister, has said frequently that anyone convicted of flouting the ban might lose his or her firearms licence and might face difficulties with their employer or in obtaining insurance.
Mr Yeo’s guidance also makes clear that the priority of policing a ban should be made locally and depend on the impact on the local community. He states: “The investigation of offences and the apprehension of offenders is a lower priority ordinarily than the maintenance of order and safety.”
Mr Yeo has sent out what he calls tactical considerations for the police on February 18. He suggests that hunts should be given a warning if police believe that they are involved in illegal hunting. “It may be felt reasonable and proportionate to warn hunts which we believe to be acting unlawfully, rather than to seek to expend the effort in securing a prosecution.”
Forces are also told that anti-hunt campaigners or anyone who interfered with legal hunting might be dealt with under offences of aggravated trespass.
John Rolls, director of animal welfare promotion at the RSPCA, said: “I shall be making very strong representations to ministers and police chiefs. We have not gone through this long battle including High Court action to have people getting off without a criminal records. If people are guilty of cruelty to animals they should be prosecuted and they should have a criminal record.”
He had not seen the Acpo advice but said that the RSPCA would monitor enforcement of the laws. “We expect police to act on hunting in the same way as any other crime,” he said.
Douglas Batchelor, chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, said he was astonished by Mr Yeo’s guidance. “It will no doubt come as a surprise to many that criminal statistics do not include all criminal offences. I am very surprised by it and I don’t know how they can even monitor the implementation of the Act if they are not even keeping a record of these offences.”
The Court of Appeal judgment is not scheduled until February 14. It is possible that the alliance will ask for an interim relief order delaying a ban while they pursue their action in the House of Lords.
Simon Hart, chief executive of the alliance, said his message to hunters was defiant: “Keep hunting, keep fighting.”
Friday, January 28, 2005
MOMENTOUS DECISION
THE COUNTRYSIDE Alliance has lost its High Court challenge to the legality of the Parliament Act 1949.
In Nov 2004 the speaker of the House of Commons invoked the Parliament Act to push through the Hunting Act which had been blocked on two occasions by the House of Lords.
But the Alliance claimed, through their lawyer Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, that the Parliament Act 1949 was not a valid act of Parliament and that as a consequence the Hunting Act was also not a valid Act.
Speaking outside the High Court on Fri (Jan 28) Simon Hart, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance said: "We have always expected that this case would eventually be heard in the House of Lords.
"It is a hugely significant constitutional case and consequently a difficult decision for the divisional courts to make. We remain confident in the merits of our case.
"The Court of Appeal will now hear this case before the Hunting Act comes into force on Feb 18.
"The Judges accepted that we had a legitimate case and that the Court has the power to overturn the Act, although on this occasion the Judges disagreed with the legal points made, so today's judgement suggests that we have strong grounds for appeal.
"If, however, the Court of Appeal is not prepared to uphold our case we will seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
(Farmers Weekly)
In Nov 2004 the speaker of the House of Commons invoked the Parliament Act to push through the Hunting Act which had been blocked on two occasions by the House of Lords.
But the Alliance claimed, through their lawyer Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, that the Parliament Act 1949 was not a valid act of Parliament and that as a consequence the Hunting Act was also not a valid Act.
Speaking outside the High Court on Fri (Jan 28) Simon Hart, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance said: "We have always expected that this case would eventually be heard in the House of Lords.
"It is a hugely significant constitutional case and consequently a difficult decision for the divisional courts to make. We remain confident in the merits of our case.
"The Court of Appeal will now hear this case before the Hunting Act comes into force on Feb 18.
"The Judges accepted that we had a legitimate case and that the Court has the power to overturn the Act, although on this occasion the Judges disagreed with the legal points made, so today's judgement suggests that we have strong grounds for appeal.
"If, however, the Court of Appeal is not prepared to uphold our case we will seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
(Farmers Weekly)
Thursday, January 27, 2005
THE UNUSUAL SUSPECTS
Hunt supporters hope their legal challenge will stop the ban due to start next month. Some say they will ignore it if it is introduced. What is it that makes otherwise law-abiding citizens decide to break the law?
The clashes between police and pro-hunt protesters in Parliament Square last year took one man who was present back 20 years.
Ex-miner John, who hunts with terriers and lurchers in south Wales, remembers the violence of the picket lines during the national miners' strike, in which nearly 10,000 miners were arrested.
Both issues have provoked people who usually respect the law to stand up and disobey the authorities.
"To say that makes me feel absolutely terrible, as it would any citizen because you're giving up your personal liberty. My first duty is to my family and they're totally supportive and back me 100%."
The police are unlikely to prosecute because it will be difficult to obtain video evidence of the hound, the fox and the huntsman, says Gerald, 28, a huntsman in Hertfordshire intent on flouting the ban.
But that hasn't stopped him contemplating time behind bars.
"They're not going to send me to Brixton, are they? It will be a low-key prison because it's not a hardline criminal offence, so it won't be a lot different to boarding school.
"I'm quite prepared to go to prison for what I believe in and I believe what we're doing is right."
The Countryside Alliance advocates working within and not outside the new law and some farmers have already started a campaign of disruption, such as withdrawing permission for military training on their land.
But John, Gerald and hundreds of others say they plan to take direct action beyond what is lawful. If they do stand as criminals eyeball to eyeball against the government over hunting, they will historically be in unlikely company.
Anarchy is when the state refuses people the right to civil disobedience or when people disobey laws and nothing happens
Tommy Sheridan MSP The miners eventually backed down, broken and demoralised. Six years later another wave of protests came, this time over the poll tax. It sparked refusals to pay and riots, but on this occasion it was the government who conceded defeat.
Tony Blair's turn came four years ago, when fuel protesters almost brought the nation to a standstill by blocking supplies. They stayed mainly within the law, except a few arrests for obstruction or intimidation.
Among the poll tax law-breakers was Tommy Sheridan, the former leader of the Scottish Socialist Party who was twice jailed over his resistance to it. And although in full support of the hunting ban, he backs their right to break the law.
"As long as they present their case via civil disobedience and no violence is involved, then I've sympathy with their expression in principle. I've no regrets about what I did.
"The poll tax was a bad law and had to be changed and just like those who have broken laws in the past to change the laws, we were successful."
Civil disobedience is a human being's right, says Mr Sheridan, but you also have to accept the state has a right to imprison you.
"I don't think it leads to anarchy but a strong democracy. Anarchy is when the state refuses people the right to civil disobedience or when people disobey laws and nothing happens."
Dr Roy Bailey, a clinical psychologist, says there have been times in the past 20 years when individual frustrations have been harnessed into something collective and potent.
"There's coal, poll and more recently fuel. These are historical moments that touch this idea a law might not be fully thought through and rightly or wrongly we think it's unfair.
"These are otherwise law-abiding people who every other day of the week are getting in their car, digging coal and paying their taxes. What triggers it is a complex question."
He thinks it could be a culmination of discontent on a number of issues or a consequence of protesting through the official channels but not getting anywhere. Either way, it may actually be healthy for democracy.
"Society depends on individuals to feel that their voices are being heard and something is being done about it.
"The question we are left with is, is there a democracy robust enough to assimilate it? So far, we're not doing badly."
The clashes between police and pro-hunt protesters in Parliament Square last year took one man who was present back 20 years.
Ex-miner John, who hunts with terriers and lurchers in south Wales, remembers the violence of the picket lines during the national miners' strike, in which nearly 10,000 miners were arrested.
Both issues have provoked people who usually respect the law to stand up and disobey the authorities.
-
The arguments for and against hunting are passionately held on both sides - but John is one of those who feels so strongly that his side is right that he is ready to go to jail.
"I've not even had a parking ticket in my life but I'm prepared to go to jail and that's not an idle boast. I will not pay any fines.
When the Law was Broken
- 1984: Miners' strike over pit closures leads to violence on picket lines, 9,778 miners arrested
-
1990: Poll tax deemed unfair and sparks non-payments and riots, hundreds of arrests -
2000: Fuel blockades over rising prices nearly bring UK to a standstill, handful of arrests -
2004: Pensioner Elizabeth Winkfield one of several to refuse to pay part of her council tax (case ongoing)
"To say that makes me feel absolutely terrible, as it would any citizen because you're giving up your personal liberty. My first duty is to my family and they're totally supportive and back me 100%."
The police are unlikely to prosecute because it will be difficult to obtain video evidence of the hound, the fox and the huntsman, says Gerald, 28, a huntsman in Hertfordshire intent on flouting the ban.
But that hasn't stopped him contemplating time behind bars.
"They're not going to send me to Brixton, are they? It will be a low-key prison because it's not a hardline criminal offence, so it won't be a lot different to boarding school.
"I'm quite prepared to go to prison for what I believe in and I believe what we're doing is right."
The Countryside Alliance advocates working within and not outside the new law and some farmers have already started a campaign of disruption, such as withdrawing permission for military training on their land.
But John, Gerald and hundreds of others say they plan to take direct action beyond what is lawful. If they do stand as criminals eyeball to eyeball against the government over hunting, they will historically be in unlikely company.
Anarchy is when the state refuses people the right to civil disobedience or when people disobey laws and nothing happens
Tommy Sheridan MSP The miners eventually backed down, broken and demoralised. Six years later another wave of protests came, this time over the poll tax. It sparked refusals to pay and riots, but on this occasion it was the government who conceded defeat.
Tony Blair's turn came four years ago, when fuel protesters almost brought the nation to a standstill by blocking supplies. They stayed mainly within the law, except a few arrests for obstruction or intimidation.
Among the poll tax law-breakers was Tommy Sheridan, the former leader of the Scottish Socialist Party who was twice jailed over his resistance to it. And although in full support of the hunting ban, he backs their right to break the law.
"As long as they present their case via civil disobedience and no violence is involved, then I've sympathy with their expression in principle. I've no regrets about what I did.
"The poll tax was a bad law and had to be changed and just like those who have broken laws in the past to change the laws, we were successful."
Civil disobedience is a human being's right, says Mr Sheridan, but you also have to accept the state has a right to imprison you.
"I don't think it leads to anarchy but a strong democracy. Anarchy is when the state refuses people the right to civil disobedience or when people disobey laws and nothing happens."
Dr Roy Bailey, a clinical psychologist, says there have been times in the past 20 years when individual frustrations have been harnessed into something collective and potent.
"There's coal, poll and more recently fuel. These are historical moments that touch this idea a law might not be fully thought through and rightly or wrongly we think it's unfair.
"These are otherwise law-abiding people who every other day of the week are getting in their car, digging coal and paying their taxes. What triggers it is a complex question."
He thinks it could be a culmination of discontent on a number of issues or a consequence of protesting through the official channels but not getting anywhere. Either way, it may actually be healthy for democracy.
"Society depends on individuals to feel that their voices are being heard and something is being done about it.
"The question we are left with is, is there a democracy robust enough to assimilate it? So far, we're not doing badly."
MOD LAY DOWN THE LAW
Hunts will only be allowed to cross Ministry of Defence land after the 18 February if they convert to hunting either the clean boot of man or a drag scent The Ministry of Defence has formally notified hunts that if they want a licence to cross its land after 18 February they must become members of the Masters of Bloodhounds and Draghounds Association (MDBA). Hunts received the news by letter last weekend.
While the revoking of current agreements does not come as a surprise given the new legislation, some fear that the ministry will not be open to negotiating new agreements to allow mock or trail hunting, or indeed exempt hunting, within the law. The MP in charge of MoD estates is Ivor Caplin, an honorary life member of the League Against Cruel Sports.
However, a spokesman for the MoD has told Horse & Hound that hunts may still apply for permission from local defence estates offices, in the same way that organisers of cross-country runs, paragliding and four-wheel drive rallies do before an event. Permission would, though, not always be given. If granted, it could be on a day-by-day or seasonal basis, depending on local circumstances.
The MoD has to date had a “master agreement” with the Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA), but packs still had to apply for individual licences.
Alastair Jackson, director of the MFHA, says: “I will suggest to the MoD that it might negotiate a new master agreement with us for legal activities. I'm confident we'll be able to make new agreements with the Forestry Commission and National Trust and I hope we'll be able to do so with the MoD too.”
However, a spokesman for the MoD says: “Hunts and other groups can ask permission for activities on a local basis to carry out legal forms of hunting — but we don't plan to make a new agreement with the MFHA.”
The Royal Artillery hunt, most of whose country on Salisbury Plain is administered by the MoD, has already had talks with the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association about converting fully to draghunting so that it can continue.
Four Welsh Foxhound packs — the Sennybridge Farmers, the Brecon and Talybont, the Irfon and Towy and the South Pembrokeshire — three of which are featured next week in Horse & Hound — use extensive tracts of MoD land.
A joint-master of another hunt that uses some MoD land says: “If hunts are changing their constitutions and activities to operate within the law, why can't the MoD alter parts of its existing arrangement to comply with the law?”
While the revoking of current agreements does not come as a surprise given the new legislation, some fear that the ministry will not be open to negotiating new agreements to allow mock or trail hunting, or indeed exempt hunting, within the law. The MP in charge of MoD estates is Ivor Caplin, an honorary life member of the League Against Cruel Sports.
However, a spokesman for the MoD has told Horse & Hound that hunts may still apply for permission from local defence estates offices, in the same way that organisers of cross-country runs, paragliding and four-wheel drive rallies do before an event. Permission would, though, not always be given. If granted, it could be on a day-by-day or seasonal basis, depending on local circumstances.
The MoD has to date had a “master agreement” with the Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA), but packs still had to apply for individual licences.
Alastair Jackson, director of the MFHA, says: “I will suggest to the MoD that it might negotiate a new master agreement with us for legal activities. I'm confident we'll be able to make new agreements with the Forestry Commission and National Trust and I hope we'll be able to do so with the MoD too.”
However, a spokesman for the MoD says: “Hunts and other groups can ask permission for activities on a local basis to carry out legal forms of hunting — but we don't plan to make a new agreement with the MFHA.”
The Royal Artillery hunt, most of whose country on Salisbury Plain is administered by the MoD, has already had talks with the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association about converting fully to draghunting so that it can continue.
Four Welsh Foxhound packs — the Sennybridge Farmers, the Brecon and Talybont, the Irfon and Towy and the South Pembrokeshire — three of which are featured next week in Horse & Hound — use extensive tracts of MoD land.
A joint-master of another hunt that uses some MoD land says: “If hunts are changing their constitutions and activities to operate within the law, why can't the MoD alter parts of its existing arrangement to comply with the law?”
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
HUNT CELEBRATES LIFE
Hunt celebrates life
Sir: Simon Wilson (letter, 6 January) identifies the deep unconscious connections at the root of hunting. However his further analysis of the motivation for hunting is inadequate. There is no likelihood of a "spectacle of death" - when a kill is made it is rarely made within view of the majority of the followers. The experience is not thrilling but sombre and chastening - "awe inspiring" in the old meaning of those words. It is a necessary outcome of the forces of nature in which we take an integral and active part.
Human development has been founded on an accelerating use of animal and natural resources; yet in our post-modern world we seem less and less able to understand this. Hunting stands as a rebuke to the deracinated and bowdlerised version of our relationship with nature and the animal kingdom, the casual and unthinking use and abuse of animals, nature and our planet. It connects us directly with our responsibilities for participation in life and our actions within nature.
The pleasure in hunting is in following the work of the hounds, the venery, which gives one over to this direct connection with nature. Through the hounds one becomes connected to the quarry, and thus still more deeply into the natural world. That is why drag-hunting is not a substitute for fox-hunting. The unpredictability of the live quarry, the uncertainty of the outcome, the immersion in the living moment in which our own will is made secondary, cannot be recreated by chasing a man-made course.
Fox-hunting is a bizarrely ritualised behavioural form for the management of foxes. But it is not about exterminating an entire pest population; it is about living in an accommodation with the creatures. The hunt is a celebration of life as much as death.
Foxes will still be killed after 18 February - probably in larger numbers if the Scottish experience is anything to go by. All that will change is that freedom of the minority will have been suppressed to appease a sanctimonious, sentimentalised and dishonest view of our relationship with nature.
DAVID DEAR Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire
Sir: Simon Wilson (letter, 6 January) identifies the deep unconscious connections at the root of hunting. However his further analysis of the motivation for hunting is inadequate. There is no likelihood of a "spectacle of death" - when a kill is made it is rarely made within view of the majority of the followers. The experience is not thrilling but sombre and chastening - "awe inspiring" in the old meaning of those words. It is a necessary outcome of the forces of nature in which we take an integral and active part.
Human development has been founded on an accelerating use of animal and natural resources; yet in our post-modern world we seem less and less able to understand this. Hunting stands as a rebuke to the deracinated and bowdlerised version of our relationship with nature and the animal kingdom, the casual and unthinking use and abuse of animals, nature and our planet. It connects us directly with our responsibilities for participation in life and our actions within nature.
The pleasure in hunting is in following the work of the hounds, the venery, which gives one over to this direct connection with nature. Through the hounds one becomes connected to the quarry, and thus still more deeply into the natural world. That is why drag-hunting is not a substitute for fox-hunting. The unpredictability of the live quarry, the uncertainty of the outcome, the immersion in the living moment in which our own will is made secondary, cannot be recreated by chasing a man-made course.
Fox-hunting is a bizarrely ritualised behavioural form for the management of foxes. But it is not about exterminating an entire pest population; it is about living in an accommodation with the creatures. The hunt is a celebration of life as much as death.
Foxes will still be killed after 18 February - probably in larger numbers if the Scottish experience is anything to go by. All that will change is that freedom of the minority will have been suppressed to appease a sanctimonious, sentimentalised and dishonest view of our relationship with nature.
DAVID DEAR Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire
Monday, January 24, 2005
BEATING THE BAN
Huntsmen play it foxy to beat banJonathon Carr-Brown and Jonathan Leake, Times
THE ban on hunting is threatening to descend into confusion as hunt members devise a series of ruses to continue their sport while remaining within the law.
One possible tactic could involve shooting a fox before the hunt sets out and dragging its corpse round the countryside for hounds to follow the scent. Another loophole would permit hounds to drive hares into the talons of birds of prey. Flushing out animals to be caught by birds such as falcons will not be an offence.
Meanwhile, a judge is expected to rule this week on an attempt by the Countryside Alliance to gain an injunction delaying the ban until a case challenging the Hunting Act can be heard.
Police officers admit that the ban will be hard to enforce and say they will not be able to devote large numbers of officers to checking up on whether hunts are acting illegally.
The low-key police approach comes amid fears by some senior officers that the hunt ban could make them look ridiculous. Their worst fear is of cameras capturing a procession of fox, hounds, hunt members and hunt saboteurs with the police on off-road motorbikes or quad-bikes bringing up the rear.
One officer said: “It could look like something out of Monty Python.”
Alastair McWhirter, rural affairs spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers and chief constable of Suffolk, said he believed most hunts would adapt to the new law.
He believes “trail hunting” will be a popular option: “The idea is to follow a scent across country, using it as a lure for the hounds to follow. This would not be illegal.”
He said most forces were unlikely to follow hunts on off-road bikes and he also discounted the idea of officers using covert tactics such as hidden cameras to catch hunt members breaking the law.
“We will rely on gathering evidence from the places where hunts have been and by collecting witness statements,” he said. “There will be no CCTV cameras. If officers use video cameras they will do so overtly, not covertly.”
The ban will take effect from February 18, unless the Countryside Alliance’s attempt to win an injunction is successful. Almost all the 250 hunts of England and Wales are planning to meet the following day, a Saturday, in a show of defiance.
McWhirter said that police would enforce the law from that day using “all reasonable methods”. He emphasised, however, that hunting with hounds was a minor offence and the police approach would be low-key.
Chasing hunts on horseback has been ruled out as police horses are not trained to jump.
Many forces balk at the thought of making mass arrests immediately after the ban comes into force. This would land constables with responsibility for packs of foxhounds and hundreds of riderless horses.
The police hope that hunts will remain law-abiding because many members are pillars of the Establishment such as judges, lawyers, accountants, financiers and others who cannot risk a criminal record.
Hunts are making elaborate plans to ensure that they do not fall foul of the law. Some of the tactics are outlined in the Hunting Handbook 2005 from the Countryside Alliance.
Simon Hart, the alliance’s chief executive, has said hunting after the ban “will look, sound and smell like real hunting, but will be within the law”.
Brian Palmer, joint master of the Quantock Staghounds, said: “Deer control will take place but it will be within the law if the ban takes effect. It could involve the flushing out of deer to guns using hounds. The animals would then be shot.”
Diana Scott, joint master of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, one of the country’s biggest hunts with more than 750 subscribers, said: “Hunting will carry on in some shape or form, perhaps by exercising the hounds with following riders but not giving chase or just meeting up to ride across the moors.”
Other ideas include using a maximum of two hounds to flush out foxes for shooting — a legal activity. Other hunts may claim that hounds are chasing rabbits or rats, both of which are legal quarry (hares and mice are protected).
It will be difficult for the police to arrest hunt members, even when they are in full hunting gear and riding to hounds, if a fox is killed “by accident”. There is confusion over the degree to which “intent” to kill a fox has to be proved.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says that if hounds used in a legal drag hunt — in which an artificial scent is followed — “were to run off after a fox, the drag hunters would not be guilty of illegal hunting”.
Full-time “hunt monitors” employed by the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the League Against Cruel Sports intend to scrutinise every hunt for misdemeanours.
Equipped with video cameras and co-ordinating with hunt saboteurs, they intend to follow hunts and submit evidence of breaches to local police. They believe that advising hunts to pursue the scent of a dead fox will inevitably lead to hounds chasing live animals.
The difficulties of enforcing a ban were proved in Scotland last month when Trevor Adams, 46, huntsman of the Duke of Buccleuch’s Foxhounds, was cleared at Jedburgh sheriff’s court of hunting when he claimed he was using 20 hounds for permitted “pest control” for a local farmer.
The Countryside Alliance will begin two court cases this week. In the first, it is hopeful that it can persuade the High Court or the Court of Appeal that it was illegal for the Commons to invoke the Parliament Act when it forced the law through in November. Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, who once defended Nelson Mandela, will argue this case in the High Court tomorrow.
The alliance is also hoping to derail the ban in a parallel action using the Human Rights Act. It claims that the government has failed to pay compensation to people whose livelihoods will be affected by the law change.
THE ban on hunting is threatening to descend into confusion as hunt members devise a series of ruses to continue their sport while remaining within the law.
One possible tactic could involve shooting a fox before the hunt sets out and dragging its corpse round the countryside for hounds to follow the scent. Another loophole would permit hounds to drive hares into the talons of birds of prey. Flushing out animals to be caught by birds such as falcons will not be an offence.
Meanwhile, a judge is expected to rule this week on an attempt by the Countryside Alliance to gain an injunction delaying the ban until a case challenging the Hunting Act can be heard.
Police officers admit that the ban will be hard to enforce and say they will not be able to devote large numbers of officers to checking up on whether hunts are acting illegally.
The low-key police approach comes amid fears by some senior officers that the hunt ban could make them look ridiculous. Their worst fear is of cameras capturing a procession of fox, hounds, hunt members and hunt saboteurs with the police on off-road motorbikes or quad-bikes bringing up the rear.
One officer said: “It could look like something out of Monty Python.”
Alastair McWhirter, rural affairs spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers and chief constable of Suffolk, said he believed most hunts would adapt to the new law.
He believes “trail hunting” will be a popular option: “The idea is to follow a scent across country, using it as a lure for the hounds to follow. This would not be illegal.”
He said most forces were unlikely to follow hunts on off-road bikes and he also discounted the idea of officers using covert tactics such as hidden cameras to catch hunt members breaking the law.
“We will rely on gathering evidence from the places where hunts have been and by collecting witness statements,” he said. “There will be no CCTV cameras. If officers use video cameras they will do so overtly, not covertly.”
The ban will take effect from February 18, unless the Countryside Alliance’s attempt to win an injunction is successful. Almost all the 250 hunts of England and Wales are planning to meet the following day, a Saturday, in a show of defiance.
McWhirter said that police would enforce the law from that day using “all reasonable methods”. He emphasised, however, that hunting with hounds was a minor offence and the police approach would be low-key.
Chasing hunts on horseback has been ruled out as police horses are not trained to jump.
Many forces balk at the thought of making mass arrests immediately after the ban comes into force. This would land constables with responsibility for packs of foxhounds and hundreds of riderless horses.
The police hope that hunts will remain law-abiding because many members are pillars of the Establishment such as judges, lawyers, accountants, financiers and others who cannot risk a criminal record.
Hunts are making elaborate plans to ensure that they do not fall foul of the law. Some of the tactics are outlined in the Hunting Handbook 2005 from the Countryside Alliance.
Simon Hart, the alliance’s chief executive, has said hunting after the ban “will look, sound and smell like real hunting, but will be within the law”.
Brian Palmer, joint master of the Quantock Staghounds, said: “Deer control will take place but it will be within the law if the ban takes effect. It could involve the flushing out of deer to guns using hounds. The animals would then be shot.”
Diana Scott, joint master of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, one of the country’s biggest hunts with more than 750 subscribers, said: “Hunting will carry on in some shape or form, perhaps by exercising the hounds with following riders but not giving chase or just meeting up to ride across the moors.”
Other ideas include using a maximum of two hounds to flush out foxes for shooting — a legal activity. Other hunts may claim that hounds are chasing rabbits or rats, both of which are legal quarry (hares and mice are protected).
It will be difficult for the police to arrest hunt members, even when they are in full hunting gear and riding to hounds, if a fox is killed “by accident”. There is confusion over the degree to which “intent” to kill a fox has to be proved.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says that if hounds used in a legal drag hunt — in which an artificial scent is followed — “were to run off after a fox, the drag hunters would not be guilty of illegal hunting”.
Full-time “hunt monitors” employed by the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the League Against Cruel Sports intend to scrutinise every hunt for misdemeanours.
Equipped with video cameras and co-ordinating with hunt saboteurs, they intend to follow hunts and submit evidence of breaches to local police. They believe that advising hunts to pursue the scent of a dead fox will inevitably lead to hounds chasing live animals.
The difficulties of enforcing a ban were proved in Scotland last month when Trevor Adams, 46, huntsman of the Duke of Buccleuch’s Foxhounds, was cleared at Jedburgh sheriff’s court of hunting when he claimed he was using 20 hounds for permitted “pest control” for a local farmer.
The Countryside Alliance will begin two court cases this week. In the first, it is hopeful that it can persuade the High Court or the Court of Appeal that it was illegal for the Commons to invoke the Parliament Act when it forced the law through in November. Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, who once defended Nelson Mandela, will argue this case in the High Court tomorrow.
The alliance is also hoping to derail the ban in a parallel action using the Human Rights Act. It claims that the government has failed to pay compensation to people whose livelihoods will be affected by the law change.
GET EVEN
'Don't get mad, get even' is new tactic of the pro-hunters
By Melissa Kite,
Deputy Political Editor(Filed: 23/01/2005)
Daily Torygraph
The wall-to-wall maps, complete with pins in target areas, suggest that something more than cattle rearing is going on at the Cotswold farm of Charles and Chipps Mann.
In fact, a political campaign to unseat Labour MPs in marginal constituencies is quietly gaining pace in this unlikely location.
In the attic of a cattle barn, Mr Mann, a former soldier, and his wife are mobilising a small army of people angry at the hunting ban, which comes into force next month.
The formidable Labour Party machine may not be quaking in its boots yet, but the new group has attracted the support of 5,000 volunteers in the space of a few weeks and the number is growing daily. The telephone lines ring constantly as pro-hunting people make contact to find out how they can help.
Six maps on the walls are covered in pins to mark the 50 top target constituencies where volunteers are being directed to help Conservative, and in a few cases Liberal Democrat, candidates campaign against Labour. They include The Wrekin, constituency of Peter Bradley, the Labour MP who admitted in The Telegraph that the ban was part of the class struggle, and Michael Foster, the Worcester MP whose Private Members' Bill first began the onslaught on hunting in 1997.
Some Tory candidates have been provided with more than 100 extra volunteers to help their election campaigns.
The volunteers have been warned not to mention hunting, however, for fear of alienating voters for whom the defence of country sports is not an election issue. They are being taught instead how to push their candidates' views on schools and hospitals.
The campaign marks a departure for the hunting lobby, which has all but accepted that a challenge to be launched in the High Court this week will fail.
Hopes of a stay of execution while a challenge to the validity of the Parliament Act and a separate human rights challenge are dealt with by the courts were dealt a severe blow last week when Alun Michael, the minister who has piloted the hunting legislation through the Commons, declared in a little noted letter to a newspaper that there was no precedent for an Act of Parliament being delayed in this way and that the Government expected the ban to go ahead.
Many grassroots supporters of hunting are now preparing for hunting to be illegal from midnight on February 17 and are switching their efforts to making life as difficult as possible for Labour.
Mr Mann, a veteran hunting campaigner, resigned from the Countryside Alliance three weeks ago to pursue the general election strategy. The alliance has said that it cannot endorse individual electoral candidates for fear of losing its charitable status.
Mr Mann, a former officer with the King's Hussars, said: "The hunting ban is a catalyst that has driven an awful lot of people to being political. People are roused and it is very inspiring.
''The abuse of the democratic process is our motivation. The aim is to get rid of the most bigoted and prejudiced MPs.
"The mood is defiant. We are going to get stuck in and go for it. Our motto is 'Don't get mad, get even'."
Mr Mann, 53, a member of the Vale of the White Horse hunt, is reluctant to talk about tactics. Campaigners want to remain as much as possible an underground movement between now and an expected May poll.
However, a list of 50 target constituencies appeared last week in The Field magazine, accompanied by a plea for support and a list of contacts.
Mr Mann said: "It would be wonderful if Labour MPs suddenly thought, 'Where on earth is all this energy coming from? Why have these candidates got such fantastic support?' "
Campaigners are also trying to keep secret their plans to ally with other single-issue groups such as Fathers 4 Justice and pensioner groups.
"We have pledges of support from people who are nothing to do with hunting. We are talking to different organisations and there are people who are longing to come on board but I don't think it would be right for me to name any just yet," Mr Mann said.
"All the indications are that this will be an election with many different single-issue groups. It would be even stronger if all the single-issue pressure groups felt that although they are coming from different angles the reason we are here is the same thing and that is this overbearing government."
The Conservative Party has played down the idea of allying with the hunting lobby because it does not believe that the issue is an election winner, but some candidates are grateful for the support.
Mark Fox, the Conservative candidate in Great Yarmouth, one of the seats on the hunting lobby's target list, said he had been inundated with offers of help. "I have got a small army of people delivering leaflets and canvassing who will make a huge difference to the strength and morale of the campaign. They are ordinary working-class people who are determined to escape the jackboot of New Labour prejudice and they are a great addition to our campaign effort."
The idea for the campaign emerged after hundreds of pro-hunting people began to contact their Tory candidates to offer help in the election. Mr Mann also has a huge database of potential supporters, which was created when he organised 5,000 beacons lit across Britain to mark the first Countryside March in 1998.
By Melissa Kite,
Deputy Political Editor(Filed: 23/01/2005)
Daily Torygraph
The wall-to-wall maps, complete with pins in target areas, suggest that something more than cattle rearing is going on at the Cotswold farm of Charles and Chipps Mann.
In fact, a political campaign to unseat Labour MPs in marginal constituencies is quietly gaining pace in this unlikely location.
In the attic of a cattle barn, Mr Mann, a former soldier, and his wife are mobilising a small army of people angry at the hunting ban, which comes into force next month.
The formidable Labour Party machine may not be quaking in its boots yet, but the new group has attracted the support of 5,000 volunteers in the space of a few weeks and the number is growing daily. The telephone lines ring constantly as pro-hunting people make contact to find out how they can help.
Six maps on the walls are covered in pins to mark the 50 top target constituencies where volunteers are being directed to help Conservative, and in a few cases Liberal Democrat, candidates campaign against Labour. They include The Wrekin, constituency of Peter Bradley, the Labour MP who admitted in The Telegraph that the ban was part of the class struggle, and Michael Foster, the Worcester MP whose Private Members' Bill first began the onslaught on hunting in 1997.
Some Tory candidates have been provided with more than 100 extra volunteers to help their election campaigns.
The volunteers have been warned not to mention hunting, however, for fear of alienating voters for whom the defence of country sports is not an election issue. They are being taught instead how to push their candidates' views on schools and hospitals.
The campaign marks a departure for the hunting lobby, which has all but accepted that a challenge to be launched in the High Court this week will fail.
Hopes of a stay of execution while a challenge to the validity of the Parliament Act and a separate human rights challenge are dealt with by the courts were dealt a severe blow last week when Alun Michael, the minister who has piloted the hunting legislation through the Commons, declared in a little noted letter to a newspaper that there was no precedent for an Act of Parliament being delayed in this way and that the Government expected the ban to go ahead.
Many grassroots supporters of hunting are now preparing for hunting to be illegal from midnight on February 17 and are switching their efforts to making life as difficult as possible for Labour.
Mr Mann, a veteran hunting campaigner, resigned from the Countryside Alliance three weeks ago to pursue the general election strategy. The alliance has said that it cannot endorse individual electoral candidates for fear of losing its charitable status.
Mr Mann, a former officer with the King's Hussars, said: "The hunting ban is a catalyst that has driven an awful lot of people to being political. People are roused and it is very inspiring.
''The abuse of the democratic process is our motivation. The aim is to get rid of the most bigoted and prejudiced MPs.
"The mood is defiant. We are going to get stuck in and go for it. Our motto is 'Don't get mad, get even'."
Mr Mann, 53, a member of the Vale of the White Horse hunt, is reluctant to talk about tactics. Campaigners want to remain as much as possible an underground movement between now and an expected May poll.
However, a list of 50 target constituencies appeared last week in The Field magazine, accompanied by a plea for support and a list of contacts.
Mr Mann said: "It would be wonderful if Labour MPs suddenly thought, 'Where on earth is all this energy coming from? Why have these candidates got such fantastic support?' "
Campaigners are also trying to keep secret their plans to ally with other single-issue groups such as Fathers 4 Justice and pensioner groups.
"We have pledges of support from people who are nothing to do with hunting. We are talking to different organisations and there are people who are longing to come on board but I don't think it would be right for me to name any just yet," Mr Mann said.
"All the indications are that this will be an election with many different single-issue groups. It would be even stronger if all the single-issue pressure groups felt that although they are coming from different angles the reason we are here is the same thing and that is this overbearing government."
The Conservative Party has played down the idea of allying with the hunting lobby because it does not believe that the issue is an election winner, but some candidates are grateful for the support.
Mark Fox, the Conservative candidate in Great Yarmouth, one of the seats on the hunting lobby's target list, said he had been inundated with offers of help. "I have got a small army of people delivering leaflets and canvassing who will make a huge difference to the strength and morale of the campaign. They are ordinary working-class people who are determined to escape the jackboot of New Labour prejudice and they are a great addition to our campaign effort."
The idea for the campaign emerged after hundreds of pro-hunting people began to contact their Tory candidates to offer help in the election. Mr Mann also has a huge database of potential supporters, which was created when he organised 5,000 beacons lit across Britain to mark the first Countryside March in 1998.
POLICE SANDWICH
Police fear being meat in a hunt sandwich
By Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor, Times
POLICE are preparing a massive operation to enforce the hunt ban next month and officers from cities might be drafted into the countryside to help.
A recent e-mail sent by the Association of Chief Police Officers to all forces, however, warned officers that they will be “sandwiched” between pro- and anti-hunt campaigners.
Police chiefs have been told to find out which hunts take place on February 19, the day after the ban becomes law, and to gauge how many officers will be required to cover them.
Police are concerned because the Countryside Alliance has called on all 250 or so hunts to be out on February 19.
Alastair Jackson, chairman of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, said: “The hunts’ intention will not be to hunt. They will be on land with permission to operate within the law. If a fox jumps up and they catch it, it is quite clear on the Defra website that they would not be liable, nor would the landowner.”
One officer in the Thames Valley force said: “If the ban comes into place on February 19 it will be very difficult. It could end up like something from the Keystone Cops with the hunt being chased by police and police being chased by anti-hunt supporters.
“We will inevitably end up as the meat in the sandwich and whatever we do it is going to enrage one of the parties. I shouldn’t say it but February 19 looks like a good day to have booked off as a holiday.”
Police chiefs will keep an eye on the legal moves by the alliance in the High Court next week. It is lodging action under human rights laws on Monday and on Tuesday begins its challenge to use of the Parliament Act in forcing through the ban.
Police chiefs are also aware that the courts may grant an order postponing the ban’s enforcement until the legal deliberations are completed.
The e-mail from the association said: “Many expect the Countryside Alliance to lose. If they do, they will probably appeal and seek an interim relief injunction postponing implementation of the Act. Should this transpire, the Government will not oppose the application.”
This would delay enforcement of a ban until after the general election.
By Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor, Times
POLICE are preparing a massive operation to enforce the hunt ban next month and officers from cities might be drafted into the countryside to help.
A recent e-mail sent by the Association of Chief Police Officers to all forces, however, warned officers that they will be “sandwiched” between pro- and anti-hunt campaigners.
Police chiefs have been told to find out which hunts take place on February 19, the day after the ban becomes law, and to gauge how many officers will be required to cover them.
Police are concerned because the Countryside Alliance has called on all 250 or so hunts to be out on February 19.
Alastair Jackson, chairman of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, said: “The hunts’ intention will not be to hunt. They will be on land with permission to operate within the law. If a fox jumps up and they catch it, it is quite clear on the Defra website that they would not be liable, nor would the landowner.”
One officer in the Thames Valley force said: “If the ban comes into place on February 19 it will be very difficult. It could end up like something from the Keystone Cops with the hunt being chased by police and police being chased by anti-hunt supporters.
“We will inevitably end up as the meat in the sandwich and whatever we do it is going to enrage one of the parties. I shouldn’t say it but February 19 looks like a good day to have booked off as a holiday.”
Police chiefs will keep an eye on the legal moves by the alliance in the High Court next week. It is lodging action under human rights laws on Monday and on Tuesday begins its challenge to use of the Parliament Act in forcing through the ban.
Police chiefs are also aware that the courts may grant an order postponing the ban’s enforcement until the legal deliberations are completed.
The e-mail from the association said: “Many expect the Countryside Alliance to lose. If they do, they will probably appeal and seek an interim relief injunction postponing implementation of the Act. Should this transpire, the Government will not oppose the application.”
This would delay enforcement of a ban until after the general election.
DRINKING & HUNTING!
Sir - I feel sorry for the police who, after February 19, will have to go running around the fields and woods, policing hunting on Saturday mornings, and then have to stay up until the wee hours attempting to control binge drinkers.
Shirley Page, Caxton, Cambridgeshire , Daily Torygraph letters.
Shirley Page, Caxton, Cambridgeshire , Daily Torygraph letters.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE
Jan 18 2005
Steve Dube, Western Mail
THE difficulty in enforcing a ban on hunting has been exposed by UK Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael and a top police officer.
The Cardiff MP whose efforts to pilot compromise legislation to licence hunts was wrecked by his own backbench colleagues refused to clarify exactly what would be legal and what would be illegal when the Hunting Act 2004 eventually comes into force.
And Assistant Chief Constable Nigel Yeo, who is responsible for advising police forces on implementing the Hunting Act, has asked the Masters of Foxhounds Association for advice on how to distinguish an illegal fox hunt from legal trail or drag hunts.
In the House of Commons last week, Mr Michael confirmed that the Government will not oppose a request to postpone the start of the ban from February 18 until a legal challenge has been resolved.
But he avoided answering a question from Montgomeryshire Lembit pik MP, co-chair of the Middle Way Group, on the use of dogs that may or may not be illegal.
Mr pik asked which of the following activities would be clearly legal - drag hunting, exercising hounds, chasing away, searching and unintentional hunting - all of which could appear the same.
Mr pik said, "The only thing clear about the Hunting Act is that it is totally unclear.
"If the Minister will not answer the most basic question about this law, are farmers, with all the other tasks they undertake, now expected to get copies of the Act and make their own interpretations?
"Farmers don't ask Alun Michael to do their job for them. Sadly, Alun Michael seems to expect farmers to do his."
Peter Luff MP, a fellow co-chair of the Middle Way Group, said new peer-reviewed scientific evidence showed that shooting rates are much higher than previously claimed and that animal welfare would not be served by a hunting ban.
Mr Luff said, "This whole debate is supposed to be about animal welfare, but by ignoring scientific evidence, the Minister and the Government are confirming what many have suspected for a long time, which is that the Hunting Act is simply class war spite that has resulted in unprincipled and unworkable legislation."
Meanwhile Assistant Chief Constable Nigel Yeo's decision to ask hunting organisations for advice concedes that officers will find it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal hunting after the Hunting Act comes into force.
In a letter to the Masters of Foxhounds Association, Mr Yeo asked if there was "any guidance I can give to police officers on how to identify the difference between drag hunts and trail hunts which will remain legal and fox hunting".
In reply, Alistair Jackson of the MFHA explained the difficulties even for experienced observers of hunting.
He said, "It would be almost impossible for anyone to know if a pack of hounds was hunting a fox or a drag. I do not envy you your job."
Countryside Alliance spokesman Darren Hughes, whose mother Mair Hughes from Gilfach Goch is one of three hunt supporters challenging the ban through the High Court, said the Alliance had consistently warned the Government that the Hunting Act was bad legislation that was practically un-enforceable.
"If senior police officers can't differentiate between legal and illegal hunting, how on earth is a village bobby going to be able to tell when hunts meet as normal on February 19," said Mr Hughes.
"It is preposterous that the Government are forcing already overstretched police forces to waste extremely valuable resources implementing this ridiculous law."
Steve Dube, Western Mail
THE difficulty in enforcing a ban on hunting has been exposed by UK Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael and a top police officer.
The Cardiff MP whose efforts to pilot compromise legislation to licence hunts was wrecked by his own backbench colleagues refused to clarify exactly what would be legal and what would be illegal when the Hunting Act 2004 eventually comes into force.
And Assistant Chief Constable Nigel Yeo, who is responsible for advising police forces on implementing the Hunting Act, has asked the Masters of Foxhounds Association for advice on how to distinguish an illegal fox hunt from legal trail or drag hunts.
In the House of Commons last week, Mr Michael confirmed that the Government will not oppose a request to postpone the start of the ban from February 18 until a legal challenge has been resolved.
But he avoided answering a question from Montgomeryshire Lembit pik MP, co-chair of the Middle Way Group, on the use of dogs that may or may not be illegal.
Mr pik asked which of the following activities would be clearly legal - drag hunting, exercising hounds, chasing away, searching and unintentional hunting - all of which could appear the same.
Mr pik said, "The only thing clear about the Hunting Act is that it is totally unclear.
"If the Minister will not answer the most basic question about this law, are farmers, with all the other tasks they undertake, now expected to get copies of the Act and make their own interpretations?
"Farmers don't ask Alun Michael to do their job for them. Sadly, Alun Michael seems to expect farmers to do his."
Peter Luff MP, a fellow co-chair of the Middle Way Group, said new peer-reviewed scientific evidence showed that shooting rates are much higher than previously claimed and that animal welfare would not be served by a hunting ban.
Mr Luff said, "This whole debate is supposed to be about animal welfare, but by ignoring scientific evidence, the Minister and the Government are confirming what many have suspected for a long time, which is that the Hunting Act is simply class war spite that has resulted in unprincipled and unworkable legislation."
Meanwhile Assistant Chief Constable Nigel Yeo's decision to ask hunting organisations for advice concedes that officers will find it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal hunting after the Hunting Act comes into force.
In a letter to the Masters of Foxhounds Association, Mr Yeo asked if there was "any guidance I can give to police officers on how to identify the difference between drag hunts and trail hunts which will remain legal and fox hunting".
In reply, Alistair Jackson of the MFHA explained the difficulties even for experienced observers of hunting.
He said, "It would be almost impossible for anyone to know if a pack of hounds was hunting a fox or a drag. I do not envy you your job."
Countryside Alliance spokesman Darren Hughes, whose mother Mair Hughes from Gilfach Goch is one of three hunt supporters challenging the ban through the High Court, said the Alliance had consistently warned the Government that the Hunting Act was bad legislation that was practically un-enforceable.
"If senior police officers can't differentiate between legal and illegal hunting, how on earth is a village bobby going to be able to tell when hunts meet as normal on February 19," said Mr Hughes.
"It is preposterous that the Government are forcing already overstretched police forces to waste extremely valuable resources implementing this ridiculous law."
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
FOX WOUNDING STUDY
Horse & Hound staff writer
January 17, 2005
Research by the Middle Way Group has shown that the number of foxes wounded, rather than killed, when shot is higher than previously thought Research into wounding rates associated with shooting foxes, commissioned by the All-Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group, has passed its peer-review process and is due to be published this year in a respected scientific journal.
The study, Wounding Rates in Shooting Foxes, by Dr Nick Fox et al (2003), shows that wounding levels from shooting are higher than previously claimed. Following rigorous scrutiny, it will be published in the journal Animal Welfare.
Lembit Opik MP, co-chair of the Middle Way Group, says: “Shooting has been widely supported by anti-hunt groups as the humane alternative to hunting with dogs. [Anti-hunt groups] have criticised our study because it significantly undermines the animal welfare arguments for a ban. But the acceptance of the study by impartial referees means that it must now be regarded as firm scientific evidence.
“It clearly shows that a hunting ban, and the inevitable increase in the use of guns, will lead to greater animal suffering in the countryside.”
Dr Fox's study involved 199 shooters in England, Scotland and Wales shooting at 1,970 paper foxes. While the best guns wounded one fox for every 10 killed, others — even when adhering to government guidelines — wounded 13 for every 10 killed. Worse still, guns who did not follow guidelines (which are not mandatory) wounded up to 10 times more foxes.
Meanwhile, a study commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, which supposedly countered the Middle Way Group's findings, has still not been published or peer-reviewed.
January 17, 2005
Research by the Middle Way Group has shown that the number of foxes wounded, rather than killed, when shot is higher than previously thought Research into wounding rates associated with shooting foxes, commissioned by the All-Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group, has passed its peer-review process and is due to be published this year in a respected scientific journal.
The study, Wounding Rates in Shooting Foxes, by Dr Nick Fox et al (2003), shows that wounding levels from shooting are higher than previously claimed. Following rigorous scrutiny, it will be published in the journal Animal Welfare.
Lembit Opik MP, co-chair of the Middle Way Group, says: “Shooting has been widely supported by anti-hunt groups as the humane alternative to hunting with dogs. [Anti-hunt groups] have criticised our study because it significantly undermines the animal welfare arguments for a ban. But the acceptance of the study by impartial referees means that it must now be regarded as firm scientific evidence.
“It clearly shows that a hunting ban, and the inevitable increase in the use of guns, will lead to greater animal suffering in the countryside.”
Dr Fox's study involved 199 shooters in England, Scotland and Wales shooting at 1,970 paper foxes. While the best guns wounded one fox for every 10 killed, others — even when adhering to government guidelines — wounded 13 for every 10 killed. Worse still, guns who did not follow guidelines (which are not mandatory) wounded up to 10 times more foxes.
Meanwhile, a study commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, which supposedly countered the Middle Way Group's findings, has still not been published or peer-reviewed.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
BRITISH PATRIOTS
The British Patriot of today is often the loyal legionnaire who get's dressed with a prosthetic limb. He never complains. The patriot maybe the old fella who walks with a cane, stands infront of you at the post office. Now frail and slow moving he never mentions the land battle in Monte Cassino because he knows that no one could comprehend such lethal madness and horror.
British Patriots are also the forgotten warriors who went away in their millions never to return. To die agonised in strange lands for a cause they thought was just.The patriot of today is often the person next door. The neighbour or that bloke on the next street. They gave their lives for their country and asked for nothing in return.
The patriot of today maybe crippled by a disease that his government won't recognise. Having his pension cut as more British Patriots are sent to their deaths. Maybe he's working in ASDA or Tesco when last year he was storming into Iraq to free people, he would never know, from a dictator, he would never see.
Historically when British diplomacy and reason fail it's our brave warriors who we rely on to protect our shores.
January 27th 2005 is the 60th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
A time of death and suffering for millions. A time when another dictator decided to torture and mutilate millions of human beings, because of their ethnic background.
A time when our brave warriors were called in to help pick up the pieces of country blighted by conflict.
These same patriots walk amongst us today.
We sleep soundly because of their sacrifices.
Lest We Forget.
British Patriots are also the forgotten warriors who went away in their millions never to return. To die agonised in strange lands for a cause they thought was just.The patriot of today is often the person next door. The neighbour or that bloke on the next street. They gave their lives for their country and asked for nothing in return.
The patriot of today maybe crippled by a disease that his government won't recognise. Having his pension cut as more British Patriots are sent to their deaths. Maybe he's working in ASDA or Tesco when last year he was storming into Iraq to free people, he would never know, from a dictator, he would never see.
Historically when British diplomacy and reason fail it's our brave warriors who we rely on to protect our shores.
January 27th 2005 is the 60th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
A time of death and suffering for millions. A time when another dictator decided to torture and mutilate millions of human beings, because of their ethnic background.
A time when our brave warriors were called in to help pick up the pieces of country blighted by conflict.
These same patriots walk amongst us today.
We sleep soundly because of their sacrifices.
Lest We Forget.
TEENS IGNORANT
Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
Teens 'know little' of politics - BBC
Teenagers questioned for a survey have shown little interest in politics - and have little knowledge.
Only a quarter of 14-16 year olds knew that Labour was the government, the Tories were the official Opposition and the Lib Dems were the third party.
Almost all could identify Tony Blair, but only one in six knew who Michael Howard was, and just one in 10 recognised Charles Kennedy.
The ICM survey interviewed 110 pupils for education watchdog Ofsted.
Nearly half those pupils polled said it was not important for them to know more about what the political parties stand for.
And 4% of those questioned thought the Conservatives were in power - while 2% of them believed the Lib Dems were.
The survey also looked at issues of nationality. It found the Union flag and fish and chips topped the list of symbols and foods associated with being British.
Teens 'know little' of politics - BBC
Teenagers questioned for a survey have shown little interest in politics - and have little knowledge.
Only a quarter of 14-16 year olds knew that Labour was the government, the Tories were the official Opposition and the Lib Dems were the third party.
Almost all could identify Tony Blair, but only one in six knew who Michael Howard was, and just one in 10 recognised Charles Kennedy.
The ICM survey interviewed 110 pupils for education watchdog Ofsted.
Nearly half those pupils polled said it was not important for them to know more about what the political parties stand for.
And 4% of those questioned thought the Conservatives were in power - while 2% of them believed the Lib Dems were.
The survey also looked at issues of nationality. It found the Union flag and fish and chips topped the list of symbols and foods associated with being British.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
GET BEHIND OUR CITY CLARK
Here, here...
‘Get behind our city, Mrs Clark’
I read with increasing consternation your article on Saturday, January 1 reporting that Helen Clark MP is suggesting that Peterborough should be stripped of its Environment City status (“MP is critical of Environment City”).
I can only think that she failed to see your feature on the same subject on January 5 ( where we were voted the “Green Capital” of the UK because of the very positive attitude that our population has towards environmental issues (“City named ‘green capital’ of UK”).
It is the approach of our citizens that is important in bringing about an increasingly sustainable city, and our MP should be praising that which has been achieved to date, not undermining the work of all the environment sector groups active in our city.
Peterborough Environment City Trust, English Nature, UK CEED, Friends of the Earth, Peterborough Civic Society and many other organisations all work hard to improve the quality of life in our city working together with officers of the city council to bring about positive change.
Yes, we still have a long way to go, particularly in some of the more deprived areas of our city, but Peterborough is a city of which we should be justly proud.
We also stand on the cusp of major improvements and developments to our city centre married with economic expansion.
Our society feels passionately about the future of Peterborough and will work hard to see that we achieve an inspiring and sustainable environment for our citizens. I hope that our esteemed MP will do likewise.
David Turnock
Chairman,
Peterborough Civic Society
‘Get behind our city, Mrs Clark’
I read with increasing consternation your article on Saturday, January 1 reporting that Helen Clark MP is suggesting that Peterborough should be stripped of its Environment City status (“MP is critical of Environment City”).
I can only think that she failed to see your feature on the same subject on January 5 ( where we were voted the “Green Capital” of the UK because of the very positive attitude that our population has towards environmental issues (“City named ‘green capital’ of UK”).
It is the approach of our citizens that is important in bringing about an increasingly sustainable city, and our MP should be praising that which has been achieved to date, not undermining the work of all the environment sector groups active in our city.
Peterborough Environment City Trust, English Nature, UK CEED, Friends of the Earth, Peterborough Civic Society and many other organisations all work hard to improve the quality of life in our city working together with officers of the city council to bring about positive change.
Yes, we still have a long way to go, particularly in some of the more deprived areas of our city, but Peterborough is a city of which we should be justly proud.
We also stand on the cusp of major improvements and developments to our city centre married with economic expansion.
Our society feels passionately about the future of Peterborough and will work hard to see that we achieve an inspiring and sustainable environment for our citizens. I hope that our esteemed MP will do likewise.
David Turnock
Chairman,
Peterborough Civic Society
Friday, January 07, 2005
LACS TO FIGHT ANY INJUNCTION
Protesters fight hunt ban delay - BBC Online.
Anti-hunt protesters say they will fight to ensure a ban comes into force on 18 February as planned. Pro-hunt campaigners had asked for an injunction to delay the ban while they challenge it at the High Court.
The government, which said it would not oppose a delay, was accused of trying to avoid protests so close to a likely May election.
Now the League Against Cruel Sports is to ask to make legal representations against an injunction on 25 January.
The league's chief executive, Douglas Batchelor, said further delay would mean more animals would suffer and be killed.
The Countryside Alliance's action and the proposed injunction set a dangerous precedent
Douglas Batchelor "The government's lack of enthusiasm for allowing a law of Parliament's making to commence is deplorable, so it is up to us to defend the defenceless animals from the gratuitous cruelty of the hunt supporters," he said.
"The Countryside Alliance's action and the proposed injunction set a dangerous precedent, which could see all legislation forced to pass through lengthy legal challenges before it can be implemented."
Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is expected to call a general election for 5 May, had opposed an outright ban on hunting.
Pro-hunt groups have threatened a campaign of civil disobedience and many say they will ignore the ban.
The Countryside Alliance will base its legal challenge on the legitimacy of the 1949 Parliament Act, which was used to force through the ban against the wishes of the House of Lords.
While its appeal is heard, it will ask for an injunction to delay the ban until the end of the legal process - which could take 12 months.
The group's chairman John Jackson has said anyone who believed hunting was going to end in February "had better think again".
Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael said the government it was happy for them to be able to make their challenge in the court.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
HOW POLITICS AFFECTS YOUR NIGHT OUT...
Look how important politics is. If you don't 'do' politics there isn't a lot you can do!
- It decides where and when you can buy an alcoholic drink
- Says at what age you can buy an alcoholic drink
- Sets the amount of tax you have to pay every time you buy a drink
- Decides where and when you can listen to music and whether it can be played live
- Controls how loud that music can be and whether or not you are allowed to dance to it
- Decides what is acceptable behaviour when you're under the influence and what is liable to get you arrested
- Affects the number of police officers patrolling town centres at night
- Says what substances are illegal and what will happen to you of you are caught with them
- Decices what time trains and buses stop running and whether or not there will be a night service
- Says how much you can legally drink and still drive home
- Controls the licensing of taxis
- Controls the licensing of doormen and bouncers
- Decices how long you've got to finish that pint.
LORD WHITTY CORNERED
Not me this time!
Hunt ban protesters corner Lord Whitty - The Times
THE Farming Minister, Lord Whitty, was cornered yesterday by protesters opposed to the hunting ban as he arrived to address a conference.
Police had to intervene as demonstrators brandishing Countryside Alliance placards surrounded him outside the Examination Schools in Oxford. The confrontation lasted about a minute.
One of the protesters, George Juer, 23, kennel huntsman of the Radley Beagles in Oxfordshire, said that the hunting ban would destroy “what we live and breathe for”.
“We were trying to ask him if he had any reason for the ban,” Mr Juer said. “All the reports say that there’s no reason for banning hunting on the grounds of cruelty. The only thing I heard him say is, ‘It’s cruel, it’s cruel’ — but I’m willing to bet he’s never done a day’s hunting in his life.”
In his speech to the Oxford Farming Conference, Lord Whitty told farmers that they continued to receive large subsidies from the European Union only on the understanding that they acted as protectors of the countryside.
He had no sympathy with farmers opposed to cross-compliance regulations such as care for land, soil and water. “There’s no other justification left . . . for the level of support which Europe gives to farming,” he said. “I have heard some farmers complain that ‘the environmentalists have won’. That’s wrongheaded and counter-productive.”
He gave warning that farmers should be prepared to disclose the level of subsidies they received, in keeping with the Freedom of Information Act.
Hunt ban protesters corner Lord Whitty - The Times
THE Farming Minister, Lord Whitty, was cornered yesterday by protesters opposed to the hunting ban as he arrived to address a conference.
Police had to intervene as demonstrators brandishing Countryside Alliance placards surrounded him outside the Examination Schools in Oxford. The confrontation lasted about a minute.
One of the protesters, George Juer, 23, kennel huntsman of the Radley Beagles in Oxfordshire, said that the hunting ban would destroy “what we live and breathe for”.
“We were trying to ask him if he had any reason for the ban,” Mr Juer said. “All the reports say that there’s no reason for banning hunting on the grounds of cruelty. The only thing I heard him say is, ‘It’s cruel, it’s cruel’ — but I’m willing to bet he’s never done a day’s hunting in his life.”
In his speech to the Oxford Farming Conference, Lord Whitty told farmers that they continued to receive large subsidies from the European Union only on the understanding that they acted as protectors of the countryside.
He had no sympathy with farmers opposed to cross-compliance regulations such as care for land, soil and water. “There’s no other justification left . . . for the level of support which Europe gives to farming,” he said. “I have heard some farmers complain that ‘the environmentalists have won’. That’s wrongheaded and counter-productive.”
He gave warning that farmers should be prepared to disclose the level of subsidies they received, in keeping with the Freedom of Information Act.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
FITZWILLIAM RAISE CASH
Riders and protesters join up for appeal
RIDERS and protesters at a new year's hunt, who buried their differences to help raise money for the thousands killed in the Boxing Day tsunami in south-east Asia, have collected more that £1,000 for the appeal.
As hundreds of people gathered outside the Haycock Hotel, in Wansford, near Peterborough for the annual New Year's Day hunt, dozens of buckets were passed around.People donated more than £1,000 to help the millions of people affected by the recent disaster, and a minute's silence was held in the village before the hunt began.
George Bowyer, joint master of the Fitzwilliam Hunt, said: "There are some things in life that are more important than hunting."A disaster like this is something that can unite everybody, regardless of their political, cultural or religious differences.
RIDERS and protesters at a new year's hunt, who buried their differences to help raise money for the thousands killed in the Boxing Day tsunami in south-east Asia, have collected more that £1,000 for the appeal.
As hundreds of people gathered outside the Haycock Hotel, in Wansford, near Peterborough for the annual New Year's Day hunt, dozens of buckets were passed around.People donated more than £1,000 to help the millions of people affected by the recent disaster, and a minute's silence was held in the village before the hunt began.
George Bowyer, joint master of the Fitzwilliam Hunt, said: "There are some things in life that are more important than hunting."A disaster like this is something that can unite everybody, regardless of their political, cultural or religious differences.
Sunday, January 02, 2005
BARRY BEEZELBUB
Despite appearances, I am neither for nor against hunting. You would never, ever, find me clad in the finest pink on the back of a manic, but desperately stupid, dangerous animal.
I know about horses. They are thicker than cows and a whole evolutionary lifecycle behind pigs. Climbing onboard one is akin to driving the wrong way down the M5 after drinking a bottle of Buckfast and a gallon of Scrumpy. (Have I told you before that I'm banned from even the slightest acquaintance with cider?
But while I wouldn't go hunting myself, I would defend the right of others to do it. It's a matter of personal freedom. The Nanny State already tells us what we can eat, drink, say or smoke. (Dope is OK, apparently.) Why should we then let them control what we do in our leisure time?
It's a small step from banning hunting, to banning shooting, to banning fishing, to banning boxing, to banning motor-cycling, to banning mountain climbing, to banning horse-racing, to banning a night at the dogs, all of which pursuits are capable of causing harm to man or beast.
I know about horses. They are thicker than cows and a whole evolutionary lifecycle behind pigs. Climbing onboard one is akin to driving the wrong way down the M5 after drinking a bottle of Buckfast and a gallon of Scrumpy. (Have I told you before that I'm banned from even the slightest acquaintance with cider?
But while I wouldn't go hunting myself, I would defend the right of others to do it. It's a matter of personal freedom. The Nanny State already tells us what we can eat, drink, say or smoke. (Dope is OK, apparently.) Why should we then let them control what we do in our leisure time?
It's a small step from banning hunting, to banning shooting, to banning fishing, to banning boxing, to banning motor-cycling, to banning mountain climbing, to banning horse-racing, to banning a night at the dogs, all of which pursuits are capable of causing harm to man or beast.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
BISHOP MAKES PLEA FOR HUNT STAFF JOBS
Bishop's plea for hunt staff jobs -BBC
A bishop has asked the government for reassurances about workers who risk losing their jobs over the hunting ban.
Bishop of Hereford Anthony Priddis has written to Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael saying kennel staff could lose their homes because of the legislation.
Some 15 hunts operate within the boundaries of his diocese, which covers Herefordshire and parts of Powys, Worcestershire and south Shropshire.
The bishop warned some people employed by hunts may to leave the area.
Bishop Anthony stressed he was not looking to reopen the debate about the merits of hunting with hounds, but wanted to establish what provision the government has made for those affected.
Those involved with hunting were steeped in rural life and could find the transition to an urban environment very difficult, he said.
He said: "The likelihood is that they will have to leave the area entirely, causing severe disruption to their families.
"I know that emphasising the qualities associated with a 'rural' way of life was one of the arguments posited against the ban being imposed, but it is a reality for these people."
The churchman has asked Mr Michael whether any assessment has been made of the numbers involved and whether any plans are in place to find them either other work or alternative and affordable accommodation.
A bishop has asked the government for reassurances about workers who risk losing their jobs over the hunting ban.
Bishop of Hereford Anthony Priddis has written to Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael saying kennel staff could lose their homes because of the legislation.
Some 15 hunts operate within the boundaries of his diocese, which covers Herefordshire and parts of Powys, Worcestershire and south Shropshire.
The bishop warned some people employed by hunts may to leave the area.
Bishop Anthony stressed he was not looking to reopen the debate about the merits of hunting with hounds, but wanted to establish what provision the government has made for those affected.
Those involved with hunting were steeped in rural life and could find the transition to an urban environment very difficult, he said.
He said: "The likelihood is that they will have to leave the area entirely, causing severe disruption to their families.
"I know that emphasising the qualities associated with a 'rural' way of life was one of the arguments posited against the ban being imposed, but it is a reality for these people."
The churchman has asked Mr Michael whether any assessment has been made of the numbers involved and whether any plans are in place to find them either other work or alternative and affordable accommodation.
