Monday, February 21, 2005
FOXHUNTERS OUT IN FORCE
BAN: Foxhunt supporters turn out in force
RECORD numbers of people turned out to see the first Fitzwilliam Hunt since new laws on fox hunting came into force.
More than 1,000 pro-hunt supporters watched about 30 members of the hunt ride out at Milton Park Estate, Bretton, Peterborough, on Saturday.
It was the 300-year-old event's biggest ever turn-out.
Joint Master of the Hunt George Bowyer told the crowds: "I am determined that this will be a temporary ban."This is the latest attempt by this Government to interfere with people in the countryside's way of life. "It is a useless piece of legislation and all it will do is put the police and the crown prosecution services in an impossible position."It is a ridiculous law and it is going to fail. There will be people who decide to act out civil disobedience, and people shall make those decisions on their own."But the Fitzwilliam Hunt respects the new legislation."
The master of the hunt, Sir Philip Naylor-Leyland, then led the riders into the forest, while the gathered crowds cheered and clapped.
Before the ride, he said he was encouraged by the high turn-out.He said: "I am delighted to see so many people here today."This is the largest turn-out I think we have ever seen, and we are delighted that so many people have chosen to come here today to show their support."
Hunters can no longer hunt with dogs after the Government's hunting ban became law on Friday.
Mary Lamont (42), of Careby, near Stamford said: "It is terrible that people who have nothing to do with the countryside interfere in our way of life. "I will continue coming to watch the hunt set off and give my complete support to it."
RECORD numbers of people turned out to see the first Fitzwilliam Hunt since new laws on fox hunting came into force.
More than 1,000 pro-hunt supporters watched about 30 members of the hunt ride out at Milton Park Estate, Bretton, Peterborough, on Saturday.
It was the 300-year-old event's biggest ever turn-out.
Joint Master of the Hunt George Bowyer told the crowds: "I am determined that this will be a temporary ban."This is the latest attempt by this Government to interfere with people in the countryside's way of life. "It is a useless piece of legislation and all it will do is put the police and the crown prosecution services in an impossible position."It is a ridiculous law and it is going to fail. There will be people who decide to act out civil disobedience, and people shall make those decisions on their own."But the Fitzwilliam Hunt respects the new legislation."
The master of the hunt, Sir Philip Naylor-Leyland, then led the riders into the forest, while the gathered crowds cheered and clapped.
Before the ride, he said he was encouraged by the high turn-out.He said: "I am delighted to see so many people here today."This is the largest turn-out I think we have ever seen, and we are delighted that so many people have chosen to come here today to show their support."
Hunters can no longer hunt with dogs after the Government's hunting ban became law on Friday.
Mary Lamont (42), of Careby, near Stamford said: "It is terrible that people who have nothing to do with the countryside interfere in our way of life. "I will continue coming to watch the hunt set off and give my complete support to it."
Sunday, February 20, 2005
ANSWER ME ONE THING
Inspired by a posting accusing all those who hunt of being total snobs:
Answer me one thing. Have you ever been to a real hunt and actually spoken to the people who attend? I never judge anti-hunt peeps as being say scruffy students and the same open-mindedness in return would be nice.
I hunt regularly with the Fitzwilliam, down in Cambridgeshire. This is the reality for us - the mounted followers best outfit is their hunt kit, the rest of us bimble along in our scruffs - I'm usually covered in mud and paw prints before the meet had even got underway. Usual wear for me would be my worst jeans, desert boots/wellies, a shirt and t-shirt with a fleece and barbour over the top...not much different from what I wear on a normal day at home. We are laying bets on whether the master's car will make it to the end of the season!
I'm sorry that our politeness offends you, but we are always courteous to everyone and we see no reason to change a perfectly good system.
I'm a tad concerned that you know which painting is in my bog - I didn't even know I had one, I shall pay better attention next time I go for a piss! It is true that I went to a minor independent school but I hated almost every minute. I relish the freedom now I am away from that place and even more freedom as I drive my muddy, girly little Clio (What no flash Beamer or a shiny freelander!)
It is a solemn principle of mine not to mock anyone. I quite literally struggle to find the beer money for my round. I'm not working at the moment (lambing job doesn't start till next monday) - The CA and the agricultural merchants split my last tenner between them!
I can but apologise that we don't find it acceptable to eat with one's mouth open, spraying gravy as one talks to the unfortunate bod opposite you. And for your information I came close to slapping my granny when she professed some views on refugees that made Nick Griffin look like a socialist.
Whatever the sins of other people in times gone by is that really an excuse to treat those you see as responsible in the same way.
Your prejudice is YOUR downfall
Answer me one thing. Have you ever been to a real hunt and actually spoken to the people who attend? I never judge anti-hunt peeps as being say scruffy students and the same open-mindedness in return would be nice.
I hunt regularly with the Fitzwilliam, down in Cambridgeshire. This is the reality for us - the mounted followers best outfit is their hunt kit, the rest of us bimble along in our scruffs - I'm usually covered in mud and paw prints before the meet had even got underway. Usual wear for me would be my worst jeans, desert boots/wellies, a shirt and t-shirt with a fleece and barbour over the top...not much different from what I wear on a normal day at home. We are laying bets on whether the master's car will make it to the end of the season!
I'm sorry that our politeness offends you, but we are always courteous to everyone and we see no reason to change a perfectly good system.
I'm a tad concerned that you know which painting is in my bog - I didn't even know I had one, I shall pay better attention next time I go for a piss! It is true that I went to a minor independent school but I hated almost every minute. I relish the freedom now I am away from that place and even more freedom as I drive my muddy, girly little Clio (What no flash Beamer or a shiny freelander!)
It is a solemn principle of mine not to mock anyone. I quite literally struggle to find the beer money for my round. I'm not working at the moment (lambing job doesn't start till next monday) - The CA and the agricultural merchants split my last tenner between them!
I can but apologise that we don't find it acceptable to eat with one's mouth open, spraying gravy as one talks to the unfortunate bod opposite you. And for your information I came close to slapping my granny when she professed some views on refugees that made Nick Griffin look like a socialist.
Whatever the sins of other people in times gone by is that really an excuse to treat those you see as responsible in the same way.
Your prejudice is YOUR downfall
Saturday, February 19, 2005
A POLICEMAN'S BLOG
http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_coppersblog_archive.html#110087906539425656
Friday, November 19, 2004
HUNTING TO BE BANNED- HOORAY!
I have absolutely no qualms about arresting evil hunters-with-dogs, they should be locked up and given counselling like common criminals.
The banning of hunting is the latest in a long line of government attempts to make us see the error of our ways and turn us into a more humane society, whether we like it or not.
Personally I was never keen on riding, I preferred badger baiting and bear dancing. I always had my doubts about the former, particularly when it came to breaking all four of the badgers legs and then turning a perfectly good shaving brush into a piece of roadkill. I had no such moral qualms about watching an old bear moonwalking though: if they didn’t enjoy it they wouldn’t do it.
Arresting foxhunters will be like shooting fish in a barrel (I won’t be surprised if the government try to ban that next). They will be cooperative and pleasant, they will admit the offence and they will never complain about the police. They will not smell because they regularly bathe, they will live nearby and will always attend the police station when required. In short, they will be a delight to work with.
Prior to the ban on hunting, police officers had to arrest anti-hunters: vile, student types with long hair and piercings who insisted on intimate knowledge of the law and who were represented by equally unpleasant solicitors. These people always lived miles away and would make complaints about the police as a matter of course. They always carried video cameras and would use them to gather evidence of the atrocities carried out by foxhunters and the police.
So you can see why I’m so happy at this change in the law: I’ll be able to spend more time on my paperwork and be less time arresting people and bringing them before the courts.
So, what’s next on our legislative journey to a new utopia? Decriminalisation of theft and the compulsory installation of CCTV in newly built homes? Now, that really would make my life easier, especially if there was never any tape in the cameras.
Friday, November 19, 2004
HUNTING TO BE BANNED- HOORAY!
I have absolutely no qualms about arresting evil hunters-with-dogs, they should be locked up and given counselling like common criminals.
The banning of hunting is the latest in a long line of government attempts to make us see the error of our ways and turn us into a more humane society, whether we like it or not.
Personally I was never keen on riding, I preferred badger baiting and bear dancing. I always had my doubts about the former, particularly when it came to breaking all four of the badgers legs and then turning a perfectly good shaving brush into a piece of roadkill. I had no such moral qualms about watching an old bear moonwalking though: if they didn’t enjoy it they wouldn’t do it.
Arresting foxhunters will be like shooting fish in a barrel (I won’t be surprised if the government try to ban that next). They will be cooperative and pleasant, they will admit the offence and they will never complain about the police. They will not smell because they regularly bathe, they will live nearby and will always attend the police station when required. In short, they will be a delight to work with.
Prior to the ban on hunting, police officers had to arrest anti-hunters: vile, student types with long hair and piercings who insisted on intimate knowledge of the law and who were represented by equally unpleasant solicitors. These people always lived miles away and would make complaints about the police as a matter of course. They always carried video cameras and would use them to gather evidence of the atrocities carried out by foxhunters and the police.
So you can see why I’m so happy at this change in the law: I’ll be able to spend more time on my paperwork and be less time arresting people and bringing them before the courts.
So, what’s next on our legislative journey to a new utopia? Decriminalisation of theft and the compulsory installation of CCTV in newly built homes? Now, that really would make my life easier, especially if there was never any tape in the cameras.
Friday, February 18, 2005
HUNTING ETIQUETTE
Sir. If a group of people on horseback, accompanied by their pet dogs, announce that they are going for an invigorating ride in the country, with no intention whatsoever of hunting foxes, what are the authorities going to do? Send mounted police to accompany them?Riding is good exercise, and therefore to be commended by this government. The wearing of pink is a positive move, in this safety conscious world, to ensure that no walker accidentally wanders into their path. Of course, they should also sound their horns to provide additional warning.I look forward to seeing such groups for many years to come.
Neil Murray, in The Times.
Neil Murray, in The Times.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
HUNT WON'T BREAK THE LAW
FOX HUNTING: Hunt will not break the law says master
AN opponent of the Government's hunting ban has promised he will obey the new law when he rides out this weekend.
George Bowyer, joint master of the 300-year-old Fitzwilliam Hunt, has criticised the Hunting Bill.However, when the hunt rides out on land near Peterborough on Saturday, Mr Bowyer has conceded he will not encourage riders to break the law which bans hunting with dogs.
He said: "Who am I to tell my staff to break the law?"
"As a hunt, we're going to keep going, and to keep going we've got to raise money to pay the wages."Mr Bowyer said they would carry out legal activities that are allowed, including trail hunting, where dogs follow an artificial scent and flush hunting, where two dogs are used to get a fox into the open before it is shot.
He added he would try to get the law overturned.
Gail Record, a member of Peterborough and Cambridgeshire Animal Rights Coalition, said the pro-hunt supporters' acceptance of the new law sounded a death knell for hunting with dogs.
She said: "This shows it's the end of the day for them."
AN opponent of the Government's hunting ban has promised he will obey the new law when he rides out this weekend.
George Bowyer, joint master of the 300-year-old Fitzwilliam Hunt, has criticised the Hunting Bill.However, when the hunt rides out on land near Peterborough on Saturday, Mr Bowyer has conceded he will not encourage riders to break the law which bans hunting with dogs.
He said: "Who am I to tell my staff to break the law?"
"As a hunt, we're going to keep going, and to keep going we've got to raise money to pay the wages."Mr Bowyer said they would carry out legal activities that are allowed, including trail hunting, where dogs follow an artificial scent and flush hunting, where two dogs are used to get a fox into the open before it is shot.
He added he would try to get the law overturned.
Gail Record, a member of Peterborough and Cambridgeshire Animal Rights Coalition, said the pro-hunt supporters' acceptance of the new law sounded a death knell for hunting with dogs.
She said: "This shows it's the end of the day for them."
HUNT WON'T BREAK THE LAW
FOX HUNTING: Hunt will not break the law says master
AN opponent of the Government's hunting ban has promised he will obey the new law when he rides out this weekend.
George Bowyer, joint master of the 300-year-old Fitzwilliam Hunt, has criticised the Hunting Bill.However, when the hunt rides out on land near Peterborough on Saturday, Mr Bowyer has conceded he will not encourage riders to break the law which bans hunting with dogs.
He said: "Who am I to tell my staff to break the law?"
"As a hunt, we're going to keep going, and to keep going we've got to raise money to pay the wages."Mr Bowyer said they would carry out legal activities that are allowed, including trail hunting, where dogs follow an artificial scent and flush hunting, where two dogs are used to get a fox into the open before it is shot.
He added he would try to get the law overturned.
Gail Record, a member of Peterborough and Cambridgeshire Animal Rights Coalition, said the pro-hunt supporters' acceptance of the new law sounded a death knell for hunting with dogs.
She said: "This shows it's the end of the day for them."
AN opponent of the Government's hunting ban has promised he will obey the new law when he rides out this weekend.
George Bowyer, joint master of the 300-year-old Fitzwilliam Hunt, has criticised the Hunting Bill.However, when the hunt rides out on land near Peterborough on Saturday, Mr Bowyer has conceded he will not encourage riders to break the law which bans hunting with dogs.
He said: "Who am I to tell my staff to break the law?"
"As a hunt, we're going to keep going, and to keep going we've got to raise money to pay the wages."Mr Bowyer said they would carry out legal activities that are allowed, including trail hunting, where dogs follow an artificial scent and flush hunting, where two dogs are used to get a fox into the open before it is shot.
He added he would try to get the law overturned.
Gail Record, a member of Peterborough and Cambridgeshire Animal Rights Coalition, said the pro-hunt supporters' acceptance of the new law sounded a death knell for hunting with dogs.
She said: "This shows it's the end of the day for them."
HUNT WON'T BREAK THE LAW
FOX HUNTING: Hunt will not break the law says master
AN opponent of the Government's hunting ban has promised he will obey the new law when he rides out this weekend.
George Bowyer, joint master of the 300-year-old Fitzwilliam Hunt, has criticised the Hunting Bill.However, when the hunt rides out on land near Peterborough on Saturday, Mr Bowyer has conceded he will not encourage riders to break the law which bans hunting with dogs.
He said: "Who am I to tell my staff to break the law?"
"As a hunt, we're going to keep going, and to keep going we've got to raise money to pay the wages."Mr Bowyer said they would carry out legal activities that are allowed, including trail hunting, where dogs follow an artificial scent and flush hunting, where two dogs are used to get a fox into the open before it is shot.
He added he would try to get the law overturned.
Gail Record, a member of Peterborough and Cambridgeshire Animal Rights Coalition, said the pro-hunt supporters' acceptance of the new law sounded a death knell for hunting with dogs.
She said: "This shows it's the end of the day for them."
AN opponent of the Government's hunting ban has promised he will obey the new law when he rides out this weekend.
George Bowyer, joint master of the 300-year-old Fitzwilliam Hunt, has criticised the Hunting Bill.However, when the hunt rides out on land near Peterborough on Saturday, Mr Bowyer has conceded he will not encourage riders to break the law which bans hunting with dogs.
He said: "Who am I to tell my staff to break the law?"
"As a hunt, we're going to keep going, and to keep going we've got to raise money to pay the wages."Mr Bowyer said they would carry out legal activities that are allowed, including trail hunting, where dogs follow an artificial scent and flush hunting, where two dogs are used to get a fox into the open before it is shot.
He added he would try to get the law overturned.
Gail Record, a member of Peterborough and Cambridgeshire Animal Rights Coalition, said the pro-hunt supporters' acceptance of the new law sounded a death knell for hunting with dogs.
She said: "This shows it's the end of the day for them."
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Police fears on enforcing hunting ban
February 15, 2005 06:54
By Jonathan Barnes and Ted Jeory
POLICE officers have called for more guidance on how to enforce the ban on fox-hunting and fear they are being put in an “invidious” position by the new legislation.They voiced their concerns as one police federation chairman said she felt the ban - which comes into effect on Friday - was “unenforceable”.
Sue Kelly, chairman of the Essex Police Federation, added: “I haven't seen any guidelines at all and it will be very difficult to police. I've hunted myself years ago and I know a lot of people who hunt now.
“But if I knew that they were going out to hunt and defy the law, I wouldn't do anything. I know of people who speed every day, but we can't be expected to nick all those.“
There will be a lot of officers with similar dilemmas and also those with particular concerns about the effect on rural policing.“The rural community feels extremely hard done by and feels this ban is prejudicial to their livelihoods.”
Suffolk Police Federation called for clear definitions of how officers should tackle the ban and feared valuable police time could be wasted trying to catch illegal hunters.
Phil Smith, secretary of the Suffolk Police Federation, said: “It seems to be yet more rushed through legislation that has not been thought through and it does concern me.
“It's the interpretation of the law that could prove a problem. People could go out exercising their dogs and it will waste a lot of time establishing whether they are actually hunting. Some will say that those resources could be better deployed elsewhere.“Certainly the last thing we want is our officers getting themselves into trouble because of ignorance of the legislation and the ambiguity of what can and what can't be done. We need clear definitions of what we can and can't do.”He added: “We can't go on to somebody's land to arrest them - and that puts police officers in an invidious position.“If a law is there to be enforced, we will do what we can, but I wish there had been a bit more thought to the legislation change. It is going to have its difficulties.”
The warning came as hunts across the region prepared to meet on Saturday - the day after the Hunting Bill becomes law - to show the strength of feeling against the ban, although they have pledged to hunt within the law.
Liz Mort, eastern region director of the Countryside Alliance, said the ban was “unworkable, unenforceable and unpoliceable”.
She claimed hunts had received “mixed messages” from police about enforcing the legislation and added: “They are going to find it enormously difficult to police.“How will they know what sort of hunt it is? Even the huntsman doesn't know if the hounds are chasing a fox or a trail, so how will the police know?”
Ms Mort said thousands of people were expected to attend Saturday's hunts, making it the most popular day of the season, and hunts would be either drag or trail hunting.“The important thing is that until we've got this wretched Bill repealed - which we will, sooner or later - the infrastructure of hunts is kept together,” she added.
Lawrie Payne, regional spokesman of the League Against Cruel Sports, said he expected the new legislation to be enforced.“It's quite simple - if the hunts are chasing a trail, that's fine. If they are chasing a wild animal, it's illegal. I don't believe the police are stupid and, if the hunts do, they will soon find out otherwise. The law is pretty clear,” he added.
Suffolk Chief Constable Alastair McWhirter, who is rural affairs spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: “We will obviously work on the basis some people will still break the law. “I'm sure we'll get a lot of demonstrations as the legislation comes in, but we will be enforcing the legislation.”
February 15, 2005 06:54
By Jonathan Barnes and Ted Jeory
POLICE officers have called for more guidance on how to enforce the ban on fox-hunting and fear they are being put in an “invidious” position by the new legislation.They voiced their concerns as one police federation chairman said she felt the ban - which comes into effect on Friday - was “unenforceable”.
Sue Kelly, chairman of the Essex Police Federation, added: “I haven't seen any guidelines at all and it will be very difficult to police. I've hunted myself years ago and I know a lot of people who hunt now.
“But if I knew that they were going out to hunt and defy the law, I wouldn't do anything. I know of people who speed every day, but we can't be expected to nick all those.“
There will be a lot of officers with similar dilemmas and also those with particular concerns about the effect on rural policing.“The rural community feels extremely hard done by and feels this ban is prejudicial to their livelihoods.”
Suffolk Police Federation called for clear definitions of how officers should tackle the ban and feared valuable police time could be wasted trying to catch illegal hunters.
Phil Smith, secretary of the Suffolk Police Federation, said: “It seems to be yet more rushed through legislation that has not been thought through and it does concern me.
“It's the interpretation of the law that could prove a problem. People could go out exercising their dogs and it will waste a lot of time establishing whether they are actually hunting. Some will say that those resources could be better deployed elsewhere.“Certainly the last thing we want is our officers getting themselves into trouble because of ignorance of the legislation and the ambiguity of what can and what can't be done. We need clear definitions of what we can and can't do.”He added: “We can't go on to somebody's land to arrest them - and that puts police officers in an invidious position.“If a law is there to be enforced, we will do what we can, but I wish there had been a bit more thought to the legislation change. It is going to have its difficulties.”
The warning came as hunts across the region prepared to meet on Saturday - the day after the Hunting Bill becomes law - to show the strength of feeling against the ban, although they have pledged to hunt within the law.
Liz Mort, eastern region director of the Countryside Alliance, said the ban was “unworkable, unenforceable and unpoliceable”.
She claimed hunts had received “mixed messages” from police about enforcing the legislation and added: “They are going to find it enormously difficult to police.“How will they know what sort of hunt it is? Even the huntsman doesn't know if the hounds are chasing a fox or a trail, so how will the police know?”
Ms Mort said thousands of people were expected to attend Saturday's hunts, making it the most popular day of the season, and hunts would be either drag or trail hunting.“The important thing is that until we've got this wretched Bill repealed - which we will, sooner or later - the infrastructure of hunts is kept together,” she added.
Lawrie Payne, regional spokesman of the League Against Cruel Sports, said he expected the new legislation to be enforced.“It's quite simple - if the hunts are chasing a trail, that's fine. If they are chasing a wild animal, it's illegal. I don't believe the police are stupid and, if the hunts do, they will soon find out otherwise. The law is pretty clear,” he added.
Suffolk Chief Constable Alastair McWhirter, who is rural affairs spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: “We will obviously work on the basis some people will still break the law. “I'm sure we'll get a lot of demonstrations as the legislation comes in, but we will be enforcing the legislation.”
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
ELECT TO HUNT
HUNT BAN WON'T WORK
Top police chiefs admit hunt ban won't work
Secret memos reveal growing fear of civil unrest
Mark Townsend, environment correspondent
Sunday February 13, 2005
The Observer
Britain's most senior police officers have raised grave concerns that the imminent hunting ban is unenforcable, will erode morale, and could precipitate large-scale civil unrest, internal documents obtained by The Observer reveal.
Records of meetings and in-house emails show the level of concern and confusion among senior officers on the eve of the ban, which this week prohibits fox hunting in England and Wales after almost 700 years. They show that any attempt to apprehend those who decide to continue hunting next weekend has already been dismissed as impractical.
An internal document circulated to senior members of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) also reveals that forces will give the ban a 'low priority', raising concerns that thousands of people who defy the ban will go unpunished.
'This has not been afforded high priority in the National Policing Plan,' the document says.
Other concerns outlined in material from Devon and Cornwall, and Avon and Somerset, constabularies - two forces with a high number of hunts in their areas - include worries that police forces are fundamentally weakened by officers who sympathise with fox hunting, or are hunters themselves. The documents from the two forces warn that the ban could undermine their 'policing style' and that should police try to enforce the ban, there could be widespread civil unrest and damaging violence. Potentially violent hunts are to be categorised in the same way as football matches, with provision for riot police.
The documents offer the first insight into the fears of police over enforcing legislation which comes into force on Friday. The following day will see most hunts - an anticipated total of 270, attracting 400,000 supporters - breaking the law in a massive show of civil disobedience.
One email from a Devon and Cornwall inspector details how he dreamt the ban would be postponed, before waking up and despairing that in fact foxhunting would be outlawed this Friday.
Tim Bonner, chief spokesman for the Countryside Alliance, said: 'The police have been placed in an impossible situation. From these documents it is quite clear they are seriously concerned about the implications of implementing the ban on their relationships with local communities'.
Yet most concern is reserved for the 'unworkability' of the legislation, which the pro-hunting lobby remains confident will lead to very few, if any, arrests. A recent Acpo memorandum, outlining strategic considerations for police chiefs, reminds that the hunting ban 'confers a power to arrest, not a duty'.
In addition, the latest briefing notes for the Chief Constables' Council, dated 27 January, reminds them that the offence is not 'accorded high priority'. Details of police action at hunt meetings reveal that the offence is regarded as nothing more serious than 'low-level wildlife crimes', which are dealt with by fixed penalties.
The documents also question how the Crown Prosecution Service will be able to prove intent 'if hunts switched to drag hunting and hounds take off after a fox'. The latest advice from Acpo advises that the offence is not a recordable offence, meaning that those convicted do not have a criminal record.
However, The Observer understands that the government has already begun looking at introducing secondary legislation to ensure that those caught do risk a criminal record. Concern has also spread to the judiciary, with at least five magistrates choosing to resign rather than administer the ban.
However, those supporting the introduction of the ban, such as the League Against Cruel Sports, maintain the legislation is simple to enforce. 'The legislation is very clear; if you are chasing a fox with a pack of dogs that is against the law,' said a league spokesman.
In the minutes of meetings held by officers in hunting hotspots such as the West Country, officers from Avon and Somerset admit that they 'are not secure as an organisation... e.g. police officers [are] involved in hunts'.
A guidance note from Acpo to the Chief Constables' Council reveals that civil unrest creates a much greater problem than actually enforcing a hunting ban. It warns that the ban's impact 'may cause greater public disorder, which will have a much higher priority than hunting offences per se '.
Provisions in other Acpo guidance add that riot police and officers trained in 'conflict management' may have to be used if widespread unrest materialises. Avon and Somerset police confirm they have looked at grading hunts in the same way as football matches.
The documents reveal that the Rural Affairs minister, Alun Michael, even tried to cajole groups such as the RSPCA to enforce the law as well as police officers, a move criticised by the pro-hunt fraternity as 'passing the buck', yet described as 'very likely' to happen by a government source.
In Devon and Cornwall, which covers at least 33 hunts, there are only six designated hunt officers to enforce the ban.
Secret memos reveal growing fear of civil unrest
Mark Townsend, environment correspondent
Sunday February 13, 2005
The Observer
Britain's most senior police officers have raised grave concerns that the imminent hunting ban is unenforcable, will erode morale, and could precipitate large-scale civil unrest, internal documents obtained by The Observer reveal.
Records of meetings and in-house emails show the level of concern and confusion among senior officers on the eve of the ban, which this week prohibits fox hunting in England and Wales after almost 700 years. They show that any attempt to apprehend those who decide to continue hunting next weekend has already been dismissed as impractical.
An internal document circulated to senior members of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) also reveals that forces will give the ban a 'low priority', raising concerns that thousands of people who defy the ban will go unpunished.
'This has not been afforded high priority in the National Policing Plan,' the document says.
Other concerns outlined in material from Devon and Cornwall, and Avon and Somerset, constabularies - two forces with a high number of hunts in their areas - include worries that police forces are fundamentally weakened by officers who sympathise with fox hunting, or are hunters themselves. The documents from the two forces warn that the ban could undermine their 'policing style' and that should police try to enforce the ban, there could be widespread civil unrest and damaging violence. Potentially violent hunts are to be categorised in the same way as football matches, with provision for riot police.
The documents offer the first insight into the fears of police over enforcing legislation which comes into force on Friday. The following day will see most hunts - an anticipated total of 270, attracting 400,000 supporters - breaking the law in a massive show of civil disobedience.
One email from a Devon and Cornwall inspector details how he dreamt the ban would be postponed, before waking up and despairing that in fact foxhunting would be outlawed this Friday.
Tim Bonner, chief spokesman for the Countryside Alliance, said: 'The police have been placed in an impossible situation. From these documents it is quite clear they are seriously concerned about the implications of implementing the ban on their relationships with local communities'.
Yet most concern is reserved for the 'unworkability' of the legislation, which the pro-hunting lobby remains confident will lead to very few, if any, arrests. A recent Acpo memorandum, outlining strategic considerations for police chiefs, reminds that the hunting ban 'confers a power to arrest, not a duty'.
In addition, the latest briefing notes for the Chief Constables' Council, dated 27 January, reminds them that the offence is not 'accorded high priority'. Details of police action at hunt meetings reveal that the offence is regarded as nothing more serious than 'low-level wildlife crimes', which are dealt with by fixed penalties.
The documents also question how the Crown Prosecution Service will be able to prove intent 'if hunts switched to drag hunting and hounds take off after a fox'. The latest advice from Acpo advises that the offence is not a recordable offence, meaning that those convicted do not have a criminal record.
However, The Observer understands that the government has already begun looking at introducing secondary legislation to ensure that those caught do risk a criminal record. Concern has also spread to the judiciary, with at least five magistrates choosing to resign rather than administer the ban.
However, those supporting the introduction of the ban, such as the League Against Cruel Sports, maintain the legislation is simple to enforce. 'The legislation is very clear; if you are chasing a fox with a pack of dogs that is against the law,' said a league spokesman.
In the minutes of meetings held by officers in hunting hotspots such as the West Country, officers from Avon and Somerset admit that they 'are not secure as an organisation... e.g. police officers [are] involved in hunts'.
A guidance note from Acpo to the Chief Constables' Council reveals that civil unrest creates a much greater problem than actually enforcing a hunting ban. It warns that the ban's impact 'may cause greater public disorder, which will have a much higher priority than hunting offences per se '.
Provisions in other Acpo guidance add that riot police and officers trained in 'conflict management' may have to be used if widespread unrest materialises. Avon and Somerset police confirm they have looked at grading hunts in the same way as football matches.
The documents reveal that the Rural Affairs minister, Alun Michael, even tried to cajole groups such as the RSPCA to enforce the law as well as police officers, a move criticised by the pro-hunt fraternity as 'passing the buck', yet described as 'very likely' to happen by a government source.
In Devon and Cornwall, which covers at least 33 hunts, there are only six designated hunt officers to enforce the ban.
COURT ALERT
Courts and police put on alert over fox hunt ban
BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR - SCOTSMAN
RATTLED ministers have put courts and police on alert for a surge in ‘civil disobedience’ when the controversial law to ban fox-hunting is finally brought into force in England and Wales this week.
Government legal chiefs have written to the bosses of all crown courts and magistrates south of the Border, warning them that the potential for illegal protests in the days immediately after the ban is enforced on Friday could have a tremendous impact on their workload.
The warning, in a letter obtained by Scotland on Sunday, lays bare the government’s continuing concerns that the bitter campaign to ban fox-hunting could explode into a hugely divisive issue in the run-up to the election campaign.
Pro-hunting campaigners have pledged to demonstrate en masse across the country on Saturday - although they insist their protests will be within the law.
But a letter from the Criminal Business Branch of the Department of Constitutional Affairs to all 42 Justices’ Chief Executives in England and Wales, along with magistrates’ representatives, reveals the government’s concerns that "public order" will be "a major issue".
Jan Berry, who chairs the Police Federation in England and Wales, has admitted that vociferous opposition to the new law - and hunters attempting to flaunt the regulations - would put huge strain on the resources of small rural forces.
A confrontation with a large section of the rural population in the midst of an election campaign could prove disastrous for Tony Blair’s attempts to win a third term in power.
But the Countryside Alliance, which has launched a legal campaign against the ban, last night greeted the government’s concerns with derision - claiming the letter offered proof that ministers were not convinced that they could enforce their own law.
"We will have over 200 hunts out on Saturday but none of them will be breaking the law," a spokeswoman for the organisation said. "We do not want to fall out with the police or the courts because we realise they will have a terrible job enforcing this law."
BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR - SCOTSMAN
RATTLED ministers have put courts and police on alert for a surge in ‘civil disobedience’ when the controversial law to ban fox-hunting is finally brought into force in England and Wales this week.
Government legal chiefs have written to the bosses of all crown courts and magistrates south of the Border, warning them that the potential for illegal protests in the days immediately after the ban is enforced on Friday could have a tremendous impact on their workload.
The warning, in a letter obtained by Scotland on Sunday, lays bare the government’s continuing concerns that the bitter campaign to ban fox-hunting could explode into a hugely divisive issue in the run-up to the election campaign.
Pro-hunting campaigners have pledged to demonstrate en masse across the country on Saturday - although they insist their protests will be within the law.
But a letter from the Criminal Business Branch of the Department of Constitutional Affairs to all 42 Justices’ Chief Executives in England and Wales, along with magistrates’ representatives, reveals the government’s concerns that "public order" will be "a major issue".
Jan Berry, who chairs the Police Federation in England and Wales, has admitted that vociferous opposition to the new law - and hunters attempting to flaunt the regulations - would put huge strain on the resources of small rural forces.
A confrontation with a large section of the rural population in the midst of an election campaign could prove disastrous for Tony Blair’s attempts to win a third term in power.
But the Countryside Alliance, which has launched a legal campaign against the ban, last night greeted the government’s concerns with derision - claiming the letter offered proof that ministers were not convinced that they could enforce their own law.
"We will have over 200 hunts out on Saturday but none of them will be breaking the law," a spokeswoman for the organisation said. "We do not want to fall out with the police or the courts because we realise they will have a terrible job enforcing this law."
HUNT BAN PANTOMIME
Hunting ban a pantomime - Yorkshire Post
Police have the right priority THE fiasco which the ban on hunting with dogs has turned into provides a fine example of a government getting itself into a hopeless mess, and deservedly so. The exercise of a little imagination and a little foresight was all that had been required in order for the Government to have avoided the divisive and increasingly ludicrous consequences of allowing Parliamentary time for such an ill-judged piece of legislation.
The lone fact that it was driven by idealists, who are notoriously blind to hard realities, sounded a warning bell that anyone with an ounce of good sense should have paid heed to while it was still far enough away to be harmlessly diverted.The absurdity of the situation which now presents itself is a direct result of common sense having been diverted instead.That situation sees the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) producing internal documents which suggest that those who flout the law, after it comes into effect on Friday, may escape arrest for the reasons that enforcing it has not been afforded a high priority and that the new law confers a power to arrest, not a duty - a nicety, incidentally, which those who framed it are unlikely to have introduced inadvertently. And far from reprimanding ACPO for making a serious misjudgment, the Home Secretary Charles Clarke has said police chiefs are right to give enforcing the ban a low priority.Such wisdom comes a little late in the day, but wisdom it is because a pragmatic Home Secretary will have discerned the immense problems which a high-profile enforcement of the law must inevitably cause.Not least of these would be its effect upon an otherwise law-abiding and responsible section of the rural community with whom it is far more sensible for the police to remain on good terms than to alienate. When serious rural crime is mounting, these folk are the natural allies of the police, and in areas where they are too thin on the ground to be more than a token and often ineffectual presence, the police need all the allies they can find.Mr Clarke hopes, rather piously perhaps, that the hunting fraternity will respect the law, even when it criminalises them for something they cannot possibly conceive to be criminal.Many hunts across Yorkshire have declared their intention to ride out with the hounds as usual on Saturday. Some packs will ostensibly be following dragged trails, but others have detected loopholes which they say will permit the dogs to chase a quarry, provided they do not dispatch it.Small wonder ACPO has downgraded policing of this fatuous law; the prospect of officers arguing in the middle of a muddy field with a Master of Hounds as to whether the dogs running around, barking madly, are in legal or illegal pursuit of a fast-disappearing fox cannot be especially welcome – especially when there is so much serious crime to keep them more than busy.
We can't enforce hunt ban, top police admit
Action 'will be low priority' for forces
Jane Charnley, Yorkshire Post
HUNTS will escape prosecution if they defy the ban on their sport, the Government admitted yesterday as senior police officers warned the new law is unenforceable.
The embarrassing admission from Home Secretary Charles Clarke that the hunting ban will not be a priority for hard-pressed police forces came as hunts across Yorkshire said they would be riding out with hounds as usual – and using loopholes in the law to do so legally.
Their pledge to carry on came as it was revealed the Association of Chief Police Officers had warned the government that policing the ban would be a nightmare, and could not be regarded as a priority.
Thousands of defiant hunt supporters across Yorkshire plan to meet lawfully on Saturday – two days after the ban comes into force – in a bid to keep the centuries-old tradition alive.
Most hunts say there are enough options open to them within the legislation to allow foxes, hares and deer to be legally chased by hounds, though guns may need to be used for the kill.
Many hunt masters remained tight-lipped about the exact form their day will take and one claimed there would definitely be some who would break the law.
Documents from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have highlighted the possibility that these would escape arrest because of the low priority attached to the legislation in the National Policing Plan, and reminded police chiefs that it "confers a power to arrest, not a duty".
While local forces say they will try to enforce the law as any other, the ACPO stance is likely to enrage anti-hunt campaigners and Labour backbenchers who pushed through the ban in November.
But Home Secretary Charles Clarke yesterday backed the move, saying: "If you look at the priorities police have to deal with – dealing with drugs, people trafficking, crime, all kinds of issues – I don't expect fox hunting to be very high on the priorities of any particular police force."
Three options will be available to hunters at the weekend, unless there is an eleventh-hour reversal of the ban by the Court of Appeal in response to a challenge of November's Hunting Act by the Countryside Alliance.
They can use two hounds to "flush out" a fox which must then be shot with a gun, they can exercise a pack of hounds or they can trail or drag hunt, which means the dogs follow a pre-laid scent.
But hunts warn it is highly likely a pack of exercising hounds could divert to chase a real fox and any legal action if the fox were killed would rely on prosecutors proving the owners went out with "intent" to hunt.
The Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA) confirmed that animals would be killed on Saturday. "I don't think anybody would be naive enough to suggest that throughout this entire process that hounds who are behaving legally will not at some stage head off for a fox," said Tim Easby, Yorkshire representative of the MFHA and master of the West of Yore hunt."I don't believe the police or anybody else would expect that to happen. Accidents will happen. Almost certainly, foxes and hares will be killed on Saturday.
The 42-year-old beef farmer and ex-soldier added: "I'm absolutely certain there are people who are going to break the law but none are known to me."West of Yore was considering all options, he said, including trail hunting with a natural fox scent. "We will hunt within the law but people need to keep close counsel."
Holderness head huntsman Robert Howarth warned there would be a "tremendous amount of operational difficulties" and said the law was unworkable.Holderness is one of the biggest hunts in the region, with three hound packs and thousands of acres of North Yorkshire of land at its disposal, from Pocklington to the east coast. "These hounds are trained and bred to hunt for hundreds of years," Mr Howarth said. "If I'm on hound exercise and we come across a fox and the hounds go for it, technically we're not breaking the law because we aren't going out with intent.
If it means we have to wait for the next Conservative government to get back in, we will, but we will continue."
Those riding out on Saturday will run the gauntlet of anti-hunt campaigners keen to catch law-breakers. The League Against Cruel Sports said it had "monitors" who would work with police to spot crime across the country – but admitted none were available to attend Yorkshire hunts this weekend.
The Hunt Saboteurs' Association said, that in addition to spoiling tactics such as sounding horns, undercover activists would be working in Yorkshire to record evidence on video and camera.
South Yorkshire police chief superintendent Dave Turner added: "Practically, where possible, officers will be making contact with masters of hunts and organisers to discuss and negotiate. Our approach will be evidence gathering whilst maintaining responsibility for the prevention of harm to people involved."
Hope hasn't gone – but foxes may
Action 'will be low priority' for forces
Jane Charnley, Yorkshire Post
HUNTS will escape prosecution if they defy the ban on their sport, the Government admitted yesterday as senior police officers warned the new law is unenforceable.
The embarrassing admission from Home Secretary Charles Clarke that the hunting ban will not be a priority for hard-pressed police forces came as hunts across Yorkshire said they would be riding out with hounds as usual – and using loopholes in the law to do so legally.
Their pledge to carry on came as it was revealed the Association of Chief Police Officers had warned the government that policing the ban would be a nightmare, and could not be regarded as a priority.
Thousands of defiant hunt supporters across Yorkshire plan to meet lawfully on Saturday – two days after the ban comes into force – in a bid to keep the centuries-old tradition alive.
Most hunts say there are enough options open to them within the legislation to allow foxes, hares and deer to be legally chased by hounds, though guns may need to be used for the kill.
Many hunt masters remained tight-lipped about the exact form their day will take and one claimed there would definitely be some who would break the law.
Documents from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have highlighted the possibility that these would escape arrest because of the low priority attached to the legislation in the National Policing Plan, and reminded police chiefs that it "confers a power to arrest, not a duty".
While local forces say they will try to enforce the law as any other, the ACPO stance is likely to enrage anti-hunt campaigners and Labour backbenchers who pushed through the ban in November.
But Home Secretary Charles Clarke yesterday backed the move, saying: "If you look at the priorities police have to deal with – dealing with drugs, people trafficking, crime, all kinds of issues – I don't expect fox hunting to be very high on the priorities of any particular police force."
Three options will be available to hunters at the weekend, unless there is an eleventh-hour reversal of the ban by the Court of Appeal in response to a challenge of November's Hunting Act by the Countryside Alliance.
They can use two hounds to "flush out" a fox which must then be shot with a gun, they can exercise a pack of hounds or they can trail or drag hunt, which means the dogs follow a pre-laid scent.
But hunts warn it is highly likely a pack of exercising hounds could divert to chase a real fox and any legal action if the fox were killed would rely on prosecutors proving the owners went out with "intent" to hunt.
The Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA) confirmed that animals would be killed on Saturday. "I don't think anybody would be naive enough to suggest that throughout this entire process that hounds who are behaving legally will not at some stage head off for a fox," said Tim Easby, Yorkshire representative of the MFHA and master of the West of Yore hunt."I don't believe the police or anybody else would expect that to happen. Accidents will happen. Almost certainly, foxes and hares will be killed on Saturday.
The 42-year-old beef farmer and ex-soldier added: "I'm absolutely certain there are people who are going to break the law but none are known to me."West of Yore was considering all options, he said, including trail hunting with a natural fox scent. "We will hunt within the law but people need to keep close counsel."
Holderness head huntsman Robert Howarth warned there would be a "tremendous amount of operational difficulties" and said the law was unworkable.Holderness is one of the biggest hunts in the region, with three hound packs and thousands of acres of North Yorkshire of land at its disposal, from Pocklington to the east coast. "These hounds are trained and bred to hunt for hundreds of years," Mr Howarth said. "If I'm on hound exercise and we come across a fox and the hounds go for it, technically we're not breaking the law because we aren't going out with intent.
If it means we have to wait for the next Conservative government to get back in, we will, but we will continue."
Those riding out on Saturday will run the gauntlet of anti-hunt campaigners keen to catch law-breakers. The League Against Cruel Sports said it had "monitors" who would work with police to spot crime across the country – but admitted none were available to attend Yorkshire hunts this weekend.
The Hunt Saboteurs' Association said, that in addition to spoiling tactics such as sounding horns, undercover activists would be working in Yorkshire to record evidence on video and camera.
South Yorkshire police chief superintendent Dave Turner added: "Practically, where possible, officers will be making contact with masters of hunts and organisers to discuss and negotiate. Our approach will be evidence gathering whilst maintaining responsibility for the prevention of harm to people involved."
Hope hasn't gone – but foxes may
Sunday, February 13, 2005
LOW PRIORITY OF HUNT BAN
Enforcing Hunting Ban Is Low Priority for Police - Clarke
By James Lyons and Nick Mead, PA
Police chiefs are right to give a low priority to enforcing the fox hunting ban, Home Secretary Charles Clarke said today.
The pastime will finally be outlawed across England and Wales on Friday after years of political controversy.
However, those who flout it may escape arrest according to internal documents from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), published in The Observer.
“This has not been afforded high priority in the National Policing Plan,” one memo said.
ACPO also reminds senior officers that the new law “confers a power to arrest, not a duty”.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has been keen to avoid a showdown with the pro-hunting lobby which has threatened a campaign of direct action in the run-up to the election.
Mr Clarke stressed that the policing of the ban was a matter for chief constables.
But he said: “If you look at the priorities police have to deal with – dealing with drugs, people trafficking, crime, all kinds of issues – I don’t expect fox hunting to be very high on the priorities of any particular police force.
“What I do believe is that the police will be very sensitive in the way they address it.”
That risks anger from Labour backbenchers who forced through the ban.
A massive show of civil disobedience is expected next weekend with up to 400,000 supporters flocking to 270 hunts.
Potentially violent meets are to be categorised in the same way as football matches, according to the ACPO documents.
However, Mr Clarke played down the potential for trouble and said policing would be “proportionate and effective”.
“As a matter of fact, I don’t believe there will be anything like the kind of lawlessness that some people have talked about,” he told Sky News’s Sunday with Adam Boulton.
“Most people involved in hunting are law abiding individuals and I think they will respect the law.”
Earlier, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said it was “inconceivable” that members of the Royal Family would join the ranks of those who have pledged to continue hunting despite the ban.
Prince Charles, Camilla Parker Bowles and Princes William and Harry are all keen hunters.
Ms Jowell told GMTV’s Sunday Programme: “It would be inconceivable that a member of the Royal Family would continue to hunt, no matter what their passion for it.
“I’m quite sure that they’ll lead on that.”
By James Lyons and Nick Mead, PA
Police chiefs are right to give a low priority to enforcing the fox hunting ban, Home Secretary Charles Clarke said today.
The pastime will finally be outlawed across England and Wales on Friday after years of political controversy.
However, those who flout it may escape arrest according to internal documents from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), published in The Observer.
“This has not been afforded high priority in the National Policing Plan,” one memo said.
ACPO also reminds senior officers that the new law “confers a power to arrest, not a duty”.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has been keen to avoid a showdown with the pro-hunting lobby which has threatened a campaign of direct action in the run-up to the election.
Mr Clarke stressed that the policing of the ban was a matter for chief constables.
But he said: “If you look at the priorities police have to deal with – dealing with drugs, people trafficking, crime, all kinds of issues – I don’t expect fox hunting to be very high on the priorities of any particular police force.
“What I do believe is that the police will be very sensitive in the way they address it.”
That risks anger from Labour backbenchers who forced through the ban.
A massive show of civil disobedience is expected next weekend with up to 400,000 supporters flocking to 270 hunts.
Potentially violent meets are to be categorised in the same way as football matches, according to the ACPO documents.
However, Mr Clarke played down the potential for trouble and said policing would be “proportionate and effective”.
“As a matter of fact, I don’t believe there will be anything like the kind of lawlessness that some people have talked about,” he told Sky News’s Sunday with Adam Boulton.
“Most people involved in hunting are law abiding individuals and I think they will respect the law.”
Earlier, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said it was “inconceivable” that members of the Royal Family would join the ranks of those who have pledged to continue hunting despite the ban.
Prince Charles, Camilla Parker Bowles and Princes William and Harry are all keen hunters.
Ms Jowell told GMTV’s Sunday Programme: “It would be inconceivable that a member of the Royal Family would continue to hunt, no matter what their passion for it.
“I’m quite sure that they’ll lead on that.”
50,000 TO DEFY BAN
50,000 prepare to defy hunting ban on its first weekend
By Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor, Telegraph (Filed: 13/02/2005)
About 50,000 people are to defy the ban on hunting which comes into force this week by taking part in choreographed trail hunts at the weekend using foxes that were killed earlier.
Up to 250 hunts will demonstrate their intention to survive by congregating at pubs, village greens and town centres across England and Wales on Saturday in one of the biggest mass meets in history.
Although all those taking part will ostensibly be setting off on legal trail hunts, with packs of hounds chasing the scent of a dead fox that has been dragged across the countryside, some are expected to use the cover of the events to break the law by chasing and killing foxes with a full pack of hounds.
Huntsmen say that in addition to deliberate law-breaking, they also expect some foxes to be killed by hounds that run out of control. With such large numbers of people engaged in the hunts, the expectation is that the police will find it difficult in the extreme to identify the perpetrators of any law-breaking that does take place.
Graeme Worsley, the master of the Old Surrey, Burstow and West Kent, said that his hunt would obey the law but others would not.
"There will be hotheads in some parts of the country who will kill foxes on purpose to put two fingers up to the police," he said.
"This Saturday we will not intentionally kill a fox. We will probably go out and shoot one to use and drag around. If a farmer on the day says he has a problem with a fox we may well hold the pack back and take two hounds to flush it out and shoot it, then chuck it to the hounds. It is ridiculous."
Mr Worsley warned that there was a higher risk of bad practice than ever before because the new sport would no longer be regulated by the Masters of Foxhounds Association. "The red book is out the window now," he said.
Another hunt master said: "I have no doubt that accidents will happen where inadvertently we will find a fox when we are chasing a trail. Drag hunts do from time to time kill live quarry and the same will happen with us." Another said: "Will we try to inadvertently kill a fox? Yes, we'd love to."
Preparations for the trail hunts have been under way for weeks and special guidance, obtained by The Telegraph, has been issued by the Council of Hunting Associations. It instructs hunts to use scent from foxes killed legally, fox droppings or even road kill to prepare for the trail hunts.
The document states that hunts should not seek to break the law by chasing live animals with a full pack of hounds but gives tacit acknowledgement of the fact that some people will do this by stating: "If you choose to hunt in direct defiance of the law you must consider the possible consequences to your hunt staff and access to farmland and appreciate that you will not have insurance cover." Farmers who have given permission for hunting to continue on their land have made clear that it must be legal. They are afraid that they will lose Government payments they receive under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme if they play host to law-breaking.
The memo has some intriguing recipes for artificially laid scent. It suggests using: "1. The liquid from a drum containing dead foxes scalded with hot water. The water should cover the carcasses and these should be replaced before they become rotten. 2. The dragging of fresh fox carcasses. 3. Fox urine mixed with aniseed and paraffin. 4. Fresh fox droppings put in a sock and moistened. So far the best results have come from 1 and 3 with the scent lightly laid."
Although the Council of Hunting Associations insists that trail hunting is only a temporary measure, some hunting devotees are horrified by the plans. They say that a sport noted for its aesthetic qualities will become a joke with the "here's one I prepared earlier" strategy.
Mike Felton, the joint master of the Blackmore and Sparkford Vale, said: "Nobody likes doing this. The whole thing is hugely undignified. It will be a sad day but it is beholden on us to make sure the structure stays in place."
Hunts are also being advised to take advantage of a small but significant loophole in the law that allows them to use two hounds to chase a fox towards a gun. This means that they can style themselves a pest control service.
The memo explains: "Some hunts might try a couple of hours either hound exercising or trailing before boxing up the pack and going flushing with two hounds – also taking the mounted followers as additional flushers. You will also need at least one person `visible' with a gun."
Hunts are co-operating with the police by briefing officers on their plans. Cleveland Police have told huntsmen that at least one officer will attend every meet. Dorset Police have told hunts they must inform them immediately if they kill a fox.
However, in its guidance to assistant chief constables, the Association of Chief Police Officers makes clear that the priority is to protect people, not animals. It states: "The primary responsibility is the prevention of harm to all people involved... The investigation of offences and the apprehension of offenders is a lower priority than the maintenance of order and safety."
Mike Hobday, a spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports, said hunts were being reckless by not training their hounds to follow a new scent.
"This could easily turn into illegal hunting and that will be spotted by people in the countryside. People are putting themselves in grave danger of breaking the law."
The league has set up a "Hunt Crime Watch" scheme urging animal rights activists to gather video evidence of law-breaking.
The Council of Hunting Associations says that although trail hunts will help to maintain the infrastructure of hunting life, they cannot be a permanent solution: "It has no utilitarian value to farmers, wildlife management and habitat conservation."
The ban on hunting with hounds will come into force on Thursday if, as expected, a second legal challenge fails. The Court of Appeal is due to rule this week on whether the challenge to the 1949 Parliament Act, used to force through the ban, has succeeded.
The Countryside Alliance has also lodged papers with the High Court seeking a judicial review on human rights grounds.
By Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor, Telegraph (Filed: 13/02/2005)
About 50,000 people are to defy the ban on hunting which comes into force this week by taking part in choreographed trail hunts at the weekend using foxes that were killed earlier.
Up to 250 hunts will demonstrate their intention to survive by congregating at pubs, village greens and town centres across England and Wales on Saturday in one of the biggest mass meets in history.
Although all those taking part will ostensibly be setting off on legal trail hunts, with packs of hounds chasing the scent of a dead fox that has been dragged across the countryside, some are expected to use the cover of the events to break the law by chasing and killing foxes with a full pack of hounds.
Huntsmen say that in addition to deliberate law-breaking, they also expect some foxes to be killed by hounds that run out of control. With such large numbers of people engaged in the hunts, the expectation is that the police will find it difficult in the extreme to identify the perpetrators of any law-breaking that does take place.
Graeme Worsley, the master of the Old Surrey, Burstow and West Kent, said that his hunt would obey the law but others would not.
"There will be hotheads in some parts of the country who will kill foxes on purpose to put two fingers up to the police," he said.
"This Saturday we will not intentionally kill a fox. We will probably go out and shoot one to use and drag around. If a farmer on the day says he has a problem with a fox we may well hold the pack back and take two hounds to flush it out and shoot it, then chuck it to the hounds. It is ridiculous."
Mr Worsley warned that there was a higher risk of bad practice than ever before because the new sport would no longer be regulated by the Masters of Foxhounds Association. "The red book is out the window now," he said.
Another hunt master said: "I have no doubt that accidents will happen where inadvertently we will find a fox when we are chasing a trail. Drag hunts do from time to time kill live quarry and the same will happen with us." Another said: "Will we try to inadvertently kill a fox? Yes, we'd love to."
Preparations for the trail hunts have been under way for weeks and special guidance, obtained by The Telegraph, has been issued by the Council of Hunting Associations. It instructs hunts to use scent from foxes killed legally, fox droppings or even road kill to prepare for the trail hunts.
The document states that hunts should not seek to break the law by chasing live animals with a full pack of hounds but gives tacit acknowledgement of the fact that some people will do this by stating: "If you choose to hunt in direct defiance of the law you must consider the possible consequences to your hunt staff and access to farmland and appreciate that you will not have insurance cover." Farmers who have given permission for hunting to continue on their land have made clear that it must be legal. They are afraid that they will lose Government payments they receive under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme if they play host to law-breaking.
The memo has some intriguing recipes for artificially laid scent. It suggests using: "1. The liquid from a drum containing dead foxes scalded with hot water. The water should cover the carcasses and these should be replaced before they become rotten. 2. The dragging of fresh fox carcasses. 3. Fox urine mixed with aniseed and paraffin. 4. Fresh fox droppings put in a sock and moistened. So far the best results have come from 1 and 3 with the scent lightly laid."
Although the Council of Hunting Associations insists that trail hunting is only a temporary measure, some hunting devotees are horrified by the plans. They say that a sport noted for its aesthetic qualities will become a joke with the "here's one I prepared earlier" strategy.
Mike Felton, the joint master of the Blackmore and Sparkford Vale, said: "Nobody likes doing this. The whole thing is hugely undignified. It will be a sad day but it is beholden on us to make sure the structure stays in place."
Hunts are also being advised to take advantage of a small but significant loophole in the law that allows them to use two hounds to chase a fox towards a gun. This means that they can style themselves a pest control service.
The memo explains: "Some hunts might try a couple of hours either hound exercising or trailing before boxing up the pack and going flushing with two hounds – also taking the mounted followers as additional flushers. You will also need at least one person `visible' with a gun."
Hunts are co-operating with the police by briefing officers on their plans. Cleveland Police have told huntsmen that at least one officer will attend every meet. Dorset Police have told hunts they must inform them immediately if they kill a fox.
However, in its guidance to assistant chief constables, the Association of Chief Police Officers makes clear that the priority is to protect people, not animals. It states: "The primary responsibility is the prevention of harm to all people involved... The investigation of offences and the apprehension of offenders is a lower priority than the maintenance of order and safety."
Mike Hobday, a spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports, said hunts were being reckless by not training their hounds to follow a new scent.
"This could easily turn into illegal hunting and that will be spotted by people in the countryside. People are putting themselves in grave danger of breaking the law."
The league has set up a "Hunt Crime Watch" scheme urging animal rights activists to gather video evidence of law-breaking.
The Council of Hunting Associations says that although trail hunts will help to maintain the infrastructure of hunting life, they cannot be a permanent solution: "It has no utilitarian value to farmers, wildlife management and habitat conservation."
The ban on hunting with hounds will come into force on Thursday if, as expected, a second legal challenge fails. The Court of Appeal is due to rule this week on whether the challenge to the 1949 Parliament Act, used to force through the ban, has succeeded.
The Countryside Alliance has also lodged papers with the High Court seeking a judicial review on human rights grounds.
Friday, February 11, 2005
HUNTING GRACE
Praise to the Lord for a fine hunting morn,
Praise for our food and the sound of the horn,
Praise for our wine, the fences, the ditches.
Ditches which crumble, we fumble, we tumble;
Praise to the Lord for a day with the Quorn.
Reverand Rex Hancock
Wonder if I could make some modifications and slot Fitzwilliam into the last line...
Thursday, February 10, 2005
DRUMS OF MEMORY
Former Joint-Master of the Fitzwilliam Hunt - Sir Stephen Hastings died on 10th January aged 83. He had hthe following to say on the hunting issue in his autobiography the 'Drums of Memory'
"It is not the immemorial traditions of the chase nor the ways of the countryside which should give us cause for concern, but the warped attitudes induced in urban man. Worse still there are those in public life and in considerable authority who know this to be true, but dare not say so lest they appear politically incorrect"
"It is not the immemorial traditions of the chase nor the ways of the countryside which should give us cause for concern, but the warped attitudes induced in urban man. Worse still there are those in public life and in considerable authority who know this to be true, but dare not say so lest they appear politically incorrect"
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
VOTES LOST
‘MP has lost my vote at the next election’
So Helen Clark wants to give the vote to all prisoners for Parliamentary and local elections. This would, I assume, include the Yorkshire Ripper and all the other notorious murderers serving life for horrendous crimes, and she wants their votes.
Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime was the Labour Party’s promise. Mrs Clark should be campaigning for hard labour for lifers with no access to TVs, computers, games machines, etc, Not to give them back privileges that had been taken away.
I voted for Mrs Clark at the last election, but will never vote for her again.
My son Scott was brutally murdered in 1998.
His mother gets through life with the help of anti-depressents. She cannot walk over Rhubarb Bridge in Peterborough (scene of the murder, 400 yards from our house) or to the local supermarket. She feels trapped.
She used to be a very outgoing person but is a shadow of her former self, and Mrs Clark’s priorities are towards the boy responsible for her being this way.
At the forthcoming election, I hope Helen Clark will become known as Peterborough’s
ex-MP.
Stephen Kisbee
Scotney Street,
New England,
Peterborough
So Helen Clark wants to give the vote to all prisoners for Parliamentary and local elections. This would, I assume, include the Yorkshire Ripper and all the other notorious murderers serving life for horrendous crimes, and she wants their votes.
Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime was the Labour Party’s promise. Mrs Clark should be campaigning for hard labour for lifers with no access to TVs, computers, games machines, etc, Not to give them back privileges that had been taken away.
I voted for Mrs Clark at the last election, but will never vote for her again.
My son Scott was brutally murdered in 1998.
His mother gets through life with the help of anti-depressents. She cannot walk over Rhubarb Bridge in Peterborough (scene of the murder, 400 yards from our house) or to the local supermarket. She feels trapped.
She used to be a very outgoing person but is a shadow of her former self, and Mrs Clark’s priorities are towards the boy responsible for her being this way.
At the forthcoming election, I hope Helen Clark will become known as Peterborough’s
ex-MP.
Stephen Kisbee
Scotney Street,
New England,
Peterborough
POLICE INVESTIGATED
I saw the effects of this policing and a level of force which leaves two unarmed Fitz ladies with serious cuts and bruises and our whipper-in with a cut so deep to his face that it required stitching can surely not be justified.
Police investigated over protest -BBC
Protestors were using their 'right to demonstrate'Up to 22 Met police officers are being investigated over alleged "excessive use of force" during a pro-hunting demonstration in London.
It is thought to be the biggest inquiry carried out by the new Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
Up to 1,000 officers clashed with some of the protesters opposing the vote to ban fox hunting, in Parliament Square in September 2004.
John Cummins from the IPCC said it was a difficult investigation.
"At any one time during the afternoon there was up to 20,000 people in Parliament Square," he told BBC News.
"It has been a challenge to us to contact as many witnesses as possible."
More than 100 hours of video footage is being examined, mainly from CCTV cameras, and 450 statements have been taken.
Darren Hughes from the Countryside Alliance said there was a huge amount of frustration and quite a lot of anger amongst those who took part in the protest.
"These people feel they're law abiding citizens who were using their right to demonstrate and were harshly treated by the police," he said.
John Wadham, deputy chairman of the IPCC said: "We'll have to look at the lessons that need to be learnt about what went wrong and what could have been done to achieve a safer and peaceful demonstration."
Officers will be interviewed this month and the results are expected to be published in the summer.
The Met and the Police Federation have refused to comment.
Police investigated over protest -BBC
Protestors were using their 'right to demonstrate'Up to 22 Met police officers are being investigated over alleged "excessive use of force" during a pro-hunting demonstration in London.
It is thought to be the biggest inquiry carried out by the new Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
Up to 1,000 officers clashed with some of the protesters opposing the vote to ban fox hunting, in Parliament Square in September 2004.
John Cummins from the IPCC said it was a difficult investigation.
"At any one time during the afternoon there was up to 20,000 people in Parliament Square," he told BBC News.
"It has been a challenge to us to contact as many witnesses as possible."
More than 100 hours of video footage is being examined, mainly from CCTV cameras, and 450 statements have been taken.
Darren Hughes from the Countryside Alliance said there was a huge amount of frustration and quite a lot of anger amongst those who took part in the protest.
"These people feel they're law abiding citizens who were using their right to demonstrate and were harshly treated by the police," he said.
John Wadham, deputy chairman of the IPCC said: "We'll have to look at the lessons that need to be learnt about what went wrong and what could have been done to achieve a safer and peaceful demonstration."
Officers will be interviewed this month and the results are expected to be published in the summer.
The Met and the Police Federation have refused to comment.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
ROUND TWO
BBC Online
The Parliament Act was used to force a ban on hunting with dogs Campaigners trying to overturn the law banning hunting with dogs in England and Wales are set to take their case to the Court of Appeal.
Last month, the High Court rejected the Countryside Alliance's argument the law was unsound as the 1949 Parliament Act used to pass it was itself invalid.
The alliance may ask for an injunction delaying the ban from starting on 18 February, pending the appeal decision.
Animal welfare groups welcomed the ban and will act to prevent its delay.
The League Against Cruel Sports has said it will make legal representations against an injunction, which could delay implementation of the Act until September.
Lawyers for the Countryside Alliance based their legal case on claims that the 1949 Parliament Act, which lets the House of Commons overrule the House of Lords, was itself invalid because it was never passed by peers.
Commons Speaker Michael Martin invoked the Parliament Act for only the fourth time in 55 years to get the new law past the House of Lords, which was opposed to the ban.
A win for the alliance would have been constitutionally significant as it would have rendered a number of other laws passed under the Act questionable.
But in January, Lord Justice Maurice Kay, sitting with Mr Justice Collins, ruled the 1911 Parliament Act had allowed provision for amendments to the legislation.
The alliance is also mounting a challenge to the ban on human rights grounds, which could end up in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Tuesday's appeal is being heard by Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, sitting with the Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips, and Lord Justice May.
If they decide to uphold the ban, which affects England and Wales, it could still come into force in February.
However, the Alliance has said it may seek an injunction preventing prosecutions under the Hunting Act until all of its legal challenges have been resolved, a process which could take years - thus delaying a ban.
But it can only do this if it is granted leave to make a final appeal to the House of Lords, although the government has said it will not block an injunction.
The Parliament Act was used to force a ban on hunting with dogs Campaigners trying to overturn the law banning hunting with dogs in England and Wales are set to take their case to the Court of Appeal.
Last month, the High Court rejected the Countryside Alliance's argument the law was unsound as the 1949 Parliament Act used to pass it was itself invalid.
The alliance may ask for an injunction delaying the ban from starting on 18 February, pending the appeal decision.
Animal welfare groups welcomed the ban and will act to prevent its delay.
The League Against Cruel Sports has said it will make legal representations against an injunction, which could delay implementation of the Act until September.
Lawyers for the Countryside Alliance based their legal case on claims that the 1949 Parliament Act, which lets the House of Commons overrule the House of Lords, was itself invalid because it was never passed by peers.
Commons Speaker Michael Martin invoked the Parliament Act for only the fourth time in 55 years to get the new law past the House of Lords, which was opposed to the ban.
A win for the alliance would have been constitutionally significant as it would have rendered a number of other laws passed under the Act questionable.
But in January, Lord Justice Maurice Kay, sitting with Mr Justice Collins, ruled the 1911 Parliament Act had allowed provision for amendments to the legislation.
The alliance is also mounting a challenge to the ban on human rights grounds, which could end up in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Tuesday's appeal is being heard by Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, sitting with the Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips, and Lord Justice May.
If they decide to uphold the ban, which affects England and Wales, it could still come into force in February.
However, the Alliance has said it may seek an injunction preventing prosecutions under the Hunting Act until all of its legal challenges have been resolved, a process which could take years - thus delaying a ban.
But it can only do this if it is granted leave to make a final appeal to the House of Lords, although the government has said it will not block an injunction.
FORESTRY COMMISSION - HUNT ON
Assembly 'breaking hunting law'
Feb 7 2005
Martin Shipton, Western Mail
THE Welsh Assembly Government has been accused of breaking the law by continuing to allow hunting on its land.
The UK's biggest anti-hunt organisation has warned Environment Minister Carwyn Jones that plans to issue licences for fox control on Forestry Commission land could prove illegal under the new Hunting Act.
Douglas Batchelor, chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, said, "Fox control is unnecessary on Forestry Commission land - foxes cause no damage to trees. Parliament has accepted that fox hunting is cruel."
The killing of foxes will only be permitted after February 18 under strict licensing conditions related to pest control.
Mr Batchelor said, "We believe it is illegal for landowners to permit 'exempt' fox control where they know that illegal hunting would take place.
"Fox hounds cannot be controlled in a large forestry tract. Such fox control would inevitably be illegal. And landowners who knowingly permit illegal hunting would themselves be breaking the law."
The League has asked for a meeting with Mr Jones to discuss the issue.
Under the Act, no offence is committed if an authorised person uses no more than two dogs to flush a fox from cover in order to shoot it. Sub paragraph 1(7) requires that each dog "is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct" such shooting. The League's case is that such control is impossible in a large forestry tract and that illegal hunting is therefore inevitable.
Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael warned landowners two years ago that if they "were aware that an offence would take place, it would be their responsibility to make sure that it did not".
Under the devolution settlement, the Assembly Government has been responsible for the hunting and fox control licences issued by the Forestry Commission. Last month Mr Jones announced that a revised licence would be issued once the new Act begins operating this month.
He said, "This licence will allow exempt hunting on Forestry Commission-managed land within the provisions of the Act to allow pest control to protect livestock, birds, crops and bio-diversity."
Clive Davies, Forestry Commission Wales spokesman, said, "Licences, for which we do not charge, are awarded every year to fox control societies and hunts. Typically the licences run from October until early spring. We don't make a charge because traditionally this has been looked upon as part of our good neighbour and pest control policy.
"Most fox control societies are very localised and consist of farmers who shoot foxes. We do our best to enjoy good relations with our neighbours and we hope that will continue in the future. Our position is that we will uphold the law as it stands, and that licences which have been issued will be terminated when the ban comes into effect on February 18. It is intended, however, to issue licences covering exempt circumstances."
John Griffiths, Newport East Labour AM and a fervent opponent of hunting, said, "The Forestry Commission in Wales should stop hunting on Forestry Commission land as quickly as possible.
"Several years ago I raised the issue of these licences at the Assembly agriculture committee and was told that legal and technical difficulties made it impossible to ban hunting on Forestry Commission land. When I pressed for more specific information, it wasn't forthcoming. No doubt relationships have been built up between Forestry Commission officials and the licence holders, but the situation is now entirely different."
A Countryside Alliance spokesman said, "This shows how little the League Against Cruel Sports understands about the management of wildlife. The Forestry Commission has a duty to control foxes on its land because of the danger to livestock on neighbouring farms."
Feb 7 2005
Martin Shipton, Western Mail
THE Welsh Assembly Government has been accused of breaking the law by continuing to allow hunting on its land.
The UK's biggest anti-hunt organisation has warned Environment Minister Carwyn Jones that plans to issue licences for fox control on Forestry Commission land could prove illegal under the new Hunting Act.
Douglas Batchelor, chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, said, "Fox control is unnecessary on Forestry Commission land - foxes cause no damage to trees. Parliament has accepted that fox hunting is cruel."
The killing of foxes will only be permitted after February 18 under strict licensing conditions related to pest control.
Mr Batchelor said, "We believe it is illegal for landowners to permit 'exempt' fox control where they know that illegal hunting would take place.
"Fox hounds cannot be controlled in a large forestry tract. Such fox control would inevitably be illegal. And landowners who knowingly permit illegal hunting would themselves be breaking the law."
The League has asked for a meeting with Mr Jones to discuss the issue.
Under the Act, no offence is committed if an authorised person uses no more than two dogs to flush a fox from cover in order to shoot it. Sub paragraph 1(7) requires that each dog "is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct" such shooting. The League's case is that such control is impossible in a large forestry tract and that illegal hunting is therefore inevitable.
Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael warned landowners two years ago that if they "were aware that an offence would take place, it would be their responsibility to make sure that it did not".
Under the devolution settlement, the Assembly Government has been responsible for the hunting and fox control licences issued by the Forestry Commission. Last month Mr Jones announced that a revised licence would be issued once the new Act begins operating this month.
He said, "This licence will allow exempt hunting on Forestry Commission-managed land within the provisions of the Act to allow pest control to protect livestock, birds, crops and bio-diversity."
Clive Davies, Forestry Commission Wales spokesman, said, "Licences, for which we do not charge, are awarded every year to fox control societies and hunts. Typically the licences run from October until early spring. We don't make a charge because traditionally this has been looked upon as part of our good neighbour and pest control policy.
"Most fox control societies are very localised and consist of farmers who shoot foxes. We do our best to enjoy good relations with our neighbours and we hope that will continue in the future. Our position is that we will uphold the law as it stands, and that licences which have been issued will be terminated when the ban comes into effect on February 18. It is intended, however, to issue licences covering exempt circumstances."
John Griffiths, Newport East Labour AM and a fervent opponent of hunting, said, "The Forestry Commission in Wales should stop hunting on Forestry Commission land as quickly as possible.
"Several years ago I raised the issue of these licences at the Assembly agriculture committee and was told that legal and technical difficulties made it impossible to ban hunting on Forestry Commission land. When I pressed for more specific information, it wasn't forthcoming. No doubt relationships have been built up between Forestry Commission officials and the licence holders, but the situation is now entirely different."
A Countryside Alliance spokesman said, "This shows how little the League Against Cruel Sports understands about the management of wildlife. The Forestry Commission has a duty to control foxes on its land because of the danger to livestock on neighbouring farms."
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
POLICING NIGHTMARE
An internal document looks at appropriate tactics to enforce the ban and identifies a vast number of hurdles the force will have to negotiate after 18 February Police will have a hard task enforcing the hunting act after it comes into effect later this month.
In a document addressed to all Assistant Chief Constables for Operations and leaked to the press, Assistant Chief Constable Nigel Yeo details the tactics, which the force will employ after 18 February. Yeo never says so openly, but the document conveys a sense that enforcing the Act will be fraught with problems.
“It is difficult to envisage a situation in which it will be practicable for police to intercept a hunt and persons in the act of hunting,” he writes. “Indeed, to do so, is likely to present considerable difficulties, both in executing such an action and discharging our duties to prisoners' properties (including animals).”
Countryside Alliance's spokesman, Tim Bonner, believes that “the document shows the government have allowed a bad piece of legislation to be passed and have put the police in a difficult situation. It is very unlikely that the police are going to intervene in a hunt and arrest people. What they are going to do, if they think illegal activities are going on, is to gather evidence.”
And indeed, Yeo suggests that police should gather significant evidence with a view to prosecuting people who hunt illegally. But collecting evidence will in itself prove difficult. Using helicopters to film videos “would be unwise”, because they may frighten horses, endangering riders and foot followers. “Equally, the viability of pursuing hunts on foot, horseback or in suitable vehicles, I would suggest, is slim,” writes Yeo.
The police will then have to rely on statements from the public, but this poses another problem. Telling legal and illegal hunting apart is hard enough for legal experts that members of the general public may easily get it wrong. “It is expected that the forces will receive a number of allegations from well-meaning members of the public alleging that hunting is going on in contravention of the ban,” warns Yeo.
Alistair Jackson of the MFHA hasn't thoroughly reviewed the police document but expects that “a lot of people will be calling who got the wrong end of the stick. That's the advantage of hunts telling the police what they are doing and where. It's helpful if the police knows if hunts are trail hunting,” he says.
And indeed Yeo urges the police in his document to identify where and when legal hunting will take place “to discount well-meaning but inaccurate allegations,” and suggests to engage a “helpful dialogue” with legal hunts, legitimate anti-hunting organisations, the Crown Prosecution Services and landowners' representatives at local level.
The police also expects hunt monitors from the International Fund for Animal Welfare to volunteer their help “to secure prosecutions relevant to anything they identify.” But this causes another major headache for constables throughout the country. First, because where legal hunting takes place, people interfering with the hunt would still be guilty of aggravated trespass. And, more importantly, because the proximity of anti-hunting activists and hunt followers risks causing “breaches of the peace.”
“I would feel that in the immediate aftermath of the implementation of the Act, this is likely to be the greater problem, and certainly has the greatest risk to public safety,” Yeo writes, suggesting that police should apply “the normal principles of public order policing and the conflict management model on such occasions.”
Bonner, however, disagrees that confrontation among the two groups may be a problem. “The idea that there is an army of anti-hunting activists policing the hunts is not realistic. There are very, very few of them. There is a handful of anti-hunting supporters across the country [who] will continue to attend meets after 18 February.”
Beyond any practical consideration, however, the police is clearly aware that the effort required to enforce the ban risks detracting resources from other tasks. He insists that “the police role is to enforce the law but the implementation of the Hunting Act must be set against other operational priorities facing the Chief Constable.”
Priorities and how policing the hunt ban fits in them should be assessed locally and subject to a regular review of their “community impact”. This is especially relevant in view of the fact that offences under the Hunting Act are not recordable or notifiable under the national crime recording standards and anyone convicted of these offences will not be assigned a criminal record and unique reference number from the National Identification Bureau.
Yeo suggests that the police should point out to the press and public that they “will enforce the law in the context of local priorities and set against other demands on police, bearing in mind that this has not been afforded high priority in the National Policing Plan, breaches of the Act are not themselves notifiable or recordable offences and not covered by national crime recording standards.”
Bonner puts it more succinctly: “Throughout the document, you can sense that the police have better things to be doing.”
Horse & Hound
In a document addressed to all Assistant Chief Constables for Operations and leaked to the press, Assistant Chief Constable Nigel Yeo details the tactics, which the force will employ after 18 February. Yeo never says so openly, but the document conveys a sense that enforcing the Act will be fraught with problems.
“It is difficult to envisage a situation in which it will be practicable for police to intercept a hunt and persons in the act of hunting,” he writes. “Indeed, to do so, is likely to present considerable difficulties, both in executing such an action and discharging our duties to prisoners' properties (including animals).”
Countryside Alliance's spokesman, Tim Bonner, believes that “the document shows the government have allowed a bad piece of legislation to be passed and have put the police in a difficult situation. It is very unlikely that the police are going to intervene in a hunt and arrest people. What they are going to do, if they think illegal activities are going on, is to gather evidence.”
And indeed, Yeo suggests that police should gather significant evidence with a view to prosecuting people who hunt illegally. But collecting evidence will in itself prove difficult. Using helicopters to film videos “would be unwise”, because they may frighten horses, endangering riders and foot followers. “Equally, the viability of pursuing hunts on foot, horseback or in suitable vehicles, I would suggest, is slim,” writes Yeo.
The police will then have to rely on statements from the public, but this poses another problem. Telling legal and illegal hunting apart is hard enough for legal experts that members of the general public may easily get it wrong. “It is expected that the forces will receive a number of allegations from well-meaning members of the public alleging that hunting is going on in contravention of the ban,” warns Yeo.
Alistair Jackson of the MFHA hasn't thoroughly reviewed the police document but expects that “a lot of people will be calling who got the wrong end of the stick. That's the advantage of hunts telling the police what they are doing and where. It's helpful if the police knows if hunts are trail hunting,” he says.
And indeed Yeo urges the police in his document to identify where and when legal hunting will take place “to discount well-meaning but inaccurate allegations,” and suggests to engage a “helpful dialogue” with legal hunts, legitimate anti-hunting organisations, the Crown Prosecution Services and landowners' representatives at local level.
The police also expects hunt monitors from the International Fund for Animal Welfare to volunteer their help “to secure prosecutions relevant to anything they identify.” But this causes another major headache for constables throughout the country. First, because where legal hunting takes place, people interfering with the hunt would still be guilty of aggravated trespass. And, more importantly, because the proximity of anti-hunting activists and hunt followers risks causing “breaches of the peace.”
“I would feel that in the immediate aftermath of the implementation of the Act, this is likely to be the greater problem, and certainly has the greatest risk to public safety,” Yeo writes, suggesting that police should apply “the normal principles of public order policing and the conflict management model on such occasions.”
Bonner, however, disagrees that confrontation among the two groups may be a problem. “The idea that there is an army of anti-hunting activists policing the hunts is not realistic. There are very, very few of them. There is a handful of anti-hunting supporters across the country [who] will continue to attend meets after 18 February.”
Beyond any practical consideration, however, the police is clearly aware that the effort required to enforce the ban risks detracting resources from other tasks. He insists that “the police role is to enforce the law but the implementation of the Hunting Act must be set against other operational priorities facing the Chief Constable.”
Priorities and how policing the hunt ban fits in them should be assessed locally and subject to a regular review of their “community impact”. This is especially relevant in view of the fact that offences under the Hunting Act are not recordable or notifiable under the national crime recording standards and anyone convicted of these offences will not be assigned a criminal record and unique reference number from the National Identification Bureau.
Yeo suggests that the police should point out to the press and public that they “will enforce the law in the context of local priorities and set against other demands on police, bearing in mind that this has not been afforded high priority in the National Policing Plan, breaches of the Act are not themselves notifiable or recordable offences and not covered by national crime recording standards.”
Bonner puts it more succinctly: “Throughout the document, you can sense that the police have better things to be doing.”
Horse & Hound
CLASS WAR? ONE GUY'S REALITY OF THE HUNT BAN
Class war? At Brighton I was amused by the appearance of the stereotypical "Kitten" from Channel 4’s Big Brother, who was shouting at us from across the Police lines. She was accompanied by a small band of equally stereotypical individuals and bore a placard saying, "Hunt the Rich".
I looked around, but couldn't see anyone nearby who obviously qualified as "Rich", so I can only assume she meant the New Labour Aristocracy in the Brighton Centre..............
Reasonable debate was probably suspended a few weeks before that, upon the arrival of the Government Goon Squad in Parliament Square…..clad in samurai body amour, wearing 1,000 yard stares and fear/threat grimaces, thwacking heads with their batons.
Is it a Class war? Well I reckon so. Yet I've never:
ridden a horse
followed hounds,
killed a fox with a dog,
Worn any kind of uniform, red coat, Victorian/Edwardian fancy dress out in the field
Never the less, my hunting with a Lurcher for the table will be criminalised by the Hunting Act. And there are far, far, more like me who hunt with working dogs, than there are those who ride to hounds. In order to maximise the peevish, spiteful elements of their vengeance, maybe "New" Labour should take better aim, and just ban hunting with horses...........would that hurt their intended targets enough? Is this really the best they can do, after 1,000 years of class war?
The vast majority who're impacted by the Act, will be taken back those 1,000 years, to the days of Canute’s Forrest Laws. From “no mean man shall own a hunting dog” in 1016, to “no man whatsoever shall own a hunting dog” in 2005. Yet such food gathering activity is natural, instinctive, as ingrained as the compulsion that drives my wife and daughter to pick blackberries that only I will eat.
The Labour Party has alienated hundreds of thousands of people like me. People who would be natural socialists, if it wasn’t for the divided loyalties, unnatural alliances and painful conflicts Labour’s attempts to ban our working dogs have caused us…..
Everybody knows that this Government accepted a large donation from animal rights groups, on the understanding that they’d see to it that hunting with dogs was banned. It would be easy to suggest that New Labour might accept further sums of money in the future, in exchange for the sacrifice of Shooting, then maybe Angling.
As for those that whine “give us a break”, well my response is, let those who have no stake in this, get on with their lives. But for some of us, the time has come to “resist much, obey little”………………
Welcome to Banned It Country........
By Smallmouth, February 2005
I looked around, but couldn't see anyone nearby who obviously qualified as "Rich", so I can only assume she meant the New Labour Aristocracy in the Brighton Centre..............
Reasonable debate was probably suspended a few weeks before that, upon the arrival of the Government Goon Squad in Parliament Square…..clad in samurai body amour, wearing 1,000 yard stares and fear/threat grimaces, thwacking heads with their batons.
Is it a Class war? Well I reckon so. Yet I've never:
ridden a horse
followed hounds,
killed a fox with a dog,
Worn any kind of uniform, red coat, Victorian/Edwardian fancy dress out in the field
Never the less, my hunting with a Lurcher for the table will be criminalised by the Hunting Act. And there are far, far, more like me who hunt with working dogs, than there are those who ride to hounds. In order to maximise the peevish, spiteful elements of their vengeance, maybe "New" Labour should take better aim, and just ban hunting with horses...........would that hurt their intended targets enough? Is this really the best they can do, after 1,000 years of class war?
The vast majority who're impacted by the Act, will be taken back those 1,000 years, to the days of Canute’s Forrest Laws. From “no mean man shall own a hunting dog” in 1016, to “no man whatsoever shall own a hunting dog” in 2005. Yet such food gathering activity is natural, instinctive, as ingrained as the compulsion that drives my wife and daughter to pick blackberries that only I will eat.
The Labour Party has alienated hundreds of thousands of people like me. People who would be natural socialists, if it wasn’t for the divided loyalties, unnatural alliances and painful conflicts Labour’s attempts to ban our working dogs have caused us…..
Everybody knows that this Government accepted a large donation from animal rights groups, on the understanding that they’d see to it that hunting with dogs was banned. It would be easy to suggest that New Labour might accept further sums of money in the future, in exchange for the sacrifice of Shooting, then maybe Angling.
As for those that whine “give us a break”, well my response is, let those who have no stake in this, get on with their lives. But for some of us, the time has come to “resist much, obey little”………………
Welcome to Banned It Country........
By Smallmouth, February 2005
HUNT BAN TRAMPLES ENGLISH TRADITION
Hunt ban tramples on a thousand years of English tradition
Sir: Thank you for publishing the letter from David Dear ("Hunt celebrates life", 25 January). He is absolutely right.
Early in December, I had the opportunity to go out with the Fernie of Leicestershire. On that day, I rode over some of the most beautiful countryside I have ever seen, the ancestral home of my mother's family. I had hired a wonderful horse, a mare of such quality and excellent training that I felt unworthy of her. It was so utterly moving to hunt in the country that I consider my second home, I found myself near tears.
I've never seen ordinary people ride with such courage and skill. The hunt followers, both on foot and on horseback, were hugely welcoming and friendly. Even the threat of an impending ban on an activity so central to their livelihood did not take the smiles from their faces.
Many who are in favour of the UK hunting ban will argue that foxhunting dates back only about 300 years. The truth is that your people have been hunting with hounds across the centuries. Your foxhounds are descended from animals brought during the Norman Conquest. Your hunters have been bred from crosses of ancient native British stock with the thoroughbred. The latter is a gorgeous creature, a work of art, created by the English. The hedgerows over which the hunt rides date back to Saxon times.
The right to hunt is not a priviege held by the wealthy élite. It's part of who you are as Britons; please preserve it. The ban is a smack in the face to the people who built the country, fought and died for it, and for five hundred years made it the richest and most influential nation in the world.
The hunting ban is very obviously motivated by class jealousy and cultural self-hatred disguised as compassion. It's a revenge law written by people who harbour a horror of the man on horseback.
On 19 February, I will think of the hunt staffs, followers and supporters, and be cheering for them. I urge them to fight honourably and hard in the war against the loss of their freedom. And I fully expect to return to England to hunt foxes again.
MEREDITH STRANGES Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
Sir: Thank you for publishing the letter from David Dear ("Hunt celebrates life", 25 January). He is absolutely right.
Early in December, I had the opportunity to go out with the Fernie of Leicestershire. On that day, I rode over some of the most beautiful countryside I have ever seen, the ancestral home of my mother's family. I had hired a wonderful horse, a mare of such quality and excellent training that I felt unworthy of her. It was so utterly moving to hunt in the country that I consider my second home, I found myself near tears.
I've never seen ordinary people ride with such courage and skill. The hunt followers, both on foot and on horseback, were hugely welcoming and friendly. Even the threat of an impending ban on an activity so central to their livelihood did not take the smiles from their faces.
Many who are in favour of the UK hunting ban will argue that foxhunting dates back only about 300 years. The truth is that your people have been hunting with hounds across the centuries. Your foxhounds are descended from animals brought during the Norman Conquest. Your hunters have been bred from crosses of ancient native British stock with the thoroughbred. The latter is a gorgeous creature, a work of art, created by the English. The hedgerows over which the hunt rides date back to Saxon times.
The right to hunt is not a priviege held by the wealthy élite. It's part of who you are as Britons; please preserve it. The ban is a smack in the face to the people who built the country, fought and died for it, and for five hundred years made it the richest and most influential nation in the world.
The hunting ban is very obviously motivated by class jealousy and cultural self-hatred disguised as compassion. It's a revenge law written by people who harbour a horror of the man on horseback.
On 19 February, I will think of the hunt staffs, followers and supporters, and be cheering for them. I urge them to fight honourably and hard in the war against the loss of their freedom. And I fully expect to return to England to hunt foxes again.
MEREDITH STRANGES Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
