UPDATE: Heythrop found guilty of illegal fox hunting

Bicester Advertiser: Julian Barnfield Julian Barnfield

MEMBERS of Oxfordshire’s Heythrop Hunt were yesterday convicted of illegal fox hunting in the first such prosecution ever mounted by the RSPCA.

The Heythrop Hunt, along with members Julian Barnfield, 49, and Richard Sumner, 68, admitted a total of 12 counts of unlawful hunting with dogs.

The case was the first where a whole hunt has faced corporate charges and was also the first taken by the RSPCA involving the prosecution of a hunt itself.

Footage of hounds dragging the body of a fox across a muddy field was played to the courtroom as the offences were outlined to District Judge Tim Pattinson.

The hearing, at Oxford Magistrates’ Court, was told the Heythrop Hunt met on four occasions and hunted foxes with dogs, in contravention of the Hunting Act 2004.

Jeremy Carter-Manning QC, prosecuting on behalf of the RSPCA, said the footage showed evidence of “prolonged and deliberate unlawful hunting”.

Mr Carter-Manning said: “The foxes are clearly seen by a number of relevant people, including Mr Sumner and Mr Barnfield and others. They are seen actively pursuing the hounds in pursuit of a fox.”

Both men and the Heythrop Hunt admitted four counts of unlawfully hunting a fox with dogs.

The offences took place on November 23 and November 30 last year as well as February 29 and March 7 this year.

Philip Mott QC, defending, said during that period there would have been around 100 hunts, each lasting some five hours.

He said: “What you have here is unlawful hunting, shown and admitted, of no more than 15 minutes in total.

“It’s our case that the rest of the time this hunt was operating trail hunting.”

Retired huntsman Barnfield, 49, of Worcester Road, Chipping Norton, and retired huntmaster Sumner, 68, of Salperton, Gloucestershire, each admitted four charges of unlawfully hunting a fox with dogs.

Sentencing, District Judge Pattinson said: “Hunting foxes provokes extremely strong feelings on both sides of the argument.

“Some people see hunting foxes as cruel and immoral.

“Others see hunting as an essential and traditional part of countryside management and they say that criminalising the activity is inappropriate.”

Barnfield was fined a total of £1,000 and ordered to pay £2,000 costs and Sumner was fined a total of £1,800 and ordered to pay £2,500 costs. Both men were also ordered to pay a £15 victims’ surcharge. The Heythrop Hunt was fined a total of £4,000, costs of £15,000 and a £15 victims’ surcharge.

The case was based on footage shot by independent monitors and passed to the RSPCA. It then deployed an undercover unit to investigate before deciding to go ahead with the prosecution.

A statement released on behalf of the independent monitors said: “This prosecution should teach hunts that they can no longer ride roughshod over the law of the land.

“We will not rest until we see this illegal animal abuse stamped out once and for all.”

Outside court, Barnfield said of the hunt monitors: “These people are vigilantes following me around and filming me. I’m not allowed to follow them around Tesco and see if they steal a tin of beans.”

The two men and the company each admitted four charges of unlawfully hunting a wild mammal, namely a fox, with dogs.

The first instance took place in the vicinity of Church Westcote, Gloucestershire, on November 23, 2011.

The second occurred near Evenlode, Gloucestershire, on November 30 last year.

The third charge related to hunting on February 29 this year on land near Chastleton, Oxfordshire.

The fourth incident took place near Bourton-on-the-Water, Gloucestershire, on March 7 this year.

Comments (76)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:17am Tue 18 Dec 12

livid99 says...

QUOTE: "Outside court, Barnfield said of the hunt monitors: “These people are vigilantes following me around and filming me. I’m not allowed to follow them around Tesco and see if they steal a tin of beans.”

Typical attitude of these stuck-up people. Assumes the people keeping an eye on him are petty criminals, while HE is the one committing the crime !

This is good news for a change. Its always nice to see stuck-up toffs who think they are above the law get caught.
QUOTE: "Outside court, Barnfield said of the hunt monitors: “These people are vigilantes following me around and filming me. I’m not allowed to follow them around Tesco and see if they steal a tin of beans.” Typical attitude of these stuck-up people. Assumes the people keeping an eye on him are petty criminals, while HE is the one committing the crime ! This is good news for a change. Its always nice to see stuck-up toffs who think they are above the law get caught. livid99
  • Score: 0

10:18am Tue 18 Dec 12

## Nonny Mouse ## says...

Oooh. You left the comments section on this one open... Should be 'interesting'. *ducks for cover*
Oooh. You left the comments section on this one open... Should be 'interesting'. *ducks for cover* ## Nonny Mouse ##
  • Score: 0

10:33am Tue 18 Dec 12

snert says...

## Nonny Mouse ## wrote:
Oooh. You left the comments section on this one open... Should be 'interesting'. *ducks for cover*
Yeah. More often than not these days the comments are turned off. Why have a comments section when it seems routine to turn it off.

With regards to Mr Barnfields comments... of course they follow you to make sure you don't do what you've just been convicted of doing. You are free to follow them into Tesco to see if they pinch a tin of beans but you'll probably find the vast majority of them are law abiding citizens... unlike you it would appear.
[quote][p][bold]## Nonny Mouse ##[/bold] wrote: Oooh. You left the comments section on this one open... Should be 'interesting'. *ducks for cover*[/p][/quote]Yeah. More often than not these days the comments are turned off. Why have a comments section when it seems routine to turn it off. With regards to Mr Barnfields comments... of course they follow you to make sure you don't do what you've just been convicted of doing. You are free to follow them into Tesco to see if they pinch a tin of beans but you'll probably find the vast majority of them are law abiding citizens... unlike you it would appear. snert
  • Score: 0

11:12am Tue 18 Dec 12

to ny w says...

Interesting that the comments button is turned off because I wanted to leave one regarding the chap and his terrier who were doing a public service killing rats.
He admitted it, for goodness sake!!
Surely with this damning evidence RSPCA will be pursuing a private prosecution against him, because the law covers this action and technically he is breaking the law.
Interesting that Oxford Mail wouldn't let anybody comment on this humble ruralman, but the Heythrop Hunt seem to be fair game for anybody to take a pot shot at.
Answers please.......
Interesting that the comments button is turned off because I wanted to leave one regarding the chap and his terrier who were doing a public service killing rats. He admitted it, for goodness sake!! Surely with this damning evidence RSPCA will be pursuing a private prosecution against him, because the law covers this action and technically he is breaking the law. Interesting that Oxford Mail wouldn't let anybody comment on this humble ruralman, but the Heythrop Hunt seem to be fair game for anybody to take a pot shot at. Answers please....... to ny w
  • Score: -1

11:17am Tue 18 Dec 12

Quentin Walker says...

to ny w wrote:
Interesting that the comments button is turned off because I wanted to leave one regarding the chap and his terrier who were doing a public service killing rats.
He admitted it, for goodness sake!!
Surely with this damning evidence RSPCA will be pursuing a private prosecution against him, because the law covers this action and technically he is breaking the law.
Interesting that Oxford Mail wouldn't let anybody comment on this humble ruralman, but the Heythrop Hunt seem to be fair game for anybody to take a pot shot at.
Answers please.......
The best and most relevant way to find the answer to your question is to ask the editor of the Oxford Mail.
[quote][p][bold]to ny w[/bold] wrote: Interesting that the comments button is turned off because I wanted to leave one regarding the chap and his terrier who were doing a public service killing rats. He admitted it, for goodness sake!! Surely with this damning evidence RSPCA will be pursuing a private prosecution against him, because the law covers this action and technically he is breaking the law. Interesting that Oxford Mail wouldn't let anybody comment on this humble ruralman, but the Heythrop Hunt seem to be fair game for anybody to take a pot shot at. Answers please.......[/p][/quote]The best and most relevant way to find the answer to your question is to ask the editor of the Oxford Mail. Quentin Walker
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Tue 18 Dec 12

andyq7 says...

Outside court, Barnfield said of the hunt monitors: “These people are vigilantes following me around and filming me. I’m not allowed to follow them around Tesco and see if they steal a tin of beans.”
Bloody idiot, I shop online and have it delivered.
Outside court, Barnfield said of the hunt monitors: “These people are vigilantes following me around and filming me. I’m not allowed to follow them around Tesco and see if they steal a tin of beans.” Bloody idiot, I shop online and have it delivered. andyq7
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Tue 18 Dec 12

Alan Kirby says...

The Heythrop claim they were 'trail hunting' the rest of the time. Yeah right. 'Trail hunting' is nothing more than a 'cynical subterfuge' , exploiting the weaknesses and many loopholes in the Act, to enable Hunts to try to carry on hunting live quarry. Monitors have been taking similar filmed evidence against the Heythrop and other Hunts to the police for years and just getting fobbed off, which is why the RSPCA had to bring the case. Judge Pattinson's comments were disgraceful, as was the fact that he didn't make the incredibly wealthy Hunt pay at least a substantial portion of the RSPCA costs.
These monitors frequently suffer assaults, threats, vile abuse, obstruction and property damage from hunt followers. See YouTube films on Channel 'Scorpio Vulpes' for some of it. Includes Barnfield calling one lady monitor a 'f...ing ****'. one supporter indulging in an extremely vicious and racist tirade and another ruthlessly assaulting a 60 year old woman. The vast majority of such incidents go unpunished, as does the illegal hunting, but, still, no fewer than 14 supporters of the Heythrop have been convicted of, or cautioned for, offences against monitors in the last 6 years. This bunch of thuggish reprobates belong to the Hunt to which David Cameron is extremely close - perhaps partly because some of its immensely rich members donate hugely to the Conservative party. But Cameron is himself a huge fan of hunting and would like nothing more than to be able to repay his bloodsports-loving friends and repeal the Hunting Act. It is only because he has insufficient votes in the Commons that he has not already relegalised the cruel and bloody pastimes of these barbarians. And that is only because about 20 Tory MPs, nearly all from the new intake, have had the courage to stick with their consciences and defy the 'party line' on hunting. Cameron will, of course, refuse to condemn the cruel and blatant law-breaking by the Heythrop, much as he has always 'tipped the wink' to Hunts to continue 'business as usual', even once asserting that he thought the law should have no role at all in regulating Hunts' activities.
Unlawful hunting of wild mammals by Hunts continues, largely unchecked, all over the country. Not until the Hunting Act and its sanctions are substantially stiffened will it become more readily enforceable and start to act as a real deterrent. Protect Our Wild Animal says - When criminals circumvent the law, it should be strengthened to stop them not repealed to reward them.
The Heythrop claim they were 'trail hunting' the rest of the time. Yeah right. 'Trail hunting' is nothing more than a 'cynical subterfuge' [Judge Pert in the Fernie FH case, Oct 2011], exploiting the weaknesses and many loopholes in the Act, to enable Hunts to try to carry on hunting live quarry. Monitors have been taking similar filmed evidence against the Heythrop and other Hunts to the police for years and just getting fobbed off, which is why the RSPCA had to bring the case. Judge Pattinson's comments were disgraceful, as was the fact that he didn't make the incredibly wealthy [they number billionaires among their backers, not to mention Cameron] Hunt pay at least a substantial portion of the RSPCA costs. These monitors [unpaid] frequently suffer assaults, threats, vile abuse, obstruction and property damage from hunt followers. See YouTube films on Channel 'Scorpio Vulpes' for some of it. Includes Barnfield calling one lady monitor a 'f...ing ****'. one supporter indulging in an extremely vicious and racist tirade [about which police failed to do anything] and another ruthlessly assaulting a 60 year old woman. The vast majority of such incidents go unpunished, as does the illegal hunting, but, still, no fewer than 14 supporters of the Heythrop have been convicted of, or cautioned for, offences against monitors in the last 6 years. This bunch of thuggish reprobates belong to the Hunt to which David Cameron is extremely close - perhaps partly because some of its immensely rich members donate hugely to the Conservative party. But Cameron is himself a huge fan of hunting [and shooting defenceless wildlife] and would like nothing more than to be able to repay his bloodsports-loving friends and repeal the Hunting Act. It is only because he has insufficient votes in the Commons that he has not already relegalised the cruel and bloody pastimes of these barbarians. And that is only because about 20 Tory MPs, nearly all from the new intake, have had the courage to stick with their consciences and defy the 'party line' on hunting. Cameron will, of course, refuse to condemn the cruel and blatant law-breaking by the Heythrop, much as he has always 'tipped the wink' to Hunts to continue 'business as usual', even once asserting that he thought the law should have no role at all in regulating Hunts' activities. Unlawful hunting of wild mammals by Hunts continues, largely unchecked, all over the country. Not until the Hunting Act and its sanctions are substantially stiffened will it become more readily enforceable and start to act as a real deterrent. Protect Our Wild Animal [POWA] says - When criminals circumvent the law, it should be strengthened to stop them not repealed to reward them. Alan Kirby
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Tue 18 Dec 12

to ny w says...

what about the guy who kills rats with his terrier?:
what about the guy who kills rats with his terrier?: to ny w
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Tue 18 Dec 12

## Nonny Mouse ## says...

I don't believe Rats are included in the Act. It spans Foxes, Deer, Hares & Mink.
I don't believe Rats are included in the Act. It spans Foxes, Deer, Hares & Mink. ## Nonny Mouse ##
  • Score: 0

3:36pm Tue 18 Dec 12

to ny w says...

## Nonny Mouse ## wrote:
I don't believe Rats are included in the Act. It spans Foxes, Deer, Hares & Mink.
Excuse me? I don't think so.

Copy and pasted from the act.

If, save as permitted by this Act, any person mutilates, kicks, beats, nails or otherwise impales, stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or asphyxiates any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering he shall be guilty of an offence.

Note that, 'any wild mammal'.
So come on RSPCA , do your job. The chap admits he kills rats with his dog.
[quote][p][bold]## Nonny Mouse ##[/bold] wrote: I don't believe Rats are included in the Act. It spans Foxes, Deer, Hares & Mink.[/p][/quote]Excuse me? I don't think so. Copy and pasted from the act. If, save as permitted by this Act, any person mutilates, kicks, beats, nails or otherwise impales, stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or asphyxiates any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering he shall be guilty of an offence. Note that, 'any wild mammal'. So come on RSPCA , do your job. The chap admits he kills rats with his dog. to ny w
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Tue 18 Dec 12

## Nonny Mouse ## says...

Fair enough, I was only going off the wiki page.

In that case, I have seen my terrier catch and kill mice several times.

Cuff me officer, i obviously have no control over the dangerous beast.
Fair enough, I was only going off the wiki page. In that case, I have seen my terrier catch and kill mice several times. Cuff me officer, i obviously have no control over the dangerous beast. ## Nonny Mouse ##
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Tue 18 Dec 12

to ny w says...

Technically you are breaking the law.

On the other issue I made earlier about not being able to comment on the Rat catcher when it was featured a month or so ago, I am yet to receive a reply from the editor of the Oxford Mail.
Technically you are breaking the law. On the other issue I made earlier about not being able to comment on the Rat catcher when it was featured a month or so ago, I am yet to receive a reply from the editor of the Oxford Mail. to ny w
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Tue 18 Dec 12

livid99 says...

Rats spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.They breed rapidly and multiply at a fast rate. Killing rats helps prevent these hazards. The job can be done quickly and efficiently with one well trained dog.

Posh Toffs kill foxes for fun, for sport, and as a social event. They don't kill a fox quickly, they chase it to exhaustion.....purel
y for the enjoyment of the Toffs. There is a big difference.
Rats spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.They breed rapidly and multiply at a fast rate. Killing rats helps prevent these hazards. The job can be done quickly and efficiently with one well trained dog. Posh Toffs kill foxes for fun, for sport, and as a social event. They don't kill a fox quickly, they chase it to exhaustion.....purel y for the enjoyment of the Toffs. There is a big difference. livid99
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Tue 18 Dec 12

to ny w says...

No there is not, try telling that to a judge!!
No there is not, try telling that to a judge!! to ny w
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Tue 18 Dec 12

parvinder msvarency says...

The point that was missed was that it cost the RSPCA £327,000 to bring this prosecution, yet the fine was £only £7,000. I thought that we were bankrupt and had to save money, not throw it away on frivolities like this.
The point that was missed was that it cost the RSPCA £327,000 to bring this prosecution, yet the fine was £only £7,000. I thought that we were bankrupt and had to save money, not throw it away on frivolities like this. parvinder msvarency
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Tue 18 Dec 12

Eric Durrant says...

Unlike livid99 - whoever he or she might be - I use my the real name.

As if he or she does not know, hunt members and followers are just as likely to be working class as what he or she jealously calls "stuck-up toffs". I'm a retired lorry driver, just like those who deliver baked beans to Tesco's, the ones shoplifters steal.

Shoplifting accounts for two percent of retail sales: put out 100 tins of baked beans and on average 2 will be stolen.

Not only is livid99 classist, but also animalist. He or she said: "Rats spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.They breed rapidly and multiply at a fast rate. Killing rats helps prevent these hazards. The job can be done quickly and efficiently with one well trained dog."

So why is warfarin – which makes them bleed to death internally and slowly – legal and commonly used to kill thousands of rats? Using warfarin is a perfectly legal death, while killing rats by dogs is just as illegal as using them to kill foxes which also spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.

As to what is legal, by shooting foxes there is no certainty that a shot fox will die quickly, as happens when it is hunted and caught. A wounded shot fox can go to earth, taking hours, days, weeks or longer from gangrene or slow loss of blood.

But, of course, no one sees that happen. So, it's all right, isn't it, livid99?

No, it is not But toff haters are not bothered by what they don't see.
Just how independent are the so-called “independent monitors”?

For them to say “This prosecution should teach hunts that they can no longer ride roughshod over the law of the land. We will not rest until we see this illegal animal abuse stamped out once and for all” shows no independence at all. But, to obtain the video they would almost certainly have been breaking the law and trespassing, albeit a civil offence. One law for them . . .

Animal experts came to the view that hunting is no more cruel than culling verminous foxes by shooting, etc. THE BURNS INQUIRY reported on 12 June 2000. The Inquiry was fair minded and properly conducted, it found no evidence that hunting causes unnecessary suffering of foxes (i.e. no proof it is cruel). Enough to make you see red and be livid.

How does livid99 sit down to a plate of fish, knowing that what he is eating was dragged from the sea and slowly died on a trawler deck? Oh, yes, trawlermen don’t ride horses and wear red coats. Sorry!
Unlike livid99 - whoever he or she might be - I use my the real name. As if he or she does not know, hunt members and followers are just as likely to be working class as what he or she jealously calls "stuck-up toffs". I'm a retired lorry driver, just like those who deliver baked beans to Tesco's, the ones shoplifters steal. Shoplifting accounts for two percent of retail sales: put out 100 tins of baked beans and on average 2 will be stolen. Not only is livid99 classist, but also animalist. He or she said: "Rats spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.They breed rapidly and multiply at a fast rate. Killing rats helps prevent these hazards. The job can be done quickly and efficiently with one well trained dog." So why is warfarin – which makes them bleed to death internally and slowly – legal and commonly used to kill thousands of rats? Using warfarin is a perfectly legal death, while killing rats by dogs is just as illegal as using them to kill foxes which also spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard. As to what is legal, by shooting foxes there is no certainty that a shot fox will die quickly, as happens when it is hunted and caught. A wounded shot fox can go to earth, taking hours, days, weeks or longer from gangrene or slow loss of blood. But, of course, no one sees that happen. So, it's all right, isn't it, livid99? No, it is not But toff haters are not bothered by what they don't see. Just how independent are the so-called “independent monitors”? For them to say “This prosecution should teach hunts that they can no longer ride roughshod over the law of the land. We will not rest until we see this illegal animal abuse stamped out once and for all” shows no independence at all. But, to obtain the video they would almost certainly have been breaking the law and trespassing, albeit a civil offence. One law for them . . . Animal experts came to the view that hunting is no more cruel than culling verminous foxes by shooting, etc. THE BURNS INQUIRY reported on 12 June 2000. The Inquiry was fair minded and properly conducted, it found no evidence that hunting causes unnecessary suffering of foxes (i.e. no proof it is cruel). Enough to make you see red and be livid. How does livid99 sit down to a plate of fish, knowing that what he is eating was dragged from the sea and slowly died on a trawler deck? Oh, yes, trawlermen don’t ride horses and wear red coats. Sorry! Eric Durrant
  • Score: 0

7:58am Wed 19 Dec 12

Braganca says...

How strange that somebody with a criminal record should complain about those who brought him to justice. This was a deliberate act of law-breaking and the arrogant Heythrop Hunt members thought they could get away with it.
How strange that somebody with a criminal record should complain about those who brought him to justice. This was a deliberate act of law-breaking and the arrogant Heythrop Hunt members thought they could get away with it. Braganca
  • Score: 0

8:14am Wed 19 Dec 12

livid99 says...

Eric Durrant wrote:
Unlike livid99 - whoever he or she might be - I use my the real name.

As if he or she does not know, hunt members and followers are just as likely to be working class as what he or she jealously calls "stuck-up toffs". I'm a retired lorry driver, just like those who deliver baked beans to Tesco's, the ones shoplifters steal.

Shoplifting accounts for two percent of retail sales: put out 100 tins of baked beans and on average 2 will be stolen.

Not only is livid99 classist, but also animalist. He or she said: "Rats spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.They breed rapidly and multiply at a fast rate. Killing rats helps prevent these hazards. The job can be done quickly and efficiently with one well trained dog."

So why is warfarin – which makes them bleed to death internally and slowly – legal and commonly used to kill thousands of rats? Using warfarin is a perfectly legal death, while killing rats by dogs is just as illegal as using them to kill foxes which also spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.

As to what is legal, by shooting foxes there is no certainty that a shot fox will die quickly, as happens when it is hunted and caught. A wounded shot fox can go to earth, taking hours, days, weeks or longer from gangrene or slow loss of blood.

But, of course, no one sees that happen. So, it's all right, isn't it, livid99?

No, it is not But toff haters are not bothered by what they don't see.
Just how independent are the so-called “independent monitors”?

For them to say “This prosecution should teach hunts that they can no longer ride roughshod over the law of the land. We will not rest until we see this illegal animal abuse stamped out once and for all” shows no independence at all. But, to obtain the video they would almost certainly have been breaking the law and trespassing, albeit a civil offence. One law for them . . .

Animal experts came to the view that hunting is no more cruel than culling verminous foxes by shooting, etc. THE BURNS INQUIRY reported on 12 June 2000. The Inquiry was fair minded and properly conducted, it found no evidence that hunting causes unnecessary suffering of foxes (i.e. no proof it is cruel). Enough to make you see red and be livid.

How does livid99 sit down to a plate of fish, knowing that what he is eating was dragged from the sea and slowly died on a trawler deck? Oh, yes, trawlermen don’t ride horses and wear red coats. Sorry!
Congratulations "Eric" for using your real name, how amazing....
I read all your words, some I agree with, some I disagree with. Point is, this Toff (who I am in NO WAY jealous of!) seem's to think its fine to class any opponents to his "sport" as shoplifters, while he is the one clearly breaking the law. He's either so stuck up that he cannot think straight, or he's too 'king stupid to see the obvious problem with his argument.
By the way, not quite sure about your bizarre link to fishing for food with fox hunting, but I don't eat fish anyway.
Livid
[quote][p][bold]Eric Durrant[/bold] wrote: Unlike livid99 - whoever he or she might be - I use my the real name. As if he or she does not know, hunt members and followers are just as likely to be working class as what he or she jealously calls "stuck-up toffs". I'm a retired lorry driver, just like those who deliver baked beans to Tesco's, the ones shoplifters steal. Shoplifting accounts for two percent of retail sales: put out 100 tins of baked beans and on average 2 will be stolen. Not only is livid99 classist, but also animalist. He or she said: "Rats spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.They breed rapidly and multiply at a fast rate. Killing rats helps prevent these hazards. The job can be done quickly and efficiently with one well trained dog." So why is warfarin – which makes them bleed to death internally and slowly – legal and commonly used to kill thousands of rats? Using warfarin is a perfectly legal death, while killing rats by dogs is just as illegal as using them to kill foxes which also spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard. As to what is legal, by shooting foxes there is no certainty that a shot fox will die quickly, as happens when it is hunted and caught. A wounded shot fox can go to earth, taking hours, days, weeks or longer from gangrene or slow loss of blood. But, of course, no one sees that happen. So, it's all right, isn't it, livid99? No, it is not But toff haters are not bothered by what they don't see. Just how independent are the so-called “independent monitors”? For them to say “This prosecution should teach hunts that they can no longer ride roughshod over the law of the land. We will not rest until we see this illegal animal abuse stamped out once and for all” shows no independence at all. But, to obtain the video they would almost certainly have been breaking the law and trespassing, albeit a civil offence. One law for them . . . Animal experts came to the view that hunting is no more cruel than culling verminous foxes by shooting, etc. THE BURNS INQUIRY reported on 12 June 2000. The Inquiry was fair minded and properly conducted, it found no evidence that hunting causes unnecessary suffering of foxes (i.e. no proof it is cruel). Enough to make you see red and be livid. How does livid99 sit down to a plate of fish, knowing that what he is eating was dragged from the sea and slowly died on a trawler deck? Oh, yes, trawlermen don’t ride horses and wear red coats. Sorry![/p][/quote]Congratulations "Eric" for using your real name, how amazing.... I read all your words, some I agree with, some I disagree with. Point is, this Toff (who I am in NO WAY jealous of!) seem's to think its fine to class any opponents to his "sport" as shoplifters, while he is the one clearly breaking the law. He's either so stuck up that he cannot think straight, or he's too 'king stupid to see the obvious problem with his argument. By the way, not quite sure about your bizarre link to fishing for food with fox hunting, but I don't eat fish anyway. Livid livid99
  • Score: 0

9:54am Wed 19 Dec 12

NoToHareCoursing says...

The RSPCA was right to prosecute. I have no sympathy for the guilty people. They broke the law. They must pay the price. And the price is not only fines, costs, etc., but also criminal convictions. These latter will hit them harder than they might think now. Fox hunting is cruel, despite the 'quick bite to the back of the neck' fairy stories still told by its supporters, and don't forget that hare coursing, another abominable 'so-called' sport, was also banned by the Hunting Act 2004, which was supported by MPs from all parties. I thank God for the Act and, as a farmer and a born-and-bred countryman, I look for its strengthening as soon as possible.
The RSPCA was right to prosecute. I have no sympathy for the guilty people. They broke the law. They must pay the price. And the price is not only fines, costs, etc., but also criminal convictions. These latter will hit them harder than they might think now. Fox hunting is cruel, despite the 'quick bite to the back of the neck' fairy stories still told by its supporters, and don't forget that hare coursing, another abominable 'so-called' sport, was also banned by the Hunting Act 2004, which was supported by MPs from all parties. I thank God for the Act and, as a farmer and a born-and-bred countryman, I look for its strengthening as soon as possible. NoToHareCoursing
  • Score: 0

11:00am Wed 19 Dec 12

to ny w says...

livid99 wrote:
Eric Durrant wrote:
Unlike livid99 - whoever he or she might be - I use my the real name.

As if he or she does not know, hunt members and followers are just as likely to be working class as what he or she jealously calls "stuck-up toffs". I'm a retired lorry driver, just like those who deliver baked beans to Tesco's, the ones shoplifters steal.

Shoplifting accounts for two percent of retail sales: put out 100 tins of baked beans and on average 2 will be stolen.

Not only is livid99 classist, but also animalist. He or she said: "Rats spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.They breed rapidly and multiply at a fast rate. Killing rats helps prevent these hazards. The job can be done quickly and efficiently with one well trained dog."

So why is warfarin – which makes them bleed to death internally and slowly – legal and commonly used to kill thousands of rats? Using warfarin is a perfectly legal death, while killing rats by dogs is just as illegal as using them to kill foxes which also spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.

As to what is legal, by shooting foxes there is no certainty that a shot fox will die quickly, as happens when it is hunted and caught. A wounded shot fox can go to earth, taking hours, days, weeks or longer from gangrene or slow loss of blood.

But, of course, no one sees that happen. So, it's all right, isn't it, livid99?

No, it is not But toff haters are not bothered by what they don't see.
Just how independent are the so-called “independent monitors”?

For them to say “This prosecution should teach hunts that they can no longer ride roughshod over the law of the land. We will not rest until we see this illegal animal abuse stamped out once and for all” shows no independence at all. But, to obtain the video they would almost certainly have been breaking the law and trespassing, albeit a civil offence. One law for them . . .

Animal experts came to the view that hunting is no more cruel than culling verminous foxes by shooting, etc. THE BURNS INQUIRY reported on 12 June 2000. The Inquiry was fair minded and properly conducted, it found no evidence that hunting causes unnecessary suffering of foxes (i.e. no proof it is cruel). Enough to make you see red and be livid.

How does livid99 sit down to a plate of fish, knowing that what he is eating was dragged from the sea and slowly died on a trawler deck? Oh, yes, trawlermen don’t ride horses and wear red coats. Sorry!
Congratulations "Eric" for using your real name, how amazing....
I read all your words, some I agree with, some I disagree with. Point is, this Toff (who I am in NO WAY jealous of!) seem's to think its fine to class any opponents to his "sport" as shoplifters, while he is the one clearly breaking the law. He's either so stuck up that he cannot think straight, or he's too 'king stupid to see the obvious problem with his argument.
By the way, not quite sure about your bizarre link to fishing for food with fox hunting, but I don't eat fish anyway.
Livid
Well you got that wrong. Mr Barnfield is not what you call a 'toff'. He was the 'Huntsman' to the Heythrop Hunt. A paid servant. A working man. He would be the chap who fed the hounds and cleaned out the pooh on a daily basis, 7 days a week.
Still getting the facts wrong never hurt a good story.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eric Durrant[/bold] wrote: Unlike livid99 - whoever he or she might be - I use my the real name. As if he or she does not know, hunt members and followers are just as likely to be working class as what he or she jealously calls "stuck-up toffs". I'm a retired lorry driver, just like those who deliver baked beans to Tesco's, the ones shoplifters steal. Shoplifting accounts for two percent of retail sales: put out 100 tins of baked beans and on average 2 will be stolen. Not only is livid99 classist, but also animalist. He or she said: "Rats spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.They breed rapidly and multiply at a fast rate. Killing rats helps prevent these hazards. The job can be done quickly and efficiently with one well trained dog." So why is warfarin – which makes them bleed to death internally and slowly – legal and commonly used to kill thousands of rats? Using warfarin is a perfectly legal death, while killing rats by dogs is just as illegal as using them to kill foxes which also spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard. As to what is legal, by shooting foxes there is no certainty that a shot fox will die quickly, as happens when it is hunted and caught. A wounded shot fox can go to earth, taking hours, days, weeks or longer from gangrene or slow loss of blood. But, of course, no one sees that happen. So, it's all right, isn't it, livid99? No, it is not But toff haters are not bothered by what they don't see. Just how independent are the so-called “independent monitors”? For them to say “This prosecution should teach hunts that they can no longer ride roughshod over the law of the land. We will not rest until we see this illegal animal abuse stamped out once and for all” shows no independence at all. But, to obtain the video they would almost certainly have been breaking the law and trespassing, albeit a civil offence. One law for them . . . Animal experts came to the view that hunting is no more cruel than culling verminous foxes by shooting, etc. THE BURNS INQUIRY reported on 12 June 2000. The Inquiry was fair minded and properly conducted, it found no evidence that hunting causes unnecessary suffering of foxes (i.e. no proof it is cruel). Enough to make you see red and be livid. How does livid99 sit down to a plate of fish, knowing that what he is eating was dragged from the sea and slowly died on a trawler deck? Oh, yes, trawlermen don’t ride horses and wear red coats. Sorry![/p][/quote]Congratulations "Eric" for using your real name, how amazing.... I read all your words, some I agree with, some I disagree with. Point is, this Toff (who I am in NO WAY jealous of!) seem's to think its fine to class any opponents to his "sport" as shoplifters, while he is the one clearly breaking the law. He's either so stuck up that he cannot think straight, or he's too 'king stupid to see the obvious problem with his argument. By the way, not quite sure about your bizarre link to fishing for food with fox hunting, but I don't eat fish anyway. Livid[/p][/quote]Well you got that wrong. Mr Barnfield is not what you call a 'toff'. He was the 'Huntsman' to the Heythrop Hunt. A paid servant. A working man. He would be the chap who fed the hounds and cleaned out the pooh on a daily basis, 7 days a week. Still getting the facts wrong never hurt a good story. to ny w
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Wed 19 Dec 12

sablond oxford says...

I find Eric Durrant's (using his own name, wow!!!!) comments about other people’s views rude and offensive and will be reporting them as such. Everyone is entitled to their own options. I don’t agree with his but I’m not resulting to name calling.
It is well known that fox hunting is the pastime of the wealthy and that working class supporters normally rely on fox hunting for their income.
The judge probably is a member of the hunt (or another hunt or at least a supporter) and would think it was a waste of money. Personally as an RSPCA supporter I would like to see my money spent on other things, but that is simply because I do not think that it should be up to the RSPCA to enforce the law.
Eric Durrant (own name) your comments are as rude and offensive as Julian Barnfield’s and no wonder you are a hunt support as he is clearly your role model, so congratulations on reaching your wannabe toff status.
I find Eric Durrant's (using his own name, wow!!!!) comments about other people’s views rude and offensive and will be reporting them as such. Everyone is entitled to their own options. I don’t agree with his but I’m not resulting to name calling. It is well known that fox hunting is the pastime of the wealthy and that working class supporters normally rely on fox hunting for their income. The judge probably is a member of the hunt (or another hunt or at least a supporter) and would think it was a waste of money. Personally as an RSPCA supporter I would like to see my money spent on other things, but that is simply because I do not think that it should be up to the RSPCA to enforce the law. Eric Durrant (own name) your comments are as rude and offensive as Julian Barnfield’s and no wonder you are a hunt support as he is clearly your role model, so congratulations on reaching your wannabe toff status. sablond oxford
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Wed 19 Dec 12

locodogz says...

Eric Durrant wrote:
Unlike livid99 - whoever he or she might be - I use my the real name.

As if he or she does not know, hunt members and followers are just as likely to be working class as what he or she jealously calls "stuck-up toffs". I'm a retired lorry driver, just like those who deliver baked beans to Tesco's, the ones shoplifters steal.

Shoplifting accounts for two percent of retail sales: put out 100 tins of baked beans and on average 2 will be stolen.

Not only is livid99 classist, but also animalist. He or she said: "Rats spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.They breed rapidly and multiply at a fast rate. Killing rats helps prevent these hazards. The job can be done quickly and efficiently with one well trained dog."

So why is warfarin – which makes them bleed to death internally and slowly – legal and commonly used to kill thousands of rats? Using warfarin is a perfectly legal death, while killing rats by dogs is just as illegal as using them to kill foxes which also spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.

As to what is legal, by shooting foxes there is no certainty that a shot fox will die quickly, as happens when it is hunted and caught. A wounded shot fox can go to earth, taking hours, days, weeks or longer from gangrene or slow loss of blood.

But, of course, no one sees that happen. So, it's all right, isn't it, livid99?

No, it is not But toff haters are not bothered by what they don't see.
Just how independent are the so-called “independent monitors”?

For them to say “This prosecution should teach hunts that they can no longer ride roughshod over the law of the land. We will not rest until we see this illegal animal abuse stamped out once and for all” shows no independence at all. But, to obtain the video they would almost certainly have been breaking the law and trespassing, albeit a civil offence. One law for them . . .

Animal experts came to the view that hunting is no more cruel than culling verminous foxes by shooting, etc. THE BURNS INQUIRY reported on 12 June 2000. The Inquiry was fair minded and properly conducted, it found no evidence that hunting causes unnecessary suffering of foxes (i.e. no proof it is cruel). Enough to make you see red and be livid.

How does livid99 sit down to a plate of fish, knowing that what he is eating was dragged from the sea and slowly died on a trawler deck? Oh, yes, trawlermen don’t ride horses and wear red coats. Sorry!
Sadly Eric i think you're missing the point here. Whatever your views on the 'efficiency' of hunting with dogs as pest control (and I've some sympathy with the points you make FWIW) you lost the argument and the activity is now illegal. The 'arrogance' tag comes from the seeming assumption that because you disagree with a certain law its somehow OK to ignore it?

Personally I think the 70mph limit on motorways is archaic (what with advances in vehicle technology) and may even on occasion have exceeded it. The difference is that if caught I'd accept my punishment rather than bleating about the law being an ****.

You can't pick and choose which laws to follow and which to abuse - it puts you firmly in the same camp as the hooligans trashing London as they had issues with student tuition fees - although slightly uncomfortable bedfellows I'd imagine..........
[quote][p][bold]Eric Durrant[/bold] wrote: Unlike livid99 - whoever he or she might be - I use my the real name. As if he or she does not know, hunt members and followers are just as likely to be working class as what he or she jealously calls "stuck-up toffs". I'm a retired lorry driver, just like those who deliver baked beans to Tesco's, the ones shoplifters steal. Shoplifting accounts for two percent of retail sales: put out 100 tins of baked beans and on average 2 will be stolen. Not only is livid99 classist, but also animalist. He or she said: "Rats spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.They breed rapidly and multiply at a fast rate. Killing rats helps prevent these hazards. The job can be done quickly and efficiently with one well trained dog." So why is warfarin – which makes them bleed to death internally and slowly – legal and commonly used to kill thousands of rats? Using warfarin is a perfectly legal death, while killing rats by dogs is just as illegal as using them to kill foxes which also spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard. As to what is legal, by shooting foxes there is no certainty that a shot fox will die quickly, as happens when it is hunted and caught. A wounded shot fox can go to earth, taking hours, days, weeks or longer from gangrene or slow loss of blood. But, of course, no one sees that happen. So, it's all right, isn't it, livid99? No, it is not But toff haters are not bothered by what they don't see. Just how independent are the so-called “independent monitors”? For them to say “This prosecution should teach hunts that they can no longer ride roughshod over the law of the land. We will not rest until we see this illegal animal abuse stamped out once and for all” shows no independence at all. But, to obtain the video they would almost certainly have been breaking the law and trespassing, albeit a civil offence. One law for them . . . Animal experts came to the view that hunting is no more cruel than culling verminous foxes by shooting, etc. THE BURNS INQUIRY reported on 12 June 2000. The Inquiry was fair minded and properly conducted, it found no evidence that hunting causes unnecessary suffering of foxes (i.e. no proof it is cruel). Enough to make you see red and be livid. How does livid99 sit down to a plate of fish, knowing that what he is eating was dragged from the sea and slowly died on a trawler deck? Oh, yes, trawlermen don’t ride horses and wear red coats. Sorry![/p][/quote]Sadly Eric i think you're missing the point here. Whatever your views on the 'efficiency' of hunting with dogs as pest control (and I've some sympathy with the points you make FWIW) you lost the argument and the activity is now illegal. The 'arrogance' tag comes from the seeming assumption that because you disagree with a certain law its somehow OK to ignore it? Personally I think the 70mph limit on motorways is archaic (what with advances in vehicle technology) and may even on occasion have exceeded it. The difference is that if caught I'd accept my punishment rather than bleating about the law being an ****. You can't pick and choose which laws to follow and which to abuse - it puts you firmly in the same camp as the hooligans trashing London as they had issues with student tuition fees - although slightly uncomfortable bedfellows I'd imagine.......... locodogz
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Wed 19 Dec 12

locodogz says...

locodogz wrote:
Eric Durrant wrote:
Unlike livid99 - whoever he or she might be - I use my the real name.

As if he or she does not know, hunt members and followers are just as likely to be working class as what he or she jealously calls "stuck-up toffs". I'm a retired lorry driver, just like those who deliver baked beans to Tesco's, the ones shoplifters steal.

Shoplifting accounts for two percent of retail sales: put out 100 tins of baked beans and on average 2 will be stolen.

Not only is livid99 classist, but also animalist. He or she said: "Rats spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.They breed rapidly and multiply at a fast rate. Killing rats helps prevent these hazards. The job can be done quickly and efficiently with one well trained dog."

So why is warfarin – which makes them bleed to death internally and slowly – legal and commonly used to kill thousands of rats? Using warfarin is a perfectly legal death, while killing rats by dogs is just as illegal as using them to kill foxes which also spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.

As to what is legal, by shooting foxes there is no certainty that a shot fox will die quickly, as happens when it is hunted and caught. A wounded shot fox can go to earth, taking hours, days, weeks or longer from gangrene or slow loss of blood.

But, of course, no one sees that happen. So, it's all right, isn't it, livid99?

No, it is not But toff haters are not bothered by what they don't see.
Just how independent are the so-called “independent monitors”?

For them to say “This prosecution should teach hunts that they can no longer ride roughshod over the law of the land. We will not rest until we see this illegal animal abuse stamped out once and for all” shows no independence at all. But, to obtain the video they would almost certainly have been breaking the law and trespassing, albeit a civil offence. One law for them . . .

Animal experts came to the view that hunting is no more cruel than culling verminous foxes by shooting, etc. THE BURNS INQUIRY reported on 12 June 2000. The Inquiry was fair minded and properly conducted, it found no evidence that hunting causes unnecessary suffering of foxes (i.e. no proof it is cruel). Enough to make you see red and be livid.

How does livid99 sit down to a plate of fish, knowing that what he is eating was dragged from the sea and slowly died on a trawler deck? Oh, yes, trawlermen don’t ride horses and wear red coats. Sorry!
Sadly Eric i think you're missing the point here. Whatever your views on the 'efficiency' of hunting with dogs as pest control (and I've some sympathy with the points you make FWIW) you lost the argument and the activity is now illegal. The 'arrogance' tag comes from the seeming assumption that because you disagree with a certain law its somehow OK to ignore it?

Personally I think the 70mph limit on motorways is archaic (what with advances in vehicle technology) and may even on occasion have exceeded it. The difference is that if caught I'd accept my punishment rather than bleating about the law being an ****.

You can't pick and choose which laws to follow and which to abuse - it puts you firmly in the same camp as the hooligans trashing London as they had issues with student tuition fees - although slightly uncomfortable bedfellows I'd imagine..........
Hmmm been asterisked for using another word for donkey?!?!?! There I was thinking this was a UK site......
[quote][p][bold]locodogz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eric Durrant[/bold] wrote: Unlike livid99 - whoever he or she might be - I use my the real name. As if he or she does not know, hunt members and followers are just as likely to be working class as what he or she jealously calls "stuck-up toffs". I'm a retired lorry driver, just like those who deliver baked beans to Tesco's, the ones shoplifters steal. Shoplifting accounts for two percent of retail sales: put out 100 tins of baked beans and on average 2 will be stolen. Not only is livid99 classist, but also animalist. He or she said: "Rats spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.They breed rapidly and multiply at a fast rate. Killing rats helps prevent these hazards. The job can be done quickly and efficiently with one well trained dog." So why is warfarin – which makes them bleed to death internally and slowly – legal and commonly used to kill thousands of rats? Using warfarin is a perfectly legal death, while killing rats by dogs is just as illegal as using them to kill foxes which also spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard. As to what is legal, by shooting foxes there is no certainty that a shot fox will die quickly, as happens when it is hunted and caught. A wounded shot fox can go to earth, taking hours, days, weeks or longer from gangrene or slow loss of blood. But, of course, no one sees that happen. So, it's all right, isn't it, livid99? No, it is not But toff haters are not bothered by what they don't see. Just how independent are the so-called “independent monitors”? For them to say “This prosecution should teach hunts that they can no longer ride roughshod over the law of the land. We will not rest until we see this illegal animal abuse stamped out once and for all” shows no independence at all. But, to obtain the video they would almost certainly have been breaking the law and trespassing, albeit a civil offence. One law for them . . . Animal experts came to the view that hunting is no more cruel than culling verminous foxes by shooting, etc. THE BURNS INQUIRY reported on 12 June 2000. The Inquiry was fair minded and properly conducted, it found no evidence that hunting causes unnecessary suffering of foxes (i.e. no proof it is cruel). Enough to make you see red and be livid. How does livid99 sit down to a plate of fish, knowing that what he is eating was dragged from the sea and slowly died on a trawler deck? Oh, yes, trawlermen don’t ride horses and wear red coats. Sorry![/p][/quote]Sadly Eric i think you're missing the point here. Whatever your views on the 'efficiency' of hunting with dogs as pest control (and I've some sympathy with the points you make FWIW) you lost the argument and the activity is now illegal. The 'arrogance' tag comes from the seeming assumption that because you disagree with a certain law its somehow OK to ignore it? Personally I think the 70mph limit on motorways is archaic (what with advances in vehicle technology) and may even on occasion have exceeded it. The difference is that if caught I'd accept my punishment rather than bleating about the law being an ****. You can't pick and choose which laws to follow and which to abuse - it puts you firmly in the same camp as the hooligans trashing London as they had issues with student tuition fees - although slightly uncomfortable bedfellows I'd imagine..........[/p][/quote]Hmmm been asterisked for using another word for donkey?!?!?! There I was thinking this was a UK site...... locodogz
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Wed 19 Dec 12

to ny w says...

1.so congratulations on reaching your wannabe toff status
2.Point is, this Toff (who I am in NO WAY jealous of!)
3..purely for the enjoyment of the Toffs
4. Its always nice to see stuck-up toffs

These 4 are extracts from previous mails.

This constant stereo typical tirade about an assumed 'class' of people who hunt has confirmed my long held view that this issue is more about class warfare than animal welfare.
Tony Blair appeased his baying back benchers on this issue and after hundreds of hours of Commons debate, a weak law was passed. Whilst their eyes was off the more important ball, Blair was allowed to ransack IRAQ, against public opinion, a subject that was barely debated in Westminster.
Now RSPCA is having to spend £1/3 million on this private prosecution and Blair is making millions quietly in the back ground and getting off scot free.
It is very odd state of affairs.
1.so congratulations on reaching your wannabe toff status 2.Point is, this Toff (who I am in NO WAY jealous of!) 3..purely for the enjoyment of the Toffs 4. Its always nice to see stuck-up toffs These 4 are extracts from previous mails. This constant stereo typical tirade about an assumed 'class' of people who hunt has confirmed my long held view that this issue is more about class warfare than animal welfare. Tony Blair appeased his baying back benchers on this issue and after hundreds of hours of Commons debate, a weak law was passed. Whilst their eyes was off the more important ball, Blair was allowed to ransack IRAQ, against public opinion, a subject that was barely debated in Westminster. Now RSPCA is having to spend £1/3 million on this private prosecution and Blair is making millions quietly in the back ground and getting off scot free. It is very odd state of affairs. to ny w
  • Score: 0

2:30pm Wed 19 Dec 12

livid99 says...

to ny w wrote:
livid99 wrote:
Eric Durrant wrote:
Unlike livid99 - whoever he or she might be - I use my the real name.

As if he or she does not know, hunt members and followers are just as likely to be working class as what he or she jealously calls "stuck-up toffs". I'm a retired lorry driver, just like those who deliver baked beans to Tesco's, the ones shoplifters steal.

Shoplifting accounts for two percent of retail sales: put out 100 tins of baked beans and on average 2 will be stolen.

Not only is livid99 classist, but also animalist. He or she said: "Rats spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.They breed rapidly and multiply at a fast rate. Killing rats helps prevent these hazards. The job can be done quickly and efficiently with one well trained dog."

So why is warfarin – which makes them bleed to death internally and slowly – legal and commonly used to kill thousands of rats? Using warfarin is a perfectly legal death, while killing rats by dogs is just as illegal as using them to kill foxes which also spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.

As to what is legal, by shooting foxes there is no certainty that a shot fox will die quickly, as happens when it is hunted and caught. A wounded shot fox can go to earth, taking hours, days, weeks or longer from gangrene or slow loss of blood.

But, of course, no one sees that happen. So, it's all right, isn't it, livid99?

No, it is not But toff haters are not bothered by what they don't see.
Just how independent are the so-called “independent monitors”?

For them to say “This prosecution should teach hunts that they can no longer ride roughshod over the law of the land. We will not rest until we see this illegal animal abuse stamped out once and for all” shows no independence at all. But, to obtain the video they would almost certainly have been breaking the law and trespassing, albeit a civil offence. One law for them . . .

Animal experts came to the view that hunting is no more cruel than culling verminous foxes by shooting, etc. THE BURNS INQUIRY reported on 12 June 2000. The Inquiry was fair minded and properly conducted, it found no evidence that hunting causes unnecessary suffering of foxes (i.e. no proof it is cruel). Enough to make you see red and be livid.

How does livid99 sit down to a plate of fish, knowing that what he is eating was dragged from the sea and slowly died on a trawler deck? Oh, yes, trawlermen don’t ride horses and wear red coats. Sorry!
Congratulations "Eric" for using your real name, how amazing....
I read all your words, some I agree with, some I disagree with. Point is, this Toff (who I am in NO WAY jealous of!) seem's to think its fine to class any opponents to his "sport" as shoplifters, while he is the one clearly breaking the law. He's either so stuck up that he cannot think straight, or he's too 'king stupid to see the obvious problem with his argument.
By the way, not quite sure about your bizarre link to fishing for food with fox hunting, but I don't eat fish anyway.
Livid
Well you got that wrong. Mr Barnfield is not what you call a 'toff'. He was the 'Huntsman' to the Heythrop Hunt. A paid servant. A working man. He would be the chap who fed the hounds and cleaned out the pooh on a daily basis, 7 days a week.
Still getting the facts wrong never hurt a good story.
So what ? His comments show what he thinks
[quote][p][bold]to ny w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eric Durrant[/bold] wrote: Unlike livid99 - whoever he or she might be - I use my the real name. As if he or she does not know, hunt members and followers are just as likely to be working class as what he or she jealously calls "stuck-up toffs". I'm a retired lorry driver, just like those who deliver baked beans to Tesco's, the ones shoplifters steal. Shoplifting accounts for two percent of retail sales: put out 100 tins of baked beans and on average 2 will be stolen. Not only is livid99 classist, but also animalist. He or she said: "Rats spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard.They breed rapidly and multiply at a fast rate. Killing rats helps prevent these hazards. The job can be done quickly and efficiently with one well trained dog." So why is warfarin – which makes them bleed to death internally and slowly – legal and commonly used to kill thousands of rats? Using warfarin is a perfectly legal death, while killing rats by dogs is just as illegal as using them to kill foxes which also spread disease, damage property and are a health hazard. As to what is legal, by shooting foxes there is no certainty that a shot fox will die quickly, as happens when it is hunted and caught. A wounded shot fox can go to earth, taking hours, days, weeks or longer from gangrene or slow loss of blood. But, of course, no one sees that happen. So, it's all right, isn't it, livid99? No, it is not But toff haters are not bothered by what they don't see. Just how independent are the so-called “independent monitors”? For them to say “This prosecution should teach hunts that they can no longer ride roughshod over the law of the land. We will not rest until we see this illegal animal abuse stamped out once and for all” shows no independence at all. But, to obtain the video they would almost certainly have been breaking the law and trespassing, albeit a civil offence. One law for them . . . Animal experts came to the view that hunting is no more cruel than culling verminous foxes by shooting, etc. THE BURNS INQUIRY reported on 12 June 2000. The Inquiry was fair minded and properly conducted, it found no evidence that hunting causes unnecessary suffering of foxes (i.e. no proof it is cruel). Enough to make you see red and be livid. How does livid99 sit down to a plate of fish, knowing that what he is eating was dragged from the sea and slowly died on a trawler deck? Oh, yes, trawlermen don’t ride horses and wear red coats. Sorry![/p][/quote]Congratulations "Eric" for using your real name, how amazing.... I read all your words, some I agree with, some I disagree with. Point is, this Toff (who I am in NO WAY jealous of!) seem's to think its fine to class any opponents to his "sport" as shoplifters, while he is the one clearly breaking the law. He's either so stuck up that he cannot think straight, or he's too 'king stupid to see the obvious problem with his argument. By the way, not quite sure about your bizarre link to fishing for food with fox hunting, but I don't eat fish anyway. Livid[/p][/quote]Well you got that wrong. Mr Barnfield is not what you call a 'toff'. He was the 'Huntsman' to the Heythrop Hunt. A paid servant. A working man. He would be the chap who fed the hounds and cleaned out the pooh on a daily basis, 7 days a week. Still getting the facts wrong never hurt a good story.[/p][/quote]So what ? His comments show what he thinks livid99
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Wed 19 Dec 12

livid99 says...

to ny w wrote:
1.so congratulations on reaching your wannabe toff status
2.Point is, this Toff (who I am in NO WAY jealous of!)
3..purely for the enjoyment of the Toffs
4. Its always nice to see stuck-up toffs

These 4 are extracts from previous mails.

This constant stereo typical tirade about an assumed 'class' of people who hunt has confirmed my long held view that this issue is more about class warfare than animal welfare.
Tony Blair appeased his baying back benchers on this issue and after hundreds of hours of Commons debate, a weak law was passed. Whilst their eyes was off the more important ball, Blair was allowed to ransack IRAQ, against public opinion, a subject that was barely debated in Westminster.
Now RSPCA is having to spend £1/3 million on this private prosecution and Blair is making millions quietly in the back ground and getting off scot free.
It is very odd state of affairs.
Ok maybe not every huntsman or hunt supporter is a toff, but those who ARE toffs are the ones who display the arrogance and "I am above the law" kind of attitude which angers people.
If you are accusing me of being classist because of my intense dislike of the toff attitude (which we are all having to live with with thanks to the bunch of clowns currently ruining - sorry, running - this country) displayed by these people, then I plead guilty of that charge. OK ?
[quote][p][bold]to ny w[/bold] wrote: 1.so congratulations on reaching your wannabe toff status 2.Point is, this Toff (who I am in NO WAY jealous of!) 3..purely for the enjoyment of the Toffs 4. Its always nice to see stuck-up toffs These 4 are extracts from previous mails. This constant stereo typical tirade about an assumed 'class' of people who hunt has confirmed my long held view that this issue is more about class warfare than animal welfare. Tony Blair appeased his baying back benchers on this issue and after hundreds of hours of Commons debate, a weak law was passed. Whilst their eyes was off the more important ball, Blair was allowed to ransack IRAQ, against public opinion, a subject that was barely debated in Westminster. Now RSPCA is having to spend £1/3 million on this private prosecution and Blair is making millions quietly in the back ground and getting off scot free. It is very odd state of affairs.[/p][/quote]Ok maybe not every huntsman or hunt supporter is a toff, but those who ARE toffs are the ones who display the arrogance and "I am above the law" kind of attitude which angers people. If you are accusing me of being classist because of my intense dislike of the toff attitude (which we are all having to live with with thanks to the bunch of clowns currently ruining - sorry, running - this country) displayed by these people, then I plead guilty of that charge. OK ? livid99
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Wed 19 Dec 12

to ny w says...

OK so lets ban Polo, Opera, Point to Point racing, Sailing, Croquet, Skiing, Fly Fishing etc as they are sure to get up a few peoples noses.

Long live reality T V shows, football, pubs, smoking, drugs, Jimmy S and other popular role models who seem to rotate in a high populist cloud!
OK so lets ban Polo, Opera, Point to Point racing, Sailing, Croquet, Skiing, Fly Fishing etc as they are sure to get up a few peoples noses. Long live reality T V shows, football, pubs, smoking, drugs, Jimmy S and other popular role models who seem to rotate in a high populist cloud! to ny w
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Wed 19 Dec 12

livid99 says...

to ny w wrote:
OK so lets ban Polo, Opera, Point to Point racing, Sailing, Croquet, Skiing, Fly Fishing etc as they are sure to get up a few peoples noses.

Long live reality T V shows, football, pubs, smoking, drugs, Jimmy S and other popular role models who seem to rotate in a high populist cloud!
So who is the one generalising now ?
A rather irrelevant post really
[quote][p][bold]to ny w[/bold] wrote: OK so lets ban Polo, Opera, Point to Point racing, Sailing, Croquet, Skiing, Fly Fishing etc as they are sure to get up a few peoples noses. Long live reality T V shows, football, pubs, smoking, drugs, Jimmy S and other popular role models who seem to rotate in a high populist cloud![/p][/quote]So who is the one generalising now ? A rather irrelevant post really livid99
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Wed 19 Dec 12

flopsy3 says...

the RSPCA was absolutely right to prosecute. All too often people believe they are above the law and the Heythrop Hunt are no different. Vile people with vile attitudes.
the RSPCA was absolutely right to prosecute. All too often people believe they are above the law and the Heythrop Hunt are no different. Vile people with vile attitudes. flopsy3
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Wed 19 Dec 12

Foxy Lady1 says...

Fox hunting goes hand in hand with any person of any ilk that likes killing and the immense feeling of power and depraved thrills of seeing something suffer, whether a toff or a low life thug if you kill for fun and sadistic pleasure, you are a bad soul. Read the book about rescuing wildlife by Les Stocker and see the picture of the fox cub whose only crime to have his nose lopped off was to be hiding whilst his mum was being ripped to shreds and his siblings put into a sack to take back to the hounds to train them to kill foxes by using them as bait. His nose was chopped off by the spade of the men digging him up. They are cruel, bloodthirsty and evil.
Fox hunting goes hand in hand with any person of any ilk that likes killing and the immense feeling of power and depraved thrills of seeing something suffer, whether a toff or a low life thug if you kill for fun and sadistic pleasure, you are a bad soul. Read the book about rescuing wildlife by Les Stocker and see the picture of the fox cub whose only crime to have his nose lopped off was to be hiding whilst his mum was being ripped to shreds and his siblings put into a sack to take back to the hounds to train them to kill foxes by using them as bait. His nose was chopped off by the spade of the men digging him up. They are cruel, bloodthirsty and evil. Foxy Lady1
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Wed 19 Dec 12

to ny w says...

It is a bit similar to a decapitated hen amongst others killed and not consumed in a chicken shed.
It is a bit similar to a decapitated hen amongst others killed and not consumed in a chicken shed. to ny w
  • Score: 0

7:25am Thu 20 Dec 12

Lord Palmerstone says...

If you want to leave your money to a real animal charity and not an extreme left crew of entryists, which is what the RSPCA has decayed into, then leave it to the Blue Cross. Unlike the RSPCA the Blue Cross will tackle the problem of "travellers'" horses because it's not stuck in a 1930's class war.
If you want to leave your money to a real animal charity and not an extreme left crew of entryists, which is what the RSPCA has decayed into, then leave it to the Blue Cross. Unlike the RSPCA the Blue Cross will tackle the problem of "travellers'" horses because it's not stuck in a 1930's class war. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Thu 20 Dec 12

Doctor69 says...

Glad to see some of these stuck up toffs getting done. About time to.
Why not take up a real sport, rather than dressing like an idiot and chasing little animals around?

Big men, i think not.
Glad to see some of these stuck up toffs getting done. About time to. Why not take up a real sport, rather than dressing like an idiot and chasing little animals around? Big men, i think not. Doctor69
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Thu 20 Dec 12

flopsy3 says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
If you want to leave your money to a real animal charity and not an extreme left crew of entryists, which is what the RSPCA has decayed into, then leave it to the Blue Cross. Unlike the RSPCA the Blue Cross will tackle the problem of "travellers'" horses because it's not stuck in a 1930's class war.
So because the RSPCA confronts and deals with the monsters who abuse animals for a "sport" they are the ones in the wrong, not worthy of donations? You are a narrow minded idiot.

Both charities do an excellent job and its a shame that we have to have charities to protect animals from the human race. The fact that hunt members feel the need to dress up "as toffs" to watch a fox being ripped apart for the hunts enjoyment, says it all. Horrible people with horrible beliefs who hide behind a pretence of being prejudiced because of their "class". I do not care if the hunt have money or live in a squat, their beliefs are still the same. Vile.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: If you want to leave your money to a real animal charity and not an extreme left crew of entryists, which is what the RSPCA has decayed into, then leave it to the Blue Cross. Unlike the RSPCA the Blue Cross will tackle the problem of "travellers'" horses because it's not stuck in a 1930's class war.[/p][/quote]So because the RSPCA confronts and deals with the monsters who abuse animals for a "sport" they are the ones in the wrong, not worthy of donations? You are a narrow minded idiot. Both charities do an excellent job and its a shame that we have to have charities to protect animals from the human race. The fact that hunt members feel the need to dress up "as toffs" to watch a fox being ripped apart for the hunts enjoyment, says it all. Horrible people with horrible beliefs who hide behind a pretence of being prejudiced because of their "class". I do not care if the hunt have money or live in a squat, their beliefs are still the same. Vile. flopsy3
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Thu 20 Dec 12

livid99 says...

flopsy3 wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
If you want to leave your money to a real animal charity and not an extreme left crew of entryists, which is what the RSPCA has decayed into, then leave it to the Blue Cross. Unlike the RSPCA the Blue Cross will tackle the problem of "travellers'" horses because it's not stuck in a 1930's class war.
So because the RSPCA confronts and deals with the monsters who abuse animals for a "sport" they are the ones in the wrong, not worthy of donations? You are a narrow minded idiot.

Both charities do an excellent job and its a shame that we have to have charities to protect animals from the human race. The fact that hunt members feel the need to dress up "as toffs" to watch a fox being ripped apart for the hunts enjoyment, says it all. Horrible people with horrible beliefs who hide behind a pretence of being prejudiced because of their "class". I do not care if the hunt have money or live in a squat, their beliefs are still the same. Vile.
Perfectly put Flopsy ! Totally agree
[quote][p][bold]flopsy3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: If you want to leave your money to a real animal charity and not an extreme left crew of entryists, which is what the RSPCA has decayed into, then leave it to the Blue Cross. Unlike the RSPCA the Blue Cross will tackle the problem of "travellers'" horses because it's not stuck in a 1930's class war.[/p][/quote]So because the RSPCA confronts and deals with the monsters who abuse animals for a "sport" they are the ones in the wrong, not worthy of donations? You are a narrow minded idiot. Both charities do an excellent job and its a shame that we have to have charities to protect animals from the human race. The fact that hunt members feel the need to dress up "as toffs" to watch a fox being ripped apart for the hunts enjoyment, says it all. Horrible people with horrible beliefs who hide behind a pretence of being prejudiced because of their "class". I do not care if the hunt have money or live in a squat, their beliefs are still the same. Vile.[/p][/quote]Perfectly put Flopsy ! Totally agree livid99
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Thu 20 Dec 12

parvinder msvarency says...

livid99 wrote:
flopsy3 wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
If you want to leave your money to a real animal charity and not an extreme left crew of entryists, which is what the RSPCA has decayed into, then leave it to the Blue Cross. Unlike the RSPCA the Blue Cross will tackle the problem of "travellers'" horses because it's not stuck in a 1930's class war.
So because the RSPCA confronts and deals with the monsters who abuse animals for a "sport" they are the ones in the wrong, not worthy of donations? You are a narrow minded idiot.

Both charities do an excellent job and its a shame that we have to have charities to protect animals from the human race. The fact that hunt members feel the need to dress up "as toffs" to watch a fox being ripped apart for the hunts enjoyment, says it all. Horrible people with horrible beliefs who hide behind a pretence of being prejudiced because of their "class". I do not care if the hunt have money or live in a squat, their beliefs are still the same. Vile.
Perfectly put Flopsy ! Totally agree
The RSPCA although set up as a worthy organisation, has grown into a monster, with powers well above it's station. It needs to be reigned in, because if it does another 10 prosecutions like this, we will lose hundreds of nurses due to the money wasted. The RSPCA now should have to live on it's own money and not squander ours like this. What is wrong with Mobile phone footage, given to the police in attendance?. That does not cost £300+ million
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flopsy3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: If you want to leave your money to a real animal charity and not an extreme left crew of entryists, which is what the RSPCA has decayed into, then leave it to the Blue Cross. Unlike the RSPCA the Blue Cross will tackle the problem of "travellers'" horses because it's not stuck in a 1930's class war.[/p][/quote]So because the RSPCA confronts and deals with the monsters who abuse animals for a "sport" they are the ones in the wrong, not worthy of donations? You are a narrow minded idiot. Both charities do an excellent job and its a shame that we have to have charities to protect animals from the human race. The fact that hunt members feel the need to dress up "as toffs" to watch a fox being ripped apart for the hunts enjoyment, says it all. Horrible people with horrible beliefs who hide behind a pretence of being prejudiced because of their "class". I do not care if the hunt have money or live in a squat, their beliefs are still the same. Vile.[/p][/quote]Perfectly put Flopsy ! Totally agree[/p][/quote]The RSPCA although set up as a worthy organisation, has grown into a monster, with powers well above it's station. It needs to be reigned in, because if it does another 10 prosecutions like this, we will lose hundreds of nurses due to the money wasted. The RSPCA now should have to live on it's own money and not squander ours like this. What is wrong with Mobile phone footage, given to the police in attendance?. That does not cost £300+ million parvinder msvarency
  • Score: 0

11:52pm Thu 20 Dec 12

DoctorBob says...

That jolly Julian fella should be exterminated for a crime against fashion for a start!
That jolly Julian fella should be exterminated for a crime against fashion for a start! DoctorBob
  • Score: 0

12:02am Fri 21 Dec 12

DoctorBob says...

parvinder msvarency wrote:
livid99 wrote:
flopsy3 wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
If you want to leave your money to a real animal charity and not an extreme left crew of entryists, which is what the RSPCA has decayed into, then leave it to the Blue Cross. Unlike the RSPCA the Blue Cross will tackle the problem of "travellers'" horses because it's not stuck in a 1930's class war.
So because the RSPCA confronts and deals with the monsters who abuse animals for a "sport" they are the ones in the wrong, not worthy of donations? You are a narrow minded idiot.

Both charities do an excellent job and its a shame that we have to have charities to protect animals from the human race. The fact that hunt members feel the need to dress up "as toffs" to watch a fox being ripped apart for the hunts enjoyment, says it all. Horrible people with horrible beliefs who hide behind a pretence of being prejudiced because of their "class". I do not care if the hunt have money or live in a squat, their beliefs are still the same. Vile.
Perfectly put Flopsy ! Totally agree
The RSPCA although set up as a worthy organisation, has grown into a monster, with powers well above it's station. It needs to be reigned in, because if it does another 10 prosecutions like this, we will lose hundreds of nurses due to the money wasted. The RSPCA now should have to live on it's own money and not squander ours like this. What is wrong with Mobile phone footage, given to the police in attendance?. That does not cost £300+ million
You've just gotta love the opinionated that get all the facts they think they've based their opinions on epically wrong.

Check dis out:

The RSPCA is funded entirely by voluntary donations.No state or lottery funding is received. In 2009, total income was £129,251,000, total expenditure was £119,339,000. Its patron is Queen Elizabeth II
[quote][p][bold]parvinder msvarency[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flopsy3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: If you want to leave your money to a real animal charity and not an extreme left crew of entryists, which is what the RSPCA has decayed into, then leave it to the Blue Cross. Unlike the RSPCA the Blue Cross will tackle the problem of "travellers'" horses because it's not stuck in a 1930's class war.[/p][/quote]So because the RSPCA confronts and deals with the monsters who abuse animals for a "sport" they are the ones in the wrong, not worthy of donations? You are a narrow minded idiot. Both charities do an excellent job and its a shame that we have to have charities to protect animals from the human race. The fact that hunt members feel the need to dress up "as toffs" to watch a fox being ripped apart for the hunts enjoyment, says it all. Horrible people with horrible beliefs who hide behind a pretence of being prejudiced because of their "class". I do not care if the hunt have money or live in a squat, their beliefs are still the same. Vile.[/p][/quote]Perfectly put Flopsy ! Totally agree[/p][/quote]The RSPCA although set up as a worthy organisation, has grown into a monster, with powers well above it's station. It needs to be reigned in, because if it does another 10 prosecutions like this, we will lose hundreds of nurses due to the money wasted. The RSPCA now should have to live on it's own money and not squander ours like this. What is wrong with Mobile phone footage, given to the police in attendance?. That does not cost £300+ million[/p][/quote]You've just gotta love the opinionated that get all the facts they think they've based their opinions on epically wrong. Check dis out: The RSPCA is funded entirely by voluntary donations.No state or lottery funding is received. In 2009, total income was £129,251,000, total expenditure was £119,339,000. Its patron is Queen Elizabeth II DoctorBob
  • Score: 0

3:21am Fri 21 Dec 12

Lord Palmerstone says...

Floppy 3; if it's "narrow minded" to support a good charity which quietly does an efficient job against a grandstanding set-up which has become so introspective because of the dogma of its "management", leftists with "degrees" in meedja studies and craft design 'n technology, then guilty. You leave your cash to the crew that'll bin it. Perhaps the RSPCA ought to organise coach trips to Grosvenor Square to rant at the US embassy about the Vietnam War.And Bob, the Queen will find it hard to wriggle out of her position but one suspects contributions from those capable of recognising something very unpleasant indeed may vanish. And no, the District Judge doesn't subscribe to hunting, just to common sense, never the strong point of left wing bigots.
Floppy 3; if it's "narrow minded" to support a good charity which quietly does an efficient job against a grandstanding set-up which has become so introspective because of the dogma of its "management", leftists with "degrees" in meedja studies and craft design 'n technology, then guilty. You leave your cash to the crew that'll bin it. Perhaps the RSPCA ought to organise coach trips to Grosvenor Square to rant at the US embassy about the Vietnam War.And Bob, the Queen will find it hard to wriggle out of her position but one suspects contributions from those capable of recognising something very unpleasant indeed may vanish. And no, the District Judge doesn't subscribe to hunting, just to common sense, never the strong point of left wing bigots. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

9:15am Fri 21 Dec 12

to ny w says...

DoctorBob wrote:
parvinder msvarency wrote:
livid99 wrote:
flopsy3 wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
If you want to leave your money to a real animal charity and not an extreme left crew of entryists, which is what the RSPCA has decayed into, then leave it to the Blue Cross. Unlike the RSPCA the Blue Cross will tackle the problem of "travellers'" horses because it's not stuck in a 1930's class war.
So because the RSPCA confronts and deals with the monsters who abuse animals for a "sport" they are the ones in the wrong, not worthy of donations? You are a narrow minded idiot.

Both charities do an excellent job and its a shame that we have to have charities to protect animals from the human race. The fact that hunt members feel the need to dress up "as toffs" to watch a fox being ripped apart for the hunts enjoyment, says it all. Horrible people with horrible beliefs who hide behind a pretence of being prejudiced because of their "class". I do not care if the hunt have money or live in a squat, their beliefs are still the same. Vile.
Perfectly put Flopsy ! Totally agree
The RSPCA although set up as a worthy organisation, has grown into a monster, with powers well above it's station. It needs to be reigned in, because if it does another 10 prosecutions like this, we will lose hundreds of nurses due to the money wasted. The RSPCA now should have to live on it's own money and not squander ours like this. What is wrong with Mobile phone footage, given to the police in attendance?. That does not cost £300+ million
You've just gotta love the opinionated that get all the facts they think they've based their opinions on epically wrong.

Check dis out:

The RSPCA is funded entirely by voluntary donations.No state or lottery funding is received. In 2009, total income was £129,251,000, total expenditure was £119,339,000. Its patron is Queen Elizabeth II
Well if they are that flushed there is definitely no excuse not to prosecute the Rat man, (see above).
But they wont, of course, blinkers only get them to look in one direction!!
[quote][p][bold]DoctorBob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]parvinder msvarency[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flopsy3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: If you want to leave your money to a real animal charity and not an extreme left crew of entryists, which is what the RSPCA has decayed into, then leave it to the Blue Cross. Unlike the RSPCA the Blue Cross will tackle the problem of "travellers'" horses because it's not stuck in a 1930's class war.[/p][/quote]So because the RSPCA confronts and deals with the monsters who abuse animals for a "sport" they are the ones in the wrong, not worthy of donations? You are a narrow minded idiot. Both charities do an excellent job and its a shame that we have to have charities to protect animals from the human race. The fact that hunt members feel the need to dress up "as toffs" to watch a fox being ripped apart for the hunts enjoyment, says it all. Horrible people with horrible beliefs who hide behind a pretence of being prejudiced because of their "class". I do not care if the hunt have money or live in a squat, their beliefs are still the same. Vile.[/p][/quote]Perfectly put Flopsy ! Totally agree[/p][/quote]The RSPCA although set up as a worthy organisation, has grown into a monster, with powers well above it's station. It needs to be reigned in, because if it does another 10 prosecutions like this, we will lose hundreds of nurses due to the money wasted. The RSPCA now should have to live on it's own money and not squander ours like this. What is wrong with Mobile phone footage, given to the police in attendance?. That does not cost £300+ million[/p][/quote]You've just gotta love the opinionated that get all the facts they think they've based their opinions on epically wrong. Check dis out: The RSPCA is funded entirely by voluntary donations.No state or lottery funding is received. In 2009, total income was £129,251,000, total expenditure was £119,339,000. Its patron is Queen Elizabeth II[/p][/quote]Well if they are that flushed there is definitely no excuse not to prosecute the Rat man, (see above). But they wont, of course, blinkers only get them to look in one direction!! to ny w
  • Score: 0

11:49am Fri 21 Dec 12

A34North says...

RSPCA wonderful organisation, full of film stars!
RSPCA wonderful organisation, full of film stars! A34North
  • Score: 0

1:28pm Fri 21 Dec 12

scorer says...

I would like to know if the people expressing ant hunt views here are vegetarian because surely an extension of their views is that farming is unjustified.
I would like to know if the people expressing ant hunt views here are vegetarian because surely an extension of their views is that farming is unjustified. scorer
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Fri 21 Dec 12

stu the rabbit says...

I must agree with Lord Palmerston, the RSPCA does nothing about the illegal
finch trapping,**** fighting, dog fighting and general animal abuse that takes place on certain caravan sites. Nor does it appear to take much of a stand against the hallal slaughter that is now common all over the country.Wouldn"nt
£350,000 be better spent re-homing Rabbits/Cats/Dogs/Ho
rses than fighting
a class war they will never win?
I must agree with Lord Palmerston, the RSPCA does nothing about the illegal finch trapping,**** fighting, dog fighting and general animal abuse that takes place on certain caravan sites. Nor does it appear to take much of a stand against the hallal slaughter that is now common all over the country.Wouldn"nt £350,000 be better spent re-homing Rabbits/Cats/Dogs/Ho rses than fighting a class war they will never win? stu the rabbit
  • Score: 0

11:23pm Fri 21 Dec 12

DoctorBob says...

stu the rabbit wrote:
I must agree with Lord Palmerston, the RSPCA does nothing about the illegal
finch trapping,**** fighting, dog fighting and general animal abuse that takes place on certain caravan sites. Nor does it appear to take much of a stand against the hallal slaughter that is now common all over the country.Wouldn"
nt
£350,000 be better spent re-homing Rabbits/Cats/Dogs/Ho

rses than fighting
a class war they will never win?
A powerful argument there if only it was based on truth. Unfortunately a simple internet search shows you are just making stuff up to back up your prejudices.
[quote][p][bold]stu the rabbit[/bold] wrote: I must agree with Lord Palmerston, the RSPCA does nothing about the illegal finch trapping,**** fighting, dog fighting and general animal abuse that takes place on certain caravan sites. Nor does it appear to take much of a stand against the hallal slaughter that is now common all over the country.Wouldn" nt £350,000 be better spent re-homing Rabbits/Cats/Dogs/Ho rses than fighting a class war they will never win?[/p][/quote]A powerful argument there if only it was based on truth. Unfortunately a simple internet search shows you are just making stuff up to back up your prejudices. DoctorBob
  • Score: 0

11:26pm Fri 21 Dec 12

DoctorBob says...

scorer wrote:
I would like to know if the people expressing ant hunt views here are vegetarian because surely an extension of their views is that farming is unjustified.
I don't believe in hunting ants either.
[quote][p][bold]scorer[/bold] wrote: I would like to know if the people expressing ant hunt views here are vegetarian because surely an extension of their views is that farming is unjustified.[/p][/quote]I don't believe in hunting ants either. DoctorBob
  • Score: 0

11:30pm Fri 21 Dec 12

DoctorBob says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Floppy 3; if it's "narrow minded" to support a good charity which quietly does an efficient job against a grandstanding set-up which has become so introspective because of the dogma of its "management", leftists with "degrees" in meedja studies and craft design 'n technology, then guilty. You leave your cash to the crew that'll bin it. Perhaps the RSPCA ought to organise coach trips to Grosvenor Square to rant at the US embassy about the Vietnam War.And Bob, the Queen will find it hard to wriggle out of her position but one suspects contributions from those capable of recognising something very unpleasant indeed may vanish. And no, the District Judge doesn't subscribe to hunting, just to common sense, never the strong point of left wing bigots.
Is there anything that isn't a 'lefty' conspiracy in your world my lord?
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: Floppy 3; if it's "narrow minded" to support a good charity which quietly does an efficient job against a grandstanding set-up which has become so introspective because of the dogma of its "management", leftists with "degrees" in meedja studies and craft design 'n technology, then guilty. You leave your cash to the crew that'll bin it. Perhaps the RSPCA ought to organise coach trips to Grosvenor Square to rant at the US embassy about the Vietnam War.And Bob, the Queen will find it hard to wriggle out of her position but one suspects contributions from those capable of recognising something very unpleasant indeed may vanish. And no, the District Judge doesn't subscribe to hunting, just to common sense, never the strong point of left wing bigots.[/p][/quote]Is there anything that isn't a 'lefty' conspiracy in your world my lord? DoctorBob
  • Score: 0

8:08am Sat 22 Dec 12

Lord Palmerstone says...

Well Doctor Bob as soon as the knuckle draggers start babbling about "toffs" I kind of suspect that we're talking the discredited 19th century dogma of socialism. You may believe that when their monstrous apparatus collapsed under its own vileness in 1989 socialism had no more life left in it than the equal doctrine of the Flat Earth. But don't underestimate them. The whole panoply of "equality", unrestricted immigration, etc is the dogma resurgent. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" and all that. However Doctor Bob since a cross-party group of MP's has complained to the Charity Commission about the RSPCA's politically motivated grandstanding, maybe, just maybe your superciliousness is directed at the wrong target.
Well Doctor Bob as soon as the knuckle draggers start babbling about "toffs" I kind of suspect that we're talking the discredited 19th century dogma of socialism. You may believe that when their monstrous apparatus collapsed under its own vileness in 1989 socialism had no more life left in it than the equal doctrine of the Flat Earth. But don't underestimate them. The whole panoply of "equality", unrestricted immigration, etc is the dogma resurgent. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" and all that. However Doctor Bob since a cross-party group of MP's has complained to the Charity Commission about the RSPCA's politically motivated grandstanding, maybe, just maybe your superciliousness is directed at the wrong target. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

10:28am Sat 22 Dec 12

DoctorBob says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Well Doctor Bob as soon as the knuckle draggers start babbling about "toffs" I kind of suspect that we're talking the discredited 19th century dogma of socialism. You may believe that when their monstrous apparatus collapsed under its own vileness in 1989 socialism had no more life left in it than the equal doctrine of the Flat Earth. But don't underestimate them. The whole panoply of "equality", unrestricted immigration, etc is the dogma resurgent. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" and all that. However Doctor Bob since a cross-party group of MP's has complained to the Charity Commission about the RSPCA's politically motivated grandstanding, maybe, just maybe your superciliousness is directed at the wrong target.
Everyone who calls someone a toff is a knuckle dragging Socialist eh? Such a complex political thinker aren't you.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: Well Doctor Bob as soon as the knuckle draggers start babbling about "toffs" I kind of suspect that we're talking the discredited 19th century dogma of socialism. You may believe that when their monstrous apparatus collapsed under its own vileness in 1989 socialism had no more life left in it than the equal doctrine of the Flat Earth. But don't underestimate them. The whole panoply of "equality", unrestricted immigration, etc is the dogma resurgent. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" and all that. However Doctor Bob since a cross-party group of MP's has complained to the Charity Commission about the RSPCA's politically motivated grandstanding, maybe, just maybe your superciliousness is directed at the wrong target.[/p][/quote]Everyone who calls someone a toff is a knuckle dragging Socialist eh? Such a complex political thinker aren't you. DoctorBob
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Sat 22 Dec 12

Lord Palmerstone says...

DoctorBob wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Well Doctor Bob as soon as the knuckle draggers start babbling about "toffs" I kind of suspect that we're talking the discredited 19th century dogma of socialism. You may believe that when their monstrous apparatus collapsed under its own vileness in 1989 socialism had no more life left in it than the equal doctrine of the Flat Earth. But don't underestimate them. The whole panoply of "equality", unrestricted immigration, etc is the dogma resurgent. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" and all that. However Doctor Bob since a cross-party group of MP's has complained to the Charity Commission about the RSPCA's politically motivated grandstanding, maybe, just maybe your superciliousness is directed at the wrong target.
Everyone who calls someone a toff is a knuckle dragging Socialist eh? Such a complex political thinker aren't you.
Yeah, I guess crude stereotypes are socialism's stock in trade + always, the abuse. As a dogmatist I know it'll be hard for you, but do try to introduce a bit of sublety. The lefty "yah boo" is as big a bore as it was when it became extinct 120 years ago.
[quote][p][bold]DoctorBob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: Well Doctor Bob as soon as the knuckle draggers start babbling about "toffs" I kind of suspect that we're talking the discredited 19th century dogma of socialism. You may believe that when their monstrous apparatus collapsed under its own vileness in 1989 socialism had no more life left in it than the equal doctrine of the Flat Earth. But don't underestimate them. The whole panoply of "equality", unrestricted immigration, etc is the dogma resurgent. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" and all that. However Doctor Bob since a cross-party group of MP's has complained to the Charity Commission about the RSPCA's politically motivated grandstanding, maybe, just maybe your superciliousness is directed at the wrong target.[/p][/quote]Everyone who calls someone a toff is a knuckle dragging Socialist eh? Such a complex political thinker aren't you.[/p][/quote]Yeah, I guess crude stereotypes are socialism's stock in trade + always, the abuse. As a dogmatist I know it'll be hard for you, but do try to introduce a bit of sublety. The lefty "yah boo" is as big a bore as it was when it became extinct 120 years ago. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Sat 22 Dec 12

Lord Palmerstone says...

Anyway, what about the Naked Rambler Bob? As a card-carrier, what's your view on the CPS upping the sensible police charge at Banbury Magistrates from a fine and go to Outraging Public Decency and not suitable for summary trial?
I guess we've exhausted the "Wickedness to furry wurrry little foxy woxies" haven't we? Let the Charity Commission speak now.
Anyway, what about the Naked Rambler Bob? As a card-carrier, what's your view on the CPS upping the sensible police charge at Banbury Magistrates from a fine and go to Outraging Public Decency and not suitable for summary trial? I guess we've exhausted the "Wickedness to furry wurrry little foxy woxies" haven't we? Let the Charity Commission speak now. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Sat 22 Dec 12

DoctorBob says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
DoctorBob wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Well Doctor Bob as soon as the knuckle draggers start babbling about "toffs" I kind of suspect that we're talking the discredited 19th century dogma of socialism. You may believe that when their monstrous apparatus collapsed under its own vileness in 1989 socialism had no more life left in it than the equal doctrine of the Flat Earth. But don't underestimate them. The whole panoply of "equality", unrestricted immigration, etc is the dogma resurgent. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" and all that. However Doctor Bob since a cross-party group of MP's has complained to the Charity Commission about the RSPCA's politically motivated grandstanding, maybe, just maybe your superciliousness is directed at the wrong target.
Everyone who calls someone a toff is a knuckle dragging Socialist eh? Such a complex political thinker aren't you.
Yeah, I guess crude stereotypes are socialism's stock in trade + always, the abuse. As a dogmatist I know it'll be hard for you, but do try to introduce a bit of sublety. The lefty "yah boo" is as big a bore as it was when it became extinct 120 years ago.
Your own use of crude stereotype and insult is now getting projected onto others. Nice tactic my lord but completely transparent. If that's the subtlety you're introducing to me to then I can't wait for the all out assault.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DoctorBob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: Well Doctor Bob as soon as the knuckle draggers start babbling about "toffs" I kind of suspect that we're talking the discredited 19th century dogma of socialism. You may believe that when their monstrous apparatus collapsed under its own vileness in 1989 socialism had no more life left in it than the equal doctrine of the Flat Earth. But don't underestimate them. The whole panoply of "equality", unrestricted immigration, etc is the dogma resurgent. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" and all that. However Doctor Bob since a cross-party group of MP's has complained to the Charity Commission about the RSPCA's politically motivated grandstanding, maybe, just maybe your superciliousness is directed at the wrong target.[/p][/quote]Everyone who calls someone a toff is a knuckle dragging Socialist eh? Such a complex political thinker aren't you.[/p][/quote]Yeah, I guess crude stereotypes are socialism's stock in trade + always, the abuse. As a dogmatist I know it'll be hard for you, but do try to introduce a bit of sublety. The lefty "yah boo" is as big a bore as it was when it became extinct 120 years ago.[/p][/quote]Your own use of crude stereotype and insult is now getting projected onto others. Nice tactic my lord but completely transparent. If that's the subtlety you're introducing to me to then I can't wait for the all out assault. DoctorBob
  • Score: 0

9:04pm Sat 22 Dec 12

DoctorBob says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Anyway, what about the Naked Rambler Bob? As a card-carrier, what's your view on the CPS upping the sensible police charge at Banbury Magistrates from a fine and go to Outraging Public Decency and not suitable for summary trial?
I guess we've exhausted the "Wickedness to furry wurrry little foxy woxies" haven't we? Let the Charity Commission speak now.
The only card I carry is for Nectar points my lord.
Has a Socialist government done this? I think it's completely stupid, just as I think your conspiracist paranoia about Socialists is.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: Anyway, what about the Naked Rambler Bob? As a card-carrier, what's your view on the CPS upping the sensible police charge at Banbury Magistrates from a fine and go to Outraging Public Decency and not suitable for summary trial? I guess we've exhausted the "Wickedness to furry wurrry little foxy woxies" haven't we? Let the Charity Commission speak now.[/p][/quote]The only card I carry is for Nectar points my lord. Has a Socialist government done this? I think it's completely stupid, just as I think your conspiracist paranoia about Socialists is. DoctorBob
  • Score: 0

10:10am Sun 23 Dec 12

Lord Palmerstone says...

No, the last lot of socialists brought in some pretty ugly stuff in their Sexual Offences Act of 2003 but without looking it up I think outraging public ecency is a common law offence. I think the Calvinists in Northern Britain had tended to use that charge against the NR and CPS Cowley decided to ape them rather than showing English Common Sense. I hope you're correct and that political correctness was not just the US campus lefty default mode on the collapse of the Berlin Wall because if you're right academics will be able to examine that thesis in 20 years time and if I'm right, they won't.
However the ghastly outpouring of gloop that attended the demise of the Late Princess of Wales and which recurs frequently, e.g NHS employee duped by blatantly obvious hoax call, is a purely spontaneous manifestation but none the less nauseating.In that respect did you notice that prosecutors are investigating whether the hoaxsters offended (they didn't) but no investigation , apparently, at Alexandra Hospital in Redditch where NHS employess allowed a patient to die of starvation (manslaughter by gross negligence)?
No, the last lot of socialists brought in some pretty ugly stuff in their Sexual Offences Act of 2003 but without looking it up I think outraging public ecency is a common law offence. I think the Calvinists in Northern Britain had tended to use that charge against the NR and CPS Cowley decided to ape them rather than showing English Common Sense. I hope you're correct and that political correctness was not just the US campus lefty default mode on the collapse of the Berlin Wall because if you're right academics will be able to examine that thesis in 20 years time and if I'm right, they won't. However the ghastly outpouring of gloop that attended the demise of the Late Princess of Wales and which recurs frequently, e.g NHS employee duped by blatantly obvious hoax call, is a purely spontaneous manifestation but none the less nauseating.In that respect did you notice that prosecutors are investigating whether the hoaxsters offended (they didn't) but no investigation , apparently, at Alexandra Hospital in Redditch where NHS employess allowed a patient to die of starvation (manslaughter by gross negligence)? Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

10:54am Sun 23 Dec 12

DoctorBob says...

I'll get back to soon, I'm only on page 7 of the dictionary.
I'll get back to soon, I'm only on page 7 of the dictionary. DoctorBob
  • Score: 0

11:07am Sun 23 Dec 12

steve1955 says...

Snobs V Peasants debate going on here

Who wins?
Take out the above factor what is being discussed but not focussed on is the fact they broke the LAW and are now convicted criminals just like a convicted shoplifter caught in tescos stealing a tin of beans
Snobs V Peasants debate going on here Who wins? Take out the above factor what is being discussed but not focussed on is the fact they broke the LAW and are now convicted criminals just like a convicted shoplifter caught in tescos stealing a tin of beans steve1955
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Sun 23 Dec 12

DoctorBob says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
No, the last lot of socialists brought in some pretty ugly stuff in their Sexual Offences Act of 2003 but without looking it up I think outraging public ecency is a common law offence. I think the Calvinists in Northern Britain had tended to use that charge against the NR and CPS Cowley decided to ape them rather than showing English Common Sense. I hope you're correct and that political correctness was not just the US campus lefty default mode on the collapse of the Berlin Wall because if you're right academics will be able to examine that thesis in 20 years time and if I'm right, they won't.
However the ghastly outpouring of gloop that attended the demise of the Late Princess of Wales and which recurs frequently, e.g NHS employee duped by blatantly obvious hoax call, is a purely spontaneous manifestation but none the less nauseating.In that respect did you notice that prosecutors are investigating whether the hoaxsters offended (they didn't) but no investigation , apparently, at Alexandra Hospital in Redditch where NHS employess allowed a patient to die of starvation (manslaughter by gross negligence)?
What am I to do now Pickles wants rid of translation services? Who's going to make sense of your psuedo intellectual trollox now?
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: No, the last lot of socialists brought in some pretty ugly stuff in their Sexual Offences Act of 2003 but without looking it up I think outraging public ecency is a common law offence. I think the Calvinists in Northern Britain had tended to use that charge against the NR and CPS Cowley decided to ape them rather than showing English Common Sense. I hope you're correct and that political correctness was not just the US campus lefty default mode on the collapse of the Berlin Wall because if you're right academics will be able to examine that thesis in 20 years time and if I'm right, they won't. However the ghastly outpouring of gloop that attended the demise of the Late Princess of Wales and which recurs frequently, e.g NHS employee duped by blatantly obvious hoax call, is a purely spontaneous manifestation but none the less nauseating.In that respect did you notice that prosecutors are investigating whether the hoaxsters offended (they didn't) but no investigation , apparently, at Alexandra Hospital in Redditch where NHS employess allowed a patient to die of starvation (manslaughter by gross negligence)?[/p][/quote]What am I to do now Pickles wants rid of translation services? Who's going to make sense of your psuedo intellectual trollox now? DoctorBob
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Sun 23 Dec 12

Lord Palmerstone says...

My mistake Dr Bob. I assumed you were a sensible person but anyway-" 'ere comes a torf. Let's fro a 'arf brick at 'im". Well done. Happy Christmas.
My mistake Dr Bob. I assumed you were a sensible person but anyway-" 'ere comes a torf. Let's fro a 'arf brick at 'im". Well done. Happy Christmas. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Sun 23 Dec 12

oxman says...

Socialists?

Since when was there a main party in this country that was left wing?

That really died in the 80s and Blair killed it off in the 90s.
Socialists? Since when was there a main party in this country that was left wing? That really died in the 80s and Blair killed it off in the 90s. oxman
  • Score: 0

7:53pm Sun 23 Dec 12

DoctorBob says...

The Lord's name is McCarthy.
The Lord's name is McCarthy. DoctorBob
  • Score: 0

7:58pm Sun 23 Dec 12

Jerroboam says...

The RSPCA was set up by a fox hunting man in order to help livestock. They have moved so far away from their founding principles it is unreal. Perhaps they should stop allowing themselves to be drawn into political battles and use their DONATED money to stop actual cruelty. We have a major problem in this country with status dogs/puppy farming/animals being dumped yet fox hunting seems to be highest on their agenda? They made a HUGE mistake siding with the animal rights activists on the badger cull and now this. Before to long the experts in animal welfare, vets/farmers etc will not want to be associated with this organisation.
The RSPCA was set up by a fox hunting man in order to help livestock. They have moved so far away from their founding principles it is unreal. Perhaps they should stop allowing themselves to be drawn into political battles and use their DONATED money to stop actual cruelty. We have a major problem in this country with status dogs/puppy farming/animals being dumped yet fox hunting seems to be highest on their agenda? They made a HUGE mistake siding with the animal rights activists on the badger cull and now this. Before to long the experts in animal welfare, vets/farmers etc will not want to be associated with this organisation. Jerroboam
  • Score: 0

10:14am Mon 24 Dec 12

museli says...

Jerroboam wrote:
The RSPCA was set up by a fox hunting man in order to help livestock. They have moved so far away from their founding principles it is unreal. Perhaps they should stop allowing themselves to be drawn into political battles and use their DONATED money to stop actual cruelty. We have a major problem in this country with status dogs/puppy farming/animals being dumped yet fox hunting seems to be highest on their agenda? They made a HUGE mistake siding with the animal rights activists on the badger cull and now this. Before to long the experts in animal welfare, vets/farmers etc will not want to be associated with this organisation.
This is very misleading! The SPCA, as it was then, was restricted to to protecting certain types of animals when it was founded in the 1820s, farm animals, pit ponies etc, as the only animal welfare legislation at the time excluded most animals. The SPCA was one of the main driving forces behind Peases's Act in 1835 which extended protection to dogs and other domestic animals and banned ****-fighting and bear-baiting. The only real difference between ****-fighting, bear-baiting and fox hunting is that fox hunting is animal cruelty for the entertainment of the rich and influential. The fox suffers just as much as do the kittens some local yobs have been known to steal and use to train their fighting dogs - the only real difference is the class of the person committing the crime.

The idea that farmers are experts in animal welfare is laughable - these are the guys who brought us BSE and foot and mouth with their profiteering mistreatment of animals.
[quote][p][bold]Jerroboam[/bold] wrote: The RSPCA was set up by a fox hunting man in order to help livestock. They have moved so far away from their founding principles it is unreal. Perhaps they should stop allowing themselves to be drawn into political battles and use their DONATED money to stop actual cruelty. We have a major problem in this country with status dogs/puppy farming/animals being dumped yet fox hunting seems to be highest on their agenda? They made a HUGE mistake siding with the animal rights activists on the badger cull and now this. Before to long the experts in animal welfare, vets/farmers etc will not want to be associated with this organisation.[/p][/quote]This is very misleading! The SPCA, as it was then, was restricted to to protecting certain types of animals when it was founded in the 1820s, farm animals, pit ponies etc, as the only animal welfare legislation at the time excluded most animals. The SPCA was one of the main driving forces behind Peases's Act in 1835 which extended protection to dogs and other domestic animals and banned ****-fighting and bear-baiting. The only real difference between ****-fighting, bear-baiting and fox hunting is that fox hunting is animal cruelty for the entertainment of the rich and influential. The fox suffers just as much as do the kittens some local yobs have been known to steal and use to train their fighting dogs - the only real difference is the class of the person committing the crime. The idea that farmers are experts in animal welfare is laughable - these are the guys who brought us BSE and foot and mouth with their profiteering mistreatment of animals. museli
  • Score: 0

11:45am Mon 24 Dec 12

margaretf says...

Oh dear. So many prejudices being aired. So little thought being exercised. Fox hunting is a cruel and appalling"sport" The UK should be free from it. It is after all, illegal. The RSPCA would be failing in its duty if it did not launch a prosecution against this group of people. Well done, say I
Margaret.
Oh dear. So many prejudices being aired. So little thought being exercised. Fox hunting is a cruel and appalling"sport" The UK should be free from it. It is after all, illegal. The RSPCA would be failing in its duty if it did not launch a prosecution against this group of people. Well done, say I Margaret. margaretf
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Mon 24 Dec 12

to ny w says...

margaretf wrote:
Oh dear. So many prejudices being aired. So little thought being exercised. Fox hunting is a cruel and appalling"sport
" The UK should be free from it. It is after all, illegal. The RSPCA would be failing in its duty if it did not launch a prosecution against this group of people. Well done, say I
Margaret.
So Margaret and many others,
the RSPCA would also not be fulfilling their responsibility by not pursuing a private prosecution against the Rat Man?? (See above).
After all it is against the law, Rats are wild mammals as well.
[quote][p][bold]margaretf[/bold] wrote: Oh dear. So many prejudices being aired. So little thought being exercised. Fox hunting is a cruel and appalling"sport " The UK should be free from it. It is after all, illegal. The RSPCA would be failing in its duty if it did not launch a prosecution against this group of people. Well done, say I Margaret.[/p][/quote]So Margaret and many others, the RSPCA would also not be fulfilling their responsibility by not pursuing a private prosecution against the Rat Man?? (See above). After all it is against the law, Rats are wild mammals as well. to ny w
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Mon 24 Dec 12

museli says...

to ny w wrote:
margaretf wrote:
Oh dear. So many prejudices being aired. So little thought being exercised. Fox hunting is a cruel and appalling"sport

" The UK should be free from it. It is after all, illegal. The RSPCA would be failing in its duty if it did not launch a prosecution against this group of people. Well done, say I
Margaret.
So Margaret and many others,
the RSPCA would also not be fulfilling their responsibility by not pursuing a private prosecution against the Rat Man?? (See above).
After all it is against the law, Rats are wild mammals as well.
You seem to have a bit of a fixation with this 'rat man' whoever he is to ny w!

I don't see how it's relevant, no one would expect the RSPCA to have the resources to prosecute every breech of the hunting act. Anyway the hunting act exempts hunting rats with the landowner's permission:

"Rats 3
The hunting of rats is exempt if it takes place on land—(a)which belongs to the hunter, or(b)which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs."
[quote][p][bold]to ny w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]margaretf[/bold] wrote: Oh dear. So many prejudices being aired. So little thought being exercised. Fox hunting is a cruel and appalling"sport " The UK should be free from it. It is after all, illegal. The RSPCA would be failing in its duty if it did not launch a prosecution against this group of people. Well done, say I Margaret.[/p][/quote]So Margaret and many others, the RSPCA would also not be fulfilling their responsibility by not pursuing a private prosecution against the Rat Man?? (See above). After all it is against the law, Rats are wild mammals as well.[/p][/quote]You seem to have a bit of a fixation with this 'rat man' whoever he is to ny w! I don't see how it's relevant, no one would expect the RSPCA to have the resources to prosecute every breech of the hunting act. Anyway the hunting act exempts hunting rats with the landowner's permission: "Rats 3 The hunting of rats is exempt if it takes place on land—(a)which belongs to the hunter, or(b)which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs." museli
  • Score: 0

2:34pm Mon 24 Dec 12

A34North says...

museli wrote:
to ny w wrote:
margaretf wrote:
Oh dear. So many prejudices being aired. So little thought being exercised. Fox hunting is a cruel and appalling"sport


" The UK should be free from it. It is after all, illegal. The RSPCA would be failing in its duty if it did not launch a prosecution against this group of people. Well done, say I
Margaret.
So Margaret and many others,
the RSPCA would also not be fulfilling their responsibility by not pursuing a private prosecution against the Rat Man?? (See above).
After all it is against the law, Rats are wild mammals as well.
You seem to have a bit of a fixation with this 'rat man' whoever he is to ny w!

I don't see how it's relevant, no one would expect the RSPCA to have the resources to prosecute every breech of the hunting act. Anyway the hunting act exempts hunting rats with the landowner's permission:

"Rats 3
The hunting of rats is exempt if it takes place on land—(a)which belongs to the hunter, or(b)which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs."
So let me see...........you can't hunt a fox with dogs however, we can hunt rats with dogs and let them tear them to bits leaving poor little rattie kids without parents. Does this 'law' apply to any other little creatures?

How cruel it is that we selectively accept that things are either cute (Fox) or nasty (Rat) and make laws for the ones we like and laws for the ones we don't? Yes, go on kill that rat but you dare kill that cute little mange infested hepatitis ridden fox the same way.
I suppose these same selective people assume, judge and label people by the clothes they wear.
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]to ny w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]margaretf[/bold] wrote: Oh dear. So many prejudices being aired. So little thought being exercised. Fox hunting is a cruel and appalling"sport " The UK should be free from it. It is after all, illegal. The RSPCA would be failing in its duty if it did not launch a prosecution against this group of people. Well done, say I Margaret.[/p][/quote]So Margaret and many others, the RSPCA would also not be fulfilling their responsibility by not pursuing a private prosecution against the Rat Man?? (See above). After all it is against the law, Rats are wild mammals as well.[/p][/quote]You seem to have a bit of a fixation with this 'rat man' whoever he is to ny w! I don't see how it's relevant, no one would expect the RSPCA to have the resources to prosecute every breech of the hunting act. Anyway the hunting act exempts hunting rats with the landowner's permission: "Rats 3 The hunting of rats is exempt if it takes place on land—(a)which belongs to the hunter, or(b)which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs."[/p][/quote]So let me see...........you can't hunt a fox with dogs however, we can hunt rats with dogs and let them tear them to bits leaving poor little rattie kids without parents. Does this 'law' apply to any other little creatures? How cruel it is that we selectively accept that things are either cute (Fox) or nasty (Rat) and make laws for the ones we like and laws for the ones we don't? Yes, go on kill that rat but you dare kill that cute little mange infested hepatitis ridden fox the same way. I suppose these same selective people assume, judge and label people by the clothes they wear. A34North
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Mon 24 Dec 12

museli says...

Personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary.

But surely the difference between killing rats because of genuine, if possibly exaggerated, worries about risk to public health and killing foxes to satisfy some pervert's bloodlust or zoosadism or whatever is obvious.
Personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary. But surely the difference between killing rats because of genuine, if possibly exaggerated, worries about risk to public health and killing foxes to satisfy some pervert's bloodlust or zoosadism or whatever is obvious. museli
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Mon 24 Dec 12

A34North says...

museli wrote:
Personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary.

But surely the difference between killing rats because of genuine, if possibly exaggerated, worries about risk to public health and killing foxes to satisfy some pervert's bloodlust or zoosadism or whatever is obvious.
Read your post and then read mine again. Explain to me the difference between the rat catcher dog and the fox hounds and the pleasure of the kill enjoyed by their owners. You attribute the need to kill the rat due to public health concern and find it acceptable to use a dog to justify it, yet that cute old mange infested hepatitis ridden fox should be treated differently.

Strange yet we all use selectivity to justify.
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: Personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary. But surely the difference between killing rats because of genuine, if possibly exaggerated, worries about risk to public health and killing foxes to satisfy some pervert's bloodlust or zoosadism or whatever is obvious.[/p][/quote]Read your post and then read mine again. Explain to me the difference between the rat catcher dog and the fox hounds and the pleasure of the kill enjoyed by their owners. You attribute the need to kill the rat due to public health concern and find it acceptable to use a dog to justify it, yet that cute old mange infested hepatitis ridden fox should be treated differently. Strange yet we all use selectivity to justify. A34North
  • Score: 0

4:49pm Mon 24 Dec 12

museli says...

A34North wrote:
museli wrote:
Personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary.

But surely the difference between killing rats because of genuine, if possibly exaggerated, worries about risk to public health and killing foxes to satisfy some pervert's bloodlust or zoosadism or whatever is obvious.
Read your post and then read mine again. Explain to me the difference between the rat catcher dog and the fox hounds and the pleasure of the kill enjoyed by their owners. You attribute the need to kill the rat due to public health concern and find it acceptable to use a dog to justify it, yet that cute old mange infested hepatitis ridden fox should be treated differently.

Strange yet we all use selectivity to justify.
Errr - what are you on about? I said, 'personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary'. I can't think of any situation where I'd find it acceptable to cause a dog to maul another animal to death.

The difference is one of motivation - fox hunts don't take place to protect people from possible ill-health transmitted by foxes. I don't think people can catch canine hepatitis or mange even if they did manage to come into contact with an infectious fox. Weil's disease from rat urine is at least a genuine risk even if extremely rare.
[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: Personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary. But surely the difference between killing rats because of genuine, if possibly exaggerated, worries about risk to public health and killing foxes to satisfy some pervert's bloodlust or zoosadism or whatever is obvious.[/p][/quote]Read your post and then read mine again. Explain to me the difference between the rat catcher dog and the fox hounds and the pleasure of the kill enjoyed by their owners. You attribute the need to kill the rat due to public health concern and find it acceptable to use a dog to justify it, yet that cute old mange infested hepatitis ridden fox should be treated differently. Strange yet we all use selectivity to justify.[/p][/quote]Errr - what are you on about? I said, 'personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary'. I can't think of any situation where I'd find it acceptable to cause a dog to maul another animal to death. The difference is one of motivation - fox hunts don't take place to protect people from possible ill-health transmitted by foxes. I don't think people can catch canine hepatitis or mange even if they did manage to come into contact with an infectious fox. Weil's disease from rat urine is at least a genuine risk even if extremely rare. museli
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Mon 24 Dec 12

margaretf says...

I confess to being a little surprised that the article which readers are purportedly commenting upon-the welcome and justified prosecution of the Heythrop huntsmen- is being used as a vehicle to dispute matters which do not relate to that prosecution and that breach of the law, I suggest that either the discussion should concentrate on the cruel and mindless killing of the fox, or the willful breaking of the law,Other matters should not intrude into the discussion, and it is sad that they have done so.
I confess to being a little surprised that the article which readers are purportedly commenting upon-the welcome and justified prosecution of the Heythrop huntsmen- is being used as a vehicle to dispute matters which do not relate to that prosecution and that breach of the law, I suggest that either the discussion should concentrate on the cruel and mindless killing of the fox, or the willful breaking of the law,Other matters should not intrude into the discussion, and it is sad that they have done so. margaretf
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Mon 24 Dec 12

A34North says...

museli wrote:
A34North wrote:
museli wrote:
Personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary.

But surely the difference between killing rats because of genuine, if possibly exaggerated, worries about risk to public health and killing foxes to satisfy some pervert's bloodlust or zoosadism or whatever is obvious.
Read your post and then read mine again. Explain to me the difference between the rat catcher dog and the fox hounds and the pleasure of the kill enjoyed by their owners. You attribute the need to kill the rat due to public health concern and find it acceptable to use a dog to justify it, yet that cute old mange infested hepatitis ridden fox should be treated differently.

Strange yet we all use selectivity to justify.
Errr - what are you on about? I said, 'personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary'. I can't think of any situation where I'd find it acceptable to cause a dog to maul another animal to death.

The difference is one of motivation - fox hunts don't take place to protect people from possible ill-health transmitted by foxes. I don't think people can catch canine hepatitis or mange even if they did manage to come into contact with an infectious fox. Weil's disease from rat urine is at least a genuine risk even if extremely rare.
Let me get this right. You justify the possible death of a rat due to the possibility of it carrying Weil's disease and that death can be carried out by a dog biting it. However, you are not in favour of dogs killing foxes that may have Mange or Acute Hepatitis, Toxocariasis, Weil's disease and Hydatid disease which can be transmitted to humans and domestic animals.
As regards to the motivation, it is the same in both cases, the death of the animal rat or fox was induced by a human.
I am not having a pop at you it is just that 'we all' use selectivity to justify the means. I would rather see a fox killed by a pack of hounds than see it shot only to die a slow lingering death due to wounds. We know that this will and has happened.
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: Personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary. But surely the difference between killing rats because of genuine, if possibly exaggerated, worries about risk to public health and killing foxes to satisfy some pervert's bloodlust or zoosadism or whatever is obvious.[/p][/quote]Read your post and then read mine again. Explain to me the difference between the rat catcher dog and the fox hounds and the pleasure of the kill enjoyed by their owners. You attribute the need to kill the rat due to public health concern and find it acceptable to use a dog to justify it, yet that cute old mange infested hepatitis ridden fox should be treated differently. Strange yet we all use selectivity to justify.[/p][/quote]Errr - what are you on about? I said, 'personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary'. I can't think of any situation where I'd find it acceptable to cause a dog to maul another animal to death. The difference is one of motivation - fox hunts don't take place to protect people from possible ill-health transmitted by foxes. I don't think people can catch canine hepatitis or mange even if they did manage to come into contact with an infectious fox. Weil's disease from rat urine is at least a genuine risk even if extremely rare.[/p][/quote]Let me get this right. You justify the possible death of a rat due to the possibility of it carrying Weil's disease and that death can be carried out by a dog biting it. However, you are not in favour of dogs killing foxes that may have Mange or Acute Hepatitis, Toxocariasis, Weil's disease and Hydatid disease which can be transmitted to humans and domestic animals. As regards to the motivation, it is the same in both cases, the death of the animal rat or fox was induced by a human. I am not having a pop at you it is just that 'we all' use selectivity to justify the means. I would rather see a fox killed by a pack of hounds than see it shot only to die a slow lingering death due to wounds. We know that this will and has happened. A34North
  • Score: 0

6:20pm Mon 24 Dec 12

A34North says...

margaretf wrote:
I confess to being a little surprised that the article which readers are purportedly commenting upon-the welcome and justified prosecution of the Heythrop huntsmen- is being used as a vehicle to dispute matters which do not relate to that prosecution and that breach of the law, I suggest that either the discussion should concentrate on the cruel and mindless killing of the fox, or the willful breaking of the law,Other matters should not intrude into the discussion, and it is sad that they have done so.
So you are quite happy that the RSPCA spent over £300K on the prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt. You must also be extremely happy that the RSPCA allegedly pay 17 of their top people in excess of a million pounds annually rather than on helping needy creatures. How happy are you that quite a few animals have now been deprived of the care yours and my money was donated to give.
The 'PRIVATE' prosecution was a disgraceful political stunt that has rightfully been referred to the charities commission.
[quote][p][bold]margaretf[/bold] wrote: I confess to being a little surprised that the article which readers are purportedly commenting upon-the welcome and justified prosecution of the Heythrop huntsmen- is being used as a vehicle to dispute matters which do not relate to that prosecution and that breach of the law, I suggest that either the discussion should concentrate on the cruel and mindless killing of the fox, or the willful breaking of the law,Other matters should not intrude into the discussion, and it is sad that they have done so.[/p][/quote]So you are quite happy that the RSPCA spent over £300K on the prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt. You must also be extremely happy that the RSPCA allegedly pay 17 of their top people in excess of a million pounds annually rather than on helping needy creatures. How happy are you that quite a few animals have now been deprived of the care yours and my money was donated to give. The 'PRIVATE' prosecution was a disgraceful political stunt that has rightfully been referred to the charities commission. A34North
  • Score: 0

6:33pm Mon 24 Dec 12

museli says...

A34North wrote:
museli wrote:
A34North wrote:
museli wrote:
Personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary.

But surely the difference between killing rats because of genuine, if possibly exaggerated, worries about risk to public health and killing foxes to satisfy some pervert's bloodlust or zoosadism or whatever is obvious.
Read your post and then read mine again. Explain to me the difference between the rat catcher dog and the fox hounds and the pleasure of the kill enjoyed by their owners. You attribute the need to kill the rat due to public health concern and find it acceptable to use a dog to justify it, yet that cute old mange infested hepatitis ridden fox should be treated differently.

Strange yet we all use selectivity to justify.
Errr - what are you on about? I said, 'personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary'. I can't think of any situation where I'd find it acceptable to cause a dog to maul another animal to death.

The difference is one of motivation - fox hunts don't take place to protect people from possible ill-health transmitted by foxes. I don't think people can catch canine hepatitis or mange even if they did manage to come into contact with an infectious fox. Weil's disease from rat urine is at least a genuine risk even if extremely rare.
Let me get this right. You justify the possible death of a rat due to the possibility of it carrying Weil's disease and that death can be carried out by a dog biting it. However, you are not in favour of dogs killing foxes that may have Mange or Acute Hepatitis, Toxocariasis, Weil's disease and Hydatid disease which can be transmitted to humans and domestic animals.
As regards to the motivation, it is the same in both cases, the death of the animal rat or fox was induced by a human.
I am not having a pop at you it is just that 'we all' use selectivity to justify the means. I would rather see a fox killed by a pack of hounds than see it shot only to die a slow lingering death due to wounds. We know that this will and has happened.
Yes please do get it right!

I don't justify the death of a rat, I don't think we should kill rats but society and the law classes them as vermin and does accept killing them. I'm not aware of any genuine cases of fox disease transmitting to humans. The fact that an animal's death is 'induced by a human' says absolutely nothing about motivation. A clean kill with a gun will not cause as much pain and distress as even a quick kill by a dog pack, particularly when you take the terror of being chased into account (and before you go putting more words into my mouth - no I did not just say shooting foxes is acceptable).

You seem to be trying to play that game of putting words in someone's mouth then extrapolating to attempt to prove a point - you're not very good at it so why not give it a miss.

Do you have a point to make about the criminal hunting of foxes with a pack of dogs?
[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: Personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary. But surely the difference between killing rats because of genuine, if possibly exaggerated, worries about risk to public health and killing foxes to satisfy some pervert's bloodlust or zoosadism or whatever is obvious.[/p][/quote]Read your post and then read mine again. Explain to me the difference between the rat catcher dog and the fox hounds and the pleasure of the kill enjoyed by their owners. You attribute the need to kill the rat due to public health concern and find it acceptable to use a dog to justify it, yet that cute old mange infested hepatitis ridden fox should be treated differently. Strange yet we all use selectivity to justify.[/p][/quote]Errr - what are you on about? I said, 'personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary'. I can't think of any situation where I'd find it acceptable to cause a dog to maul another animal to death. The difference is one of motivation - fox hunts don't take place to protect people from possible ill-health transmitted by foxes. I don't think people can catch canine hepatitis or mange even if they did manage to come into contact with an infectious fox. Weil's disease from rat urine is at least a genuine risk even if extremely rare.[/p][/quote]Let me get this right. You justify the possible death of a rat due to the possibility of it carrying Weil's disease and that death can be carried out by a dog biting it. However, you are not in favour of dogs killing foxes that may have Mange or Acute Hepatitis, Toxocariasis, Weil's disease and Hydatid disease which can be transmitted to humans and domestic animals. As regards to the motivation, it is the same in both cases, the death of the animal rat or fox was induced by a human. I am not having a pop at you it is just that 'we all' use selectivity to justify the means. I would rather see a fox killed by a pack of hounds than see it shot only to die a slow lingering death due to wounds. We know that this will and has happened.[/p][/quote]Yes please do get it right! I don't justify the death of a rat, I don't think we should kill rats but society and the law classes them as vermin and does accept killing them. I'm not aware of any genuine cases of fox disease transmitting to humans. The fact that an animal's death is 'induced by a human' says absolutely nothing about motivation. A clean kill with a gun will not cause as much pain and distress as even a quick kill by a dog pack, particularly when you take the terror of being chased into account (and before you go putting more words into my mouth - no I did not just say shooting foxes is acceptable). You seem to be trying to play that game of putting words in someone's mouth then extrapolating to attempt to prove a point - you're not very good at it so why not give it a miss. Do you have a point to make about the criminal hunting of foxes with a pack of dogs? museli
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Mon 24 Dec 12

museli says...

A34North wrote:
margaretf wrote:
I confess to being a little surprised that the article which readers are purportedly commenting upon-the welcome and justified prosecution of the Heythrop huntsmen- is being used as a vehicle to dispute matters which do not relate to that prosecution and that breach of the law, I suggest that either the discussion should concentrate on the cruel and mindless killing of the fox, or the willful breaking of the law,Other matters should not intrude into the discussion, and it is sad that they have done so.
So you are quite happy that the RSPCA spent over £300K on the prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt. You must also be extremely happy that the RSPCA allegedly pay 17 of their top people in excess of a million pounds annually rather than on helping needy creatures. How happy are you that quite a few animals have now been deprived of the care yours and my money was donated to give.
The 'PRIVATE' prosecution was a disgraceful political stunt that has rightfully been referred to the charities commission.
It would have been so much cheaper all round if the CPS had just done their job and not dropped their previous attempt to prosecute Barnfield in 2008. It is sad that a charity has had to step in to bring this known criminal to justice simply because he has friends in high places, the evidence was unarguable and he pleaded guilty. We are lucky to have organisations like the RSPCA who will stick their necks out and risk a bit of establishment wrath. Does A34North agree that the hunt should have been made to pay the full costs of the prosecution?
[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]margaretf[/bold] wrote: I confess to being a little surprised that the article which readers are purportedly commenting upon-the welcome and justified prosecution of the Heythrop huntsmen- is being used as a vehicle to dispute matters which do not relate to that prosecution and that breach of the law, I suggest that either the discussion should concentrate on the cruel and mindless killing of the fox, or the willful breaking of the law,Other matters should not intrude into the discussion, and it is sad that they have done so.[/p][/quote]So you are quite happy that the RSPCA spent over £300K on the prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt. You must also be extremely happy that the RSPCA allegedly pay 17 of their top people in excess of a million pounds annually rather than on helping needy creatures. How happy are you that quite a few animals have now been deprived of the care yours and my money was donated to give. The 'PRIVATE' prosecution was a disgraceful political stunt that has rightfully been referred to the charities commission.[/p][/quote]It would have been so much cheaper all round if the CPS had just done their job and not dropped their previous attempt to prosecute Barnfield in 2008. It is sad that a charity has had to step in to bring this known criminal to justice simply because he has friends in high places, the evidence was unarguable and he pleaded guilty. We are lucky to have organisations like the RSPCA who will stick their necks out and risk a bit of establishment wrath. Does A34North agree that the hunt should have been made to pay the full costs of the prosecution? museli
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Mon 24 Dec 12

steve1955 says...

Why the moving away from the fact they broke the LAW whether you like the law or not its the LAW same as its against the law to kill a human or steal a car>i personally dislike the hunt i dislike raousts and thieves all have one thing in common if convicted they are criminals.
Why the moving away from the fact they broke the LAW whether you like the law or not its the LAW same as its against the law to kill a human or steal a car>i personally dislike the hunt i dislike raousts and thieves all have one thing in common if convicted they are criminals. steve1955
  • Score: 0

11:51am Tue 25 Dec 12

DoctorBob says...

A34North wrote:
margaretf wrote:
I confess to being a little surprised that the article which readers are purportedly commenting upon-the welcome and justified prosecution of the Heythrop huntsmen- is being used as a vehicle to dispute matters which do not relate to that prosecution and that breach of the law, I suggest that either the discussion should concentrate on the cruel and mindless killing of the fox, or the willful breaking of the law,Other matters should not intrude into the discussion, and it is sad that they have done so.
So you are quite happy that the RSPCA spent over £300K on the prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt. You must also be extremely happy that the RSPCA allegedly pay 17 of their top people in excess of a million pounds annually rather than on helping needy creatures. How happy are you that quite a few animals have now been deprived of the care yours and my money was donated to give.
The 'PRIVATE' prosecution was a disgraceful political stunt that has rightfully been referred to the charities commission.
I'm confused. Are you for animal welfare or against? You appear, on the one hand, to support the hunters and on the other to berate the RSPCA for not helping more animals.

Are you confused or I?
[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]margaretf[/bold] wrote: I confess to being a little surprised that the article which readers are purportedly commenting upon-the welcome and justified prosecution of the Heythrop huntsmen- is being used as a vehicle to dispute matters which do not relate to that prosecution and that breach of the law, I suggest that either the discussion should concentrate on the cruel and mindless killing of the fox, or the willful breaking of the law,Other matters should not intrude into the discussion, and it is sad that they have done so.[/p][/quote]So you are quite happy that the RSPCA spent over £300K on the prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt. You must also be extremely happy that the RSPCA allegedly pay 17 of their top people in excess of a million pounds annually rather than on helping needy creatures. How happy are you that quite a few animals have now been deprived of the care yours and my money was donated to give. The 'PRIVATE' prosecution was a disgraceful political stunt that has rightfully been referred to the charities commission.[/p][/quote]I'm confused. Are you for animal welfare or against? You appear, on the one hand, to support the hunters and on the other to berate the RSPCA for not helping more animals. Are you confused or I? DoctorBob
  • Score: 0

11:55am Tue 25 Dec 12

DoctorBob says...

A34North wrote:
museli wrote:
A34North wrote:
museli wrote:
Personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary.

But surely the difference between killing rats because of genuine, if possibly exaggerated, worries about risk to public health and killing foxes to satisfy some pervert's bloodlust or zoosadism or whatever is obvious.
Read your post and then read mine again. Explain to me the difference between the rat catcher dog and the fox hounds and the pleasure of the kill enjoyed by their owners. You attribute the need to kill the rat due to public health concern and find it acceptable to use a dog to justify it, yet that cute old mange infested hepatitis ridden fox should be treated differently.

Strange yet we all use selectivity to justify.
Errr - what are you on about? I said, 'personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary'. I can't think of any situation where I'd find it acceptable to cause a dog to maul another animal to death.

The difference is one of motivation - fox hunts don't take place to protect people from possible ill-health transmitted by foxes. I don't think people can catch canine hepatitis or mange even if they did manage to come into contact with an infectious fox. Weil's disease from rat urine is at least a genuine risk even if extremely rare.
Let me get this right. You justify the possible death of a rat due to the possibility of it carrying Weil's disease and that death can be carried out by a dog biting it. However, you are not in favour of dogs killing foxes that may have Mange or Acute Hepatitis, Toxocariasis, Weil's disease and Hydatid disease which can be transmitted to humans and domestic animals.
As regards to the motivation, it is the same in both cases, the death of the animal rat or fox was induced by a human.
I am not having a pop at you it is just that 'we all' use selectivity to justify the means. I would rather see a fox killed by a pack of hounds than see it shot only to die a slow lingering death due to wounds. We know that this will and has happened.
You seem confused by the meaning of motivation. Being "induced" by humans doesn't explain why. Personally, I find it hard to believe all that get up and pomp is motivated by the need for pest control.
[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: Personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary. But surely the difference between killing rats because of genuine, if possibly exaggerated, worries about risk to public health and killing foxes to satisfy some pervert's bloodlust or zoosadism or whatever is obvious.[/p][/quote]Read your post and then read mine again. Explain to me the difference between the rat catcher dog and the fox hounds and the pleasure of the kill enjoyed by their owners. You attribute the need to kill the rat due to public health concern and find it acceptable to use a dog to justify it, yet that cute old mange infested hepatitis ridden fox should be treated differently. Strange yet we all use selectivity to justify.[/p][/quote]Errr - what are you on about? I said, 'personally I'd avoid killing either unless strictly necessary'. I can't think of any situation where I'd find it acceptable to cause a dog to maul another animal to death. The difference is one of motivation - fox hunts don't take place to protect people from possible ill-health transmitted by foxes. I don't think people can catch canine hepatitis or mange even if they did manage to come into contact with an infectious fox. Weil's disease from rat urine is at least a genuine risk even if extremely rare.[/p][/quote]Let me get this right. You justify the possible death of a rat due to the possibility of it carrying Weil's disease and that death can be carried out by a dog biting it. However, you are not in favour of dogs killing foxes that may have Mange or Acute Hepatitis, Toxocariasis, Weil's disease and Hydatid disease which can be transmitted to humans and domestic animals. As regards to the motivation, it is the same in both cases, the death of the animal rat or fox was induced by a human. I am not having a pop at you it is just that 'we all' use selectivity to justify the means. I would rather see a fox killed by a pack of hounds than see it shot only to die a slow lingering death due to wounds. We know that this will and has happened.[/p][/quote]You seem confused by the meaning of motivation. Being "induced" by humans doesn't explain why. Personally, I find it hard to believe all that get up and pomp is motivated by the need for pest control. DoctorBob
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree