General Chat

See on the news that some of the hunters are going to carry on despite the ban. What gives them the right to break laws when it suits them? Do they not expect to be punished? Perhaps we should just not pay taxes because they stop us from buying things, or parking fines or whatever. I do hope that those who do decide to go against the ban get justly punished, which seems to be less and less likely these days.

Dan, From what I heard on the radio this morning, some hunters seem to think there are enough loopholes in the new law to enable them to carry on. CB >|<

Agree Daniel. Although we may not agree with them, laws are laws and we have to abide by them if we want to live in a civlised society.

I was shocked to hear a hunt leader on the news the other day calling the people who support the hunting ban a 'bunch of mindless bigots'. The words pot kettle and black came springing to mind faster than ever before. Never in my life have I been called a mindless bigot before, how dare he! Liz x

They are usually rich baskets and are therefore above the law. So they think. Jo.

At least we've had the barbaric hare-coursing at Altcar stopped! And once we pick and choose which laws we observe or don't, then we have no law - just anarchy!

Who do they think they are that they can just flout a law they don't like? If we all did that what sort of a world would we live in. I can' see why they can't hunt one another. They are quick enough to say they don't do it for the kill, why then don't they take it in turns to run and let the dogs chase them. Jean x.

This is going to be a really interesting one to follow as those who flout the law will be brought before magistrates who may well be in the same hunting fraternity.Will They will be forced to declare their interests. WATCH THIS SPACE-ROSE

People every day flout laws they don't agree with, be it parking, downloading music or fiddling the taxman. Most people understand why another is inventive filling in tax returns, even if they don't personally cheat. The issue here is the polarisation hunting causes; something most people see as a black or white legal and MORAL issue. It will be difficult to prove a hunt is taking place unless someone sees an animal killed by a dog AND they can prove it was intentional rather than someone's dog getting carried away. Just riding around, with hounds, in hunt regalia, is not a criminal offence. One magistrate or judge - forget which - has said he won't sit in any cases of hunters flouting the ban. God help any animal rights activists or hunt sabateurs who come before him. Justice may be blind, but she is one biased old lady.

As I mentioned on the other thread, it's not breaking the law to use hounds to flush out foxes for marksmen to kill, equally it's not breaking the law for the hunt to follow on behind. In Scotland, more foxes have been killed since the ban came into effect.

go right ahead

I can hear church bells in the distance

Daniel, Never hunted in my life. People already choose to break laws from choice. Fox-hunting has probably never killed anybody. Drivers of speeding cars do it regularly. Give it some thought and you will find there are lots of examples. Seems to me there is a lot of blind prejudice on the fox-hunting issue. Repeat - I have noconnection with fox-hunting in any way. No offence, I,m just trying to put some balance in the matter. I agree with Bob, from earlier. Happy days

Just when I saw that Otis Ferry guy and his gang blatantly say they were going to continue hunting despite the ban made me think, `Who the hell do you think you are?`. Thought it would be an interesting topic for here.

We all know that the police do and can not follow up every crime that is committed. I do not belive that prosecuting hunters will be a good use of police and court time. There are far more serious crimes beeing committed. This is not to say that hunters should break the law, but nor should they be policed when there is not enough police to cover our streets or protect our houses. Bob

Well if he does what he said he'll do (on camera I might add) then I want to see that Otis punished. If not then what was the point of banning it???

I can see the point of keeping pests down, it's the way a sport is made out if that I don't agree with. They say 'it's a way of country life', I live in the country, and I don't hunt! I think it's very stupid of them to break the law like that. I don't feel sorry for them if they do get caught. If it's ok to break a law like that and get away with it..... then why don't they just condone murder at the same time! It is true, hunting is a 'rich' sport but I don't know people from farming communities who go out hunting, and they are not rich. But even these people seem to make a sport of it. Chloe

Bobs, do you agree with the ban? If your answer is yes, then surely we need to enforce it? Agree?

I am neither for nor against hunting as an exersice. I am against the massive waste of parliamentary time and probably police time on something so trivial. Was there not a report to parliament that said on ballance hunting with dogs was probably the least cruel way of contolling fox numbers? I have not read the report but should not our law makers take the advise of experts that they employ to look into this or any other mater? Bob

People of both sides of the argument would disagree on it being trivial. That's come across loud and clear in the papers etc. A law which is not enforced is not a law. really, is it? Just a guidline that people can choose to abide by if they wish, which brings me back the the original point of the thread.