Lifting The Ban

[desertbred 5,490]

One of the major weapons in our kit are the promised swinging cuts already promised by Cam and Co the police budget is going to be cut even more, the man hours , helicopter flights vehicle expenses are going to be way down the list of Chief constables priorities , the government will have to look at the logic of enforcing a junk piece of legislation, that 90% of those involved on all sides say isnt enforceable nor can the overheads be justified 8,000 pounds to put the helicopter up for an hour and a grand fine if they catch the lad with the evidence which 9/10 they dont. Now the lacs and antis would spend the NHS budget to protect the furies but what about frozen pensions frozen family allowance 9,000 pounds a year tuition fees while millions are spent trying to enforce dodgy legislation its a matter of priorities when we are as cash strapped as the Government has us believe

.

Edited May 11, 2015 by desertbred

[northern lad 2,292]

One of the major weapons in our kit are the promised swinging cuts already promised by Cam and Co the police budget is going to be cut even more, the man hours , helicopter flights vehicle expenses are going to be way down the list of Chief constables priorities , the government will have to look at the logic of enforcing a junk piece of legislation, that 90% of those involved on all sides say isnt enforceable nor can the overheads be justified 8,000 pounds to put the helicopter up for an hour and a grand fine if they catch the lad with the evidence which 9/10 they dont. Now the lacs and antis would spend the NHS budget to protect the furies but what about frozen pensions frozen family allowance 9,000 pounds a year tuition fees while millions are spent trying to enforce dodgy legislation its a matter of priorities when we are as cash strapped as the Government has us believe

.

Fully agree with what youre saying....because WE both applied common sense to the subject....but I believe with it being such an emotive issue it wont be as simple as that,there will have to be an enquiry a report etc etc its how they go about their business,like it or not JMO

[desertbred 5,490]

I ve always lived might as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb metorphorically speaking dont want the antis jumping on that LOL

[nans pat 2,575]

 

 

 

i don't think the tories majority is enough to get it through,if a few of them vote no there isn't a prayer of it going through,unless as stated it goes to english/welsh voting on english/welsh law

but do they want the scenes that they had in london with lacs and the antis

 

i don't think the tories majority is enough to get it through,if a few of them vote no there isn't a prayer of it going through,unless as stated it goes to english/welsh voting on english/welsh law

but do they want the scenes that they had in london with lacs and the antis

This ban affects England Scotland Ireland and Wales hunting lads live in all parts, this divide and vote means f/a Europe also have a ban so it needs to be dealt with now it is repeal of a law that the law says is not enforceable because of the way it was legislated and drawn up so it needs REPEALING not renegotiating As for the antis and lacs in London some of the hunters could do with learning from them, the appathy led to a ban in the first place as most of the lads who were involved preban will tell you.

 

dont think

 

 

i don't think the tories majority is enough to get it through,if a few of them vote no there isn't a prayer of it going through,unless as stated it goes to english/welsh voting on english/welsh law

but do they want the scenes that they had in london with lacs and the antis

 

i don't think the tories majority is enough to get it through,if a few of them vote no there isn't a prayer of it going through,unless as stated it goes to english/welsh voting on english/welsh law

but do they want the scenes that they had in london with lacs and the antis

This ban affects England Scotland Ireland and Wales hunting lads live in all parts, this divide and vote means f/a Europe also have a ban so it needs to be dealt with now it is repeal of a law that the law says is not enforceable because of the way it was legislated and drawn up so it needs REPEALING not renegotiating As for the antis and lacs in London some of the hunters could do with learning from them, the appathy led to a ban in the first place as most of the lads who were involved preban will tell you.

 

dont think theres a ban here..

 

not yet but its on the cards isnt it or did I dream it?

 

cxxt over here couldnt agree on anything..lol...throw a tri colour or a union flag over a lurcher it will get voted for..lol....

[roybo 2,873]

Desertbred all im saying is if there is a vote scotland may vote in their own parliament which has a massive snp majority they are against hunting with dogs.Which in effect would make over turning the ban in England & Wales easier....as they have a separate legal system

[strayshot 105]

 

 

 

There is no way on gods green earth every Tory would vote yes to lifting any ban. At the end of the day mp's for the most part just say what the majority want to hear, and if unfortunately the majority in that particular constituency don't want hunting legalised, then unfortunately that is the route they will go.

Sorry for being cynical but the powers thAt be are in this for one reason and that is pier, and until there is a bigger appetite for change amonst the majority(which hunters are not) that won't change. In my opinion anyway

I don't agree, mps rarely do what their constituents want, they do what the party whip tells them to

 

But the whip will be lifted for the vote on repeal - it will be a free vote, and with such a small majority I can see quite a few Tories bending with the wind, especially those in urban and marginal constituencies, and either voting against repeal or abstaining. A few abstentions is all it would take for the attempt to be sunk. If they do go ahead with it and fail, that will be that - it won't happen again and we'll be stuck with the ban forever. Better to wait until the Tories have a bigger majority or the Scottish MPs are excluded from the vote - which could well happen.

 

If we wait we have lost it this is a one off opportunity, even Tony Blair who philabustered the law through in the first place. now agrees bad unworkable law. The idea is to get a bad law repealed ""NOT" to have a vote " should we shouldnt we "" then the Mps will vote in line with party discipline to repeal the law a unworkable unenforceable law even the cps agrees.

 

I wish I could agree with you but all Cameron has promised is a free vote. Party discipline won't come in to it - careerist MPs will not want to upset their constituents. The stark fact is the majority of people in this country agree with the ban, and they don't give a shit if it's bad legislation or not - the details and reality don't concern them, the principle does.

Edited May 12, 2015 by strayshot

[trenchfoot 4,243]

use the parliament act like Blair did and ride rough shod over the lot of 'em

[desertbred 5,490]

The law was drafted incorrectly , this is agreed by all legal advisors.The law is unenforceable in its present form to give justice and fairness to all, The law has been abused by magistrates , banning drivers or suspending their licences when involved in hunting activities, yet of those who have appealed and challenged these bans have had their appeals upheld. The only reason that the majorities are in favour of the ban are that the antis and lacs have a better publicity campaign showing all the negative points , unfortunately this is helped along by the behaviour of some hunting participants and negative behaviour.Certain sections of the so called hunting fraternity are quite happy to clandestinely support the Hunting with dogs ban while this very same law that criminalises lads hunting with dogs,permits certain sections of hunting to hunt and kill the same quarry. Selfishness and betrayal on their part we all know these groups, The dog lads were sold down the river previously by the same groups before the ban. This is a law that is used on one hand to punish whilst on the other showing favour to other sections or groups, this in itself shows the Law needs to be repealed the only ones from the hunting field who can even support this legislation are the ones who benefit from the unjust and unfair legislation.I want to hunt within the law with my dogs , I can if I fly birds with them , I can drive hares to birds with two dogs or even foxes but cant run them , I can shoot them though, I can hunt a rabbit with my dogs, Terrier lads can let a dog go to ground on a rabbit but if it gets on a fox down a hole they are breaking the law , and if your dog catches a mouse you are breaking the law only rabbits and rats unless you are preventing injury to game birds, Simple is this a fair and just law or does it need repealing , the only way forward is to get a unjust and biased unenforceable law struck down.

Edited May 12, 2015 by desertbred

[roybo 2,873]

use the parliament act like Blair did and ride rough shod over the lot of 'em

that wouldn't work in this case trench foot thats used to pass laws that have gone through the commons but get voted out by the house of lords.

It was originally bought in for home rule for ireland.and the lords who where mostly tories kept over ruling the commons.

[stop.end 4,079]

The law was drafted incorrectly , this is agreed by all legal advisors.The law is unenforceable in its present form to give justice and fairness to all, The law has been abused by magistrates , banning drivers or suspending their licences when involved in hunting activities, yet of those who have appealed and challenged these bans have had their appeals upheld. The only reason that the majorities are in favour of the ban are that the antis and lacs have a better publicity campaign showing all the negative points , unfortunately this is helped along by the behaviour of some hunting participants and negative behaviour.Certain sections of the so called hunting fraternity are quite happy to clandestinely support the Hunting with dogs ban while this very same law that criminalises lads hunting with dogs,permits certain sections of hunting to hunt and kill the same quarry. Selfishness and betrayal on their part we all know these groups, The dog lads were sold down the river previously by the same groups before the ban. This is a law that is used on one hand to punish whilst on the other showing favour to other sections or groups, this in itself shows the Law needs to be repealed the only ones from the hunting field who can even support this legislation are the ones who benefit from the unjust and unfair legislation.I want to hunt within the law with my dogs , I can if I fly birds with them , I can drive hares to birds with two dogs or even foxes but cant run them , I can shoot them though, I can hunt a rabbit with my dogs, Terrier lads can let a dog go to ground on a rabbit but if it gets on a fox down a hole they are breaking the law , and if your dog catches a mouse you are breaking the law only rabbits and rats unless you are preventing injury to game birds, Simple is this a fair and just law or does it need repealing , the only way forward is to get a unjust and biased unenforceable law struck down.

I asked you this already desertbred, maybe I just cant find it or im reading it wrong but could you show me where its says in black and white in the hunting act 2004 that its ILLEGAL for a lurcher to catch and dispatch a fox on the run in England or wales?

[Leeview 787]

The law was drafted incorrectly , this is agreed by all legal advisors.The law is unenforceable in its present form to give justice and fairness to all, The law has been abused by magistrates , banning drivers or suspending their licences when involved in hunting activities, yet of those who have appealed and challenged these bans have had their appeals upheld. The only reason that the majorities are in favour of the ban are that the antis and lacs have a better publicity campaign showing all the negative points , unfortunately this is helped along by the behaviour of some hunting participants and negative behaviour.Certain sections of the so called hunting fraternity are quite happy to clandestinely support the Hunting with dogs ban while this very same law that criminalises lads hunting with dogs,permits certain sections of hunting to hunt and kill the same quarry. Selfishness and betrayal on their part we all know these groups, The dog lads were sold down the river previously by the same groups before the ban. This is a law that is used on one hand to punish whilst on the other showing favour to other sections or groups, this in itself shows the Law needs to be repealed the only ones from the hunting field who can even support this legislation are the ones who benefit from the unjust and unfair legislation.I want to hunt within the law with my dogs , I can if I fly birds with them , I can drive hares to birds with two dogs or even foxes but cant run them , I can shoot them though, I can hunt a rabbit with my dogs, Terrier lads can let a dog go to ground on a rabbit but if it gets on a fox down a hole they are breaking the law , and if your dog catches a mouse you are breaking the law only rabbits and rats unless you are preventing injury to game birds, Simple is this a fair and just law or does it need repealing , the only way forward is to get a unjust and biased unenforceable law struck down.

Why IYO is this law unenforceable? Go back to when this bill was being pushed through to get the ban, if you have the time look up the Burns Report into Hunting and read that, its an epic paid for by the labour party(close to £8million it cost) now in short it found banning hunting would not save any said quarry that the ban was supposed to,making it illegal was pointless and yes you've guessed it unenforceable but labour pressed on regardless and had to rely on a little known act last used in wartime Britain to get this bill through.

 

The works already been done for the Govt to appeal the ban just refer back to the Burns Report and its findings.

Y.I.S Leeview

[nans pat 2,575]

yea some other so called dog men love it, fella pulled us last year about coursing and hed a sticker on his car window irish t f or something,,lol..wasnt even his ground..law for 1 dirrerent law for others,

[desertbred 5,490]

in order to prove a crime has been comitted under the hunting with dogs act The prosecution have to show you deliberately and intentionally slipped your dog on a mammal with the intention of your dog actually chasing it.in order to do this it would need actual video evidence of the actual slip or a eye witness ready to swear that they physically saw the slipping. This is one of the reasons that the tresspass in search of is usually offered it only needs to be proved you were on land without permission and your dog does not need to be off the slip. easier to prove and most lads take a guilty plea on this option believing it is the less severe punishment. As plod usually arrives either mid course or even later then that initial element of proof is missing. if i have two dogs and a hawk with me on land where I have the landowners authority to be then it is virtually impossible to convict me of coursing under the hunting with dogs act , The same if you have a licensed gun and two dogs under the same circumstances the law doesnot state that once your dogs have flushed the game they must stop running or even a command to stop needs to be given The act does say the dogs should be under close control but that is tenuous as if they are flushing a field away to a bird or gun who is to say how far the game has to bolt before the dogs ceases flushing? there are that many cul de Sacs and loop holes that a good legal representative could exploit it makes the present hunting with dogs act unworkable and thus unenforceable. Even on your own post you state that in the Burns report theword unenforceable was used in the report so case proved I think or at least enough to leave that all important reasonable doubt. One final point where public rights of way criss cross private land it is always arguable that under the legislation you have a legal entitlement to be on that particular land and your dog chased an unknown quarry out of cover after breaking free of its restraint.

 

Finally unless we unite to the best of our abilities and press the government to repeal a law that is seriously flawed they will as has been proven in the past do sweet F/A

Edited May 12, 2015 by desertbred

[desertbred 5,490]

 

The law was drafted incorrectly , this is agreed by all legal advisors.The law is unenforceable in its present form to give justice and fairness to all, The law has been abused by magistrates , banning drivers or suspending their licences when involved in hunting activities, yet of those who have appealed and challenged these bans have had their appeals upheld. The only reason that the majorities are in favour of the ban are that the antis and lacs have a better publicity campaign showing all the negative points , unfortunately this is helped along by the behaviour of some hunting participants and negative behaviour.Certain sections of the so called hunting fraternity are quite happy to clandestinely support the Hunting with dogs ban while this very same law that criminalises lads hunting with dogs,permits certain sections of hunting to hunt and kill the same quarry. Selfishness and betrayal on their part we all know these groups, The dog lads were sold down the river previously by the same groups before the ban. This is a law that is used on one hand to punish whilst on the other showing favour to other sections or groups, this in itself shows the Law needs to be repealed the only ones from the hunting field who can even support this legislation are the ones who benefit from the unjust and unfair legislation.I want to hunt within the law with my dogs , I can if I fly birds with them , I can drive hares to birds with two dogs or even foxes but cant run them , I can shoot them though, I can hunt a rabbit with my dogs, Terrier lads can let a dog go to ground on a rabbit but if it gets on a fox down a hole they are breaking the law , and if your dog catches a mouse you are breaking the law only rabbits and rats unless you are preventing injury to game birds, Simple is this a fair and just law or does it need repealing , the only way forward is to get a unjust and biased unenforceable law struck down.

I asked you this already desertbred, maybe I just cant find it or im reading it wrong but could you show me where its says in black and white in the hunting act 2004 that its ILLEGAL for a lurcher to catch and dispatch a fox on the run in England or wales?

 

If I remember rightly the act says it is illegal for any dog to pursue a land mammal unless excempt under certain sections of the Act now a lurcher coursing and killing a fox is not on the list of excemptions I dont think, but the only way to test this is to plead not guilty if some one is unfortunate enough to fall foul of this particular scenario. I think if the fox was assumed to be injured and the lurcher was retrieving it there may well be a defence

[desertbred 5,490]

As previously suggested a THL commitee should be formed to organise the interested parties and Mr Leeview should also be part of this commitee as he makes a lot of valid and relevant points