Morals

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
Yet, this is exactly what the hunt were prosecuted for.

Quote by Bluefish2009
Ah, but we can not presume that they are all breaking the law

Why bring other hunts into it? Ben is clearly referring to the one you posted about.
This was two indaviduals and they have been delt with by the law

21 Dec 2012

I have avoided this topic as I have no interest in foxes one way or another other than to note that a fox or foxes killed all our neighbours chickens the other night!
Aside from that I am surprised at how forcefully people view, "law breakers." Is it just because they are "Hunt" lawbreakers that everyone is completely getting their knickers in a twist?
Let he who has never broken a law cast the first stone - especially those of who are drivers and who never speed in their armoured killing machine and who never touch their mobile phone whilst driving. The breaking of those laws by drivers have potentially much more disastrous consequences to fellow humans than a bunch of country folk dicking around on horses chasing foxes.
Can't see what all the fuss is about personally, it's not even as though they are cute like Basil Brush :-)
PS - I reckon if the fox who attacked my neighbours hens the other night shows his face round there again any time soon, it would choose death by dog, rather than face my neighbour.. lol

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
This was two indaviduals and they have been delt with by the law

No. It was two individuals within a hunt, and the hunt itself. Which is exactly what Ben said!

Quote by Ben_Minx
Yet, this is exactly what the hunt were prosecuted for.

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
People hunt foxes with horses and hounds because it is fun.
All of the rest is just smoke n mirrors.
I chuckle every time I read the ridiculous arguments in favour of fox hunting but I have a terrible habit of challenging misinformation.
What makes me very angry is the way some sections of society feel they can ignore the law. Boxing day, the local hunts will allegedly following a scented trail. They will probably pick up the scent of a fox and kill it as they often do.
Let us hope this case will make them think twice although I doubt it. Perhaps with enough prosecutions folk will start to behave responsibly or it may be necessary to ban scented trails too.

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
You may feel flushing to be irrelevant, but as terriers can legally flush foxes to the gun for the protection of game birds, for me it is not irrelevant.
Hunting dear with hounds falls under the same law so not irrelevant at all, as does hair coursing, and mink hunting, all relevant.

Blue it is irrelevant to this debate. Why? Because you said so!

Quote by Bluefish2009
I posted the thread not about fox hunting, but the morality of what the RSPC had spent there money on

The central core of this debate involves a hunt with horse and hound. Other forms of hunting are completely irrelevant, we might as well say that the RSPCA was wrong to prosecute the criminals because fishing is allowed.

Quote by Bluefish2009
As for the shooting, it vary form hunt to hunt, some may have a marksman within there employment, some may subcontract one

So someone involved with the hunt does do the shooting then! I knew I was right all along. However this particular fox was ripped apart and bitten to death by a pack of hounds.

21 Dec 2012

Blue, if the Act were rigorously enforced there would be a prosecution after most hunts. My experience is that a fox scent is followed as often now as it was before the Act, when there is no obvious surveillance. Of course the hounds should be trained to follow the artificial trail but here we are 8 years on and it hasn't happened.
Now you are either less involved in fox hunting than you make out or your are being deliberately disingenuous.
In either event, bored as I am with the frequent pro hunting threads, I feel obliged to challenge the misinformation.

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
Yet, this is exactly what the hunt were prosecuted for.

For dissagreeing with ben?

Quote by Bluefish2009
No, for disagreeing with the law and having the arrogance to presume that nobody will care.

If you know of these law breakers I advise you inform the proper authority's, or is this here say?
As for me,
I disagree with the law, but do not condone the breaking of it :thumbup:
It's not hear say Blue, you were good enough to even post the links for us!
Ah, but we can not presume that they are all breaking the law
Ben isn't the one bringing other hunts into this, the previous quote from you is speculation, much like your own earlier in the thread.
Whereas it is a fact as Ben says 'this is exactly what the hunt were prosecuted for'

21 Dec 2012

Snaring, indiscriminate, may catch fox, badger, cat, or any other animal passing by. A very slow miserable death I would imagine, some chewing there own legs of to ex-scape, and all perfectly legal. You may fool your self into thinking the haunting act is about cruelty but if it was this and many other activity's would have been looked at.

Blue, moving onto other methods of control of the fox population assumes that fox control is a necessary evil in the first place, doesn't it? You know my opinion on this I've stated it many times over. Where is the evidence that control of a self-regulating population is necessary at all? There are good arguments to be made suggesting it's not even required so long as stock is effectively protected and / or loss to predation is factored into production costs as it is with game birds. It may even be counter-productive in the long run so no need to try and distract us with pictures of snared foxes etc to play on our horror of it. You are introducing emotion into a rational argument in doing that, something you often accuse the anti-hunting lobby of doing themselves. You can't have it both ways Blue.

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
People hunt foxes with horses and hounds because it is fun.
All of the rest is just smoke n mirrors.
I chuckle every time I read the ridiculous arguments in favour of fox hunting but I have a terrible habit of challenging misinformation.
What makes me very angry is the way some sections of society feel they can ignore the law. Boxing day, the local hunts will allegedly following a scented trail. They will probably pick up the scent of a fox and kill it as they often do.
Let us hope this case will make them think twice although I doubt it. Perhaps with enough prosecutions folk will start to behave responsibly or it may be necessary to ban scented trails too.

We have found common ground to agree on Ben. I hate everything to do with this barbaric and disgusting act, and without a doubt the rest is indeed smoke and mirrors.
Will the new fine stop them? Not a chance as these hunts attract the kinds of people who scoff at the law, the toffys and the lardy set with money and influence. I hope though that next time a court issues prison terms for those that break the law repeatedly.
And Blue as I said at the start of this thread, whilst your intentions was to discuss the money the RSPCA had spent on gaining a conviction, you knew full well it would end up the same way as it always does, you on one side of the debate thinking killing foxes is just, and the rest of argue against this killing and your excuses about acting within the law are laughable.

21 Dec 2012

Perhaps the hunt should take their case to the ECHR.
Man has been hunting animals with horses and dogs since time began and their rights within the EU are being infringed.

21 Dec 2012

Quote by flower411
Snaring, indiscriminate, may catch fox, badger, cat, or any other animal passing by. A very slow miserable death I would imagine, some chewing there own legs of to ex-scape, and all perfectly legal. You may fool your self into thinking the haunting act is about cruelty but if it was this and many other activity's would have been looked at.

Blue, moving onto other methods of control of the fox population assumes that fox control is a necessary evil in the first place, doesn't it? You know my opinion on this I've stated it many times over. Where is the evidence that control of a self-regulating population is necessary at all? There are good arguments to be made suggesting it's not even required so long as stock is effectively protected and / or loss to predation is factored into production costs as it is with game birds. It may even be counter-productive in the long run so no need to try and distract us with pictures of snared foxes etc to play on our horror of it. You are introducing emotion into a rational argument in doing that, something you often accuse the anti-hunting lobby of doing themselves. You can't have it both ways Blue.
Blue didn`t introduce emotion into the argument with pictures !!! Somebody else did that and blue simply answered in kind !
I wonder who did? rolleyes

There is a famous quote that goes along the lines of ' the power of pictures '. No what I mean?

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
Yet, this is exactly what the hunt were prosecuted for.

For dissagreeing with ben?

Quote by Bluefish2009
No, for disagreeing with the law and having the arrogance to presume that nobody will care.

If you know of these law breakers I advise you inform the proper authority's, or is this here say?
As for me,
I disagree with the law, but do not condone the breaking of it :thumbup:
It's not hear say Blue, you were good enough to even post the links for us!
Ah, but we can not presume that they are all breaking the law
Ben isn't the one bringing other hunts into this, the previous quote from you is speculation, much like your own earlier in the thread.
Whereas it is a fact as Ben says 'this is exactly what the hunt were prosecuted for'
You are carfull to miss this bit here every time I notice, where ben mentioned other hunts, why would that be?

Quote by Ben_Minx
People hunt foxes with horses and hounds because it is fun.
All of the rest is just smoke n mirrors.
I chuckle every time I read the ridiculous arguments in favour of fox hunting but I have a terrible habit of challenging misinformation.
What makes me very angry is the way some sections of society feel they can ignore the law. Boxing day, the local hunts will allegedly following a scented trail. They will probably pick up the scent of a fox and kill it as they often do.
Let us hope this case will make them think twice although I doubt it. Perhaps with enough prosecutions folk will start to behave responsibly or it may be necessary to ban scented trails too.

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
Blue, if the Act were rigorously enforced there would be a prosecution after most hunts. My experience is that a fox scent is followed as often now as it was before the Act, when there is no obvious surveillance. Of course the hounds should be trained to follow the artificial trail but here we are 8 years on and it hasn't happened.
Now you are either less involved in fox hunting than you make out or your are being deliberately disingenuous.
In either event, bored as I am with the frequent pro hunting threads, I feel obliged to challenge the misinformation.

From the sound of things you may well have more experience than me Ben, I do not go fox hunting. I go once a year to the the boxing day gathering to see them off and place some money in there kitty, that is the full extent of my involvement with hunting
As I said before, if you are aware of such law breaking you should inform the proper authorities

21 Dec 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Snaring, indiscriminate, may catch fox, badger, cat, or any other animal passing by. A very slow miserable death I would imagine, some chewing there own legs of to ex-scape, and all perfectly legal. You may fool your self into thinking the haunting act is about cruelty but if it was this and many other activity's would have been looked at.

Blue, moving onto other methods of control of the fox population assumes that fox control is a necessary evil in the first place, doesn't it? You know my opinion on this I've stated it many times over. Where is the evidence that control of a self-regulating population is necessary at all? There are good arguments to be made suggesting it's not even required so long as stock is effectively protected and / or loss to predation is factored into production costs as it is with game birds. It may even be counter-productive in the long run so no need to try and distract us with pictures of snared foxes etc to play on our horror of it. You are introducing emotion into a rational argument in doing that, something you often accuse the anti-hunting lobby of doing themselves. You can't have it both ways Blue.
As you well know I was responding with like.
But to answer you question, what I was saying was and still is, if the hunting act was put in place to prevent creulty to foxes it is failing badly, and very slanted at only on section of fox control

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
You are carfull to miss this bit here every time I notice, where ben mentioned other hunts, why would that be?

Quote by Ben_Minx
What makes me very angry is the way some sections of society feel they can ignore the law. Boxing day,the local hunts will allegedly following a scented trail. They will probably pick up the scent of a fox and kill it as they often do.

On the contrary Blue, I have already mentioned that it is speculation about what may happen on a future date. Then again it may not.
Have quick look at Bens post again:

Quote by Ben_Minx
Yet, this is exactly what the hunt were prosecuted for.

This is not a prediction of the future that may or may not happen. It a fact written in the past tense that cannot be changed.

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
You are carfull to miss this bit here every time I notice, where ben mentioned other hunts, why would that be?

Quote by Ben_Minx
What makes me very angry is the way some sections of society feel they can ignore the law. Boxing day,the local hunts will allegedly following a scented trail. They will probably pick up the scent of a fox and kill it as they often do.

On the contrary Blue, I have already mentioned that it is speculation about what may happen on a future date. Then again it may not.
Have quick look at Bens post again:

Quote by Ben_Minx
Yet, this is exactly what the hunt were prosecuted for.

This is not a prediction of the future that may or may not happen. It a fact written in the past tense that cannot be changed.
I have no idea where you are going with this one, ben Metioned "the local hunt" i simply responed

21 Dec 2012

It doesn't matter whether its a local hunt or one a hundred miles away. If you have such trouble understanding the difference between writing about future events and what has already occurred in the past maybe you should seek help from a local educational establishment.

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
It doesn't matter whether its a local hunt or one a hundred miles away. If you have such trouble understanding the difference between writing about future events and what has already occurred in the past maybe you should seek help from a local educational establishment.

I will look them up :thumbup:

21 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
And Blue as I said at the start of this thread, whilst your intentions was to discuss the money the RSPCA had spent on gaining a conviction, you knew full well it would end up the same way as it always does, you on one side of the debate thinking killing foxes is just, and the rest of argue against this killing and your excuses about acting within the law are laughable.

You old synic you wink

21 Dec 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
And Blue as I said at the start of this thread, whilst your intentions was to discuss the money the RSPCA had spent on gaining a conviction, you knew full well it would end up the same way as it always does, you on one side of the debate thinking killing foxes is just, and the rest of argue against this killing and your excuses about acting within the law are laughable.

You old synic you wink

Seems I can read you as well as I can read GnV. :giggle:

22 Dec 2012

I called the RSPCA today and said, "I've just found a suitcase in the woods containing a fox and four cubs."
"That's terrible," she replied. "Are they moving?"
"I'm not sure, to be honest," I said, "But that would explain the suitcase..."

23 Dec 2012

Quote by HimandHer
I called the RSPCA today and said, "I've just found a suitcase in the woods containing a fox and four cubs."
"That's terrible," she replied. "Are they moving?"
"I'm not sure, to be honest," I said, "But that would explain the suitcase..."

:laughabove::laughabove::laughabove:

23 Dec 2012

if a pack of frenzied blood thirsty animals relentlessly pursuing and then riping another to death is illegal, then surly we should start with the media and leave trivial things like fox hunting till last dunno

23 Dec 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob
if a pack of frenzied blood thirsty animals relentlessly pursuing and then riping another to death is illegal, then surly we should start with the media and leave trivial things like fox hunting till last

Mmmmm Leveson steak with poivre sauce.. Delicious.

24 Dec 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob
if a pack of frenzied blood thirsty animals relentlessly pursuing and then riping another to death is illegal, then surly we should start with the media and leave trivial things like fox hunting till last

No Rob as this thread is about morals, and the media and Levison and his cronies, would not know morals if it jumped out on them, and bit their arses.
Nope I think the killing of foxes should take much higher presidency over some low lives. Lets be fair Rob.......save a fox or save a politician. Not that hard a question.
Merry Christmas to you btw.:bounce:

21 Jan 2013

The politicians have reported the RSPCA to the Charity Commission for breaching a "duty of prudence" that governs their actions.
The group, which includes Simon Hart, the Conservative MP, Kate Hoey, the Labour MP, Mark Williams, the Liberal Democrat MP, and Baroness Mallalieu, told the watchdog that they had "concerns about the motivation for bringing this prosecution".

RSPCA summoned to meet head of charity watchdog after controversial David Cameron hunt prosecution
The group, which included Lord Heseltine and Tory MP Simon Hart, reported the RSPCA's 18 trustees to the Commission for breaching a "duty of prudence" which governs the actions of all charity trustees under charity legislation.
They told the watchdog that they had "concerns about the motivation for bringing this prosecution" and questioned why the RSPCA engaged three barristers as well as firm of specialist insurance solicitors when it had its own in-house legal team.
In a reply to the letter sent on Tuesday this week, Mr Shawcross said: "Given the concerns raised by the judge, by yourselves and by others, we are seeking an early meeting with the RSPCA to discuss their approach to prosecutions in general and to this case in particular."

The RSPCA has been told by the charity watchdog that any decision to prosecute hunts must be a “reasonable and effective use of the charity's resources".

Seams I was not the only person with concerns over the RSPCA motives

22 Jan 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
I as a contributor to their causes would rather my money was spent on the conviction of illegal barbaric hunters of wildlife, than to have no RSPCA and the country toffs allowed to do as they please, when they please. :thumbup:
As a country toff and a supporter of barbaric killings of course those people will constantly try and blacken the RSPCA's name whenever they can to try and cover up their own dirty tricks, but the public can see straight through that as contributors to them seem to have no problem with them spending their money on court cases that try and stop this barbaric sport from taking place.

I feel you may have been reading too much of the propaganda put out by certain groups. This in my view does not reflect a true picture, it’s obviously easier to demonise your opposition and the idea of ‘toffs killing animals for fun’ is an absolute gift. You seem to be of the opinion that there are only “extremist hunt criminals” rampaging around the country “ripping our wildlife to shreds with their packs of hounds”.
Of course this is simply not the truth. Firstly, hunts can still legally kill foxes under the current law. I would say the facts suggest that most are hunting within the law. I do not have the exact numbers in front of me, but believe it to be only 8 active members of a hunt have been successfully prosecuted by this act and one hunt. Most hunts the toffs are in the minority and heavily outnumbered by normal working people from every walk of life.
I think you cloud the issue with the ‘killing for fun’ argument. Some people seem to equate cruelty with killing for fun but this isn’t really the case. The question of cruelty rests on whether there is a need to kill the animal and the degree to which it suffers.
Foxes are being killed by other more horrendous means. Give me a law that protects all wild animals form all forms of cruelty and I may have some sympathy. A law that says it is wrong in whatever circumstance to cause unnecessary suffering to any wild animal for whatever reason is principled. The hunting act does not do this.

Are you sure?