Yes I had read hat article, authored by th pro hunt Countryside Alliance chappy I believe.
As I said I do wish they published court transcripts.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Morals
last reply
152 replies
5.0k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
Quote by Ben_Minx
Yes I had read hat article, authored by th pro hunt Countryside Alliance chappy I believe.
As I said I do wish they published court transcripts.
Please feel free to point out any inaccuracies
Sex God
Quote by Ben_Minx
I dont know, he could have made it all up eh?
Hence my wish for transcripts. They would also answer my other questions. Justice being seen to be done is important I think.
From what I can tell they dropped 52 charges, won four, and the judge awared fines and cost's as follows;
Richard Sumner, 68, and Julian Barnfield, 49, of the 176-year-old Heythrop Hunt with which Cameron has previously ridden, each pleaded guilty at Oxford magistrates court to four charges of unlawfully hunting a wild fox with dogs. The hunt, Heythrop Hunt Limited, also pleaded guilty to the same four charges of intentionally hunting a fox with dogs on land in the Cotswolds.
Barnfield, of Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, was fined £250 for each charge, totalling £1,000, and ordered to pay costs of £2,000. Sumner, of Salperton, Gloucestershire, was fined a total of £1,800 with costs of £2,500. The Heythrop Hunt Limited was fined a total of £4000 with £15,000 costs. All three were ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge.
All reports I have read state similar, I have no reason to believe otherwise, unless you know better
Sex God
Quote by Ben_Minx
Bear with me on this.
Do we know why the charges were dropped?
Do we know why the judge didn't award all of the costs?
Do we know why the hounds weren't confiscated.
I don't think we do.
The judge can only award costs for the cases won, which he has done
Sex God
Quote by Ben_Minx
We don't know the rationale behind the costs award either.
The feeling I get is the judge was not impressed with the RSPCA and there waste of money, but who knows
District Judge Tim Pattinson, who presided over the Heythrop case, noted witheringly that the £330,000 spent on the case by the RSPCA was ‘a quite staggering sum’. He said that he imagined ‘members of the public may feel that RSPCA funds can be more usefully employed’.
That £330,000 can be set against the costs of just £19,500 paid by the defendants.
Read more:
Referring to the RSPCA costs for mounting the prosecution, he said: ‘It is not for me to express an opinion, I merely flag it up, but I do find it to be a quite staggering figure.’ He said the costs for all five defendants were only £35,000.
He fined 68-year-old Sumner £1,800 and Barnfield £1,000 for the offences which occurred on November 23 and November 30, 2011, and February 29 and March 7 this year.
The hunt was told to pay £15,000 towards the RSPCA’s costs, Sumner £2,500 and Barnfield £2,000.
Outside court, Barnfield said: ‘We conceded because the money wasn’t there to defend ourselves.
Read more:
Sex God
Would love to know just how many animals will be put to sleep due to this disgusting and massive waste of charity money?
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
Would love to know just how many animals will be put to sleep due to this disgusting and massive waste of charity money?
I reckon the answer will be nil.
Sex God
Quote by Trevaunance
Would love to know just how many animals will be put to sleep due to this disgusting and massive waste of charity money?
I reckon the answer will be nil.
I reckon your wrong, money spent here can not be spent on animals
Healthy cats may have to be put down, because of the record number of strays, the RSPCA warned yesterday
An RSPCA ad campaign that offered to care for pets if their owner dies has escaped a ban, despite the charity admitting that almost one in five animals in the scheme are put down.
Just a few days ago Beverly Cuddy, the editor of Dogs Today magazine, said on BBC radio that the RSPCA couldn’t uphold the Animal Welfare Act with regard puppy farming because, “they say they haven’t got enough money to apply it.” So the misery that thousands of dogs suffer while being bred in disgusting conditions and sold in a backstreet manner is secondary to prosecuting a hunt for breaches of the flawed Hunting Act.
The fact is the RSPCA, at a time when it is publicly pleading poverty and making staff redundant, was willing to risk a truly enormous sum of money…and for what?
Animals will suffer because of it, what would 3rd of a million done for those animals
An RSPCA ad campaign that offered to care for pets if their owner dies has escaped a ban, despite the charity admitting that almost one in five animals in the scheme are put down.
The RSPCA ran a TV and newspaper campaign for its free Home for Life service – featuring clip of a cat pawing at a window of an empty house and the story of a poodle called Pepe – which rehomes pets in the event an owner dies.
"When you pass away, you'll want to know that your pet is safe and happy," read one press ad. "We can help take care of your pet after you've gone. You'll rest in peace, knowing they're being looked after."
The Advertising Standards Authority received a complaint from a member of the public and Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming.
They argued that the RSPCA's advertising was misleading for not mentioning that it puts down some animals in its care.
The RSPCA admitted that in 2011 it had put down 10 of the 58, or 17.2%, of the animals taken in as part of its Home for Life service.
Sex God
Home for life campaign: Where has the RSPCA said it would guarantee every pet would be rehomed under this scheme? If an animal has behavioral problems, is a dangerous breed or is too sick to be rehomed then perhaps the RSPCA is doing the right thing.
Of course they are swamped with strays, that isn't the RSPCA's fault, but at least they are prepared to do something about it. Your deeply concerned with animal welfare, so do you think its right that domesticated animals are left to turn feral? Every charity is constantly short of money, they all want more donations and if they have to pull on your heart strings to do it then they will. Telling people that they are struggling to cope is nothing more than an advertising campaign.
But to answer your question again:
I do not believe that any animal will be put down as a direct consequence of this court action.
Of course they are swamped with strays, that isn't the RSPCA's fault, but at least they are prepared to do something about it. Your deeply concerned with animal welfare, so do you think its right that domesticated animals are left to turn feral? Every charity is constantly short of money, they all want more donations and if they have to pull on your heart strings to do it then they will. Telling people that they are struggling to cope is nothing more than an advertising campaign.
But to answer your question again:
Quote by Bluefish2009
Would love to know just how many animals will be put to sleep due to this disgusting and massive waste of charity money?
I do not believe that any animal will be put down as a direct consequence of this court action.
Sex God
Quote by Trevaunance
Home for life campaign: Where has the RSPCA said it would guarantee every pet would be rehomed under this scheme? If an animal has behavioral problems, is a dangerous breed or is too sick to be rehomed then perhaps the RSPCA is doing the right thing.
Of course they are swamped with strays, that isn't the RSPCA's fault, but at least they are prepared to do something about it. Your deeply concerned with animal welfare, so do you think its right that domesticated animals are left to turn feral? Every charity is constantly short of money, they all want more donations and if they have to pull on your heart strings to do it then they will. Telling people that they are struggling to cope is nothing more than an advertising campaign.
But to answer your question again:
Would love to know just how many animals will be put to sleep due to this disgusting and massive waste of charity money?
I do not believe that any animal will be put down as a direct consequence of this court action.
At a time they are making redundancy's I believe you are incorrect :thumbup:
I do my share and others on the animal wefare front, just no longer with the RSPCA
, could have been spent on animals care, now its been wasted it can not, simple maths
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
At a time they are making redundancy's I believe you are incorrect :thumbup:
Quote by Bluefish2009
, could have been spent on animals care, now its been wasted it can not, simple maths
The latest figures available show the Income in 2010 for the RSPCA was 115 Million. Staff costs alone were over 40% at 49.5 million and it's pension shortfall was 42 million. Quite clearly the largest cost to the RSPCA is staff and therefore it's logical that they must make changes.
In the words of Chief executive Gavin Grant: “Some hard decisions must be taken. Significant job losses in administrative areas are sadly inevitable but I will protect frontline animal welfare services. Abused and abandoned animals need our help and they will get it. Our policy of ‘zero tolerance’ of animal abuse and prosecution of the perpetrators will continue.”
So once again, I don't see that any animals will be killed as a direct result of this court action that has seen criminals punished under the Law.
Sex God
Quote by Ben_Minx
, could have been spent on animals care, now its been wasted it can not, simple maths
Do you think the people who committed the crime carry any responsibility?
Indeed I do Ben, as did the judge;
Barnfield, of Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, was fined £250 for each charge, totalling £1,000, and ordered to pay costs of £2,000. Sumner, of Salperton, Gloucestershire, was fined a total of £1,800 with costs of £2,500. The Heythrop Hunt Limited was fined a total of £4000 with £15,000 costs. All three were ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge.
Sex God
Quote by Trevaunance
At a time they are making redundancy's I believe you are incorrect :thumbup:
Quote by Bluefish2009
, could have been spent on animals care, now its been wasted it can not, simple maths
The latest figures available show the Income in 2010 for the RSPCA was 115 Million. Staff costs alone were over 40% at 49.5 million and it's pension shortfall was 42 million. Quite clearly the largest cost to the RSPCA is staff and therefore it's logical that they must make changes.
In the words of Chief executive Gavin Grant: “Some hard decisions must be taken. Significant job losses in administrative areas are sadly inevitable but I will protect frontline animal welfare services. Abused and abandoned animals need our help and they will get it. Our policy of ‘zero tolerance’ of animal abuse and prosecution of the perpetrators will continue.”
So once again, I don't see that any animals will be killed as a direct result of this court action that has seen criminals punished under the Law.
We can only agree to dissagree then, for me the maths tell the story
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
We can only agree to dissagree then, for me the maths tell the story
And for me the charity doing what it has done for 188 years and bringing criminals to book tells the story.
Sex God
Quote by Trevaunance
We can only agree to dissagree then, for me the maths tell the story
And for me the charity doing what it has done for 188 years and bringing criminals to book tells the story.
:thumbup:
Indeed, a proud moment for Richard Martin
Sex God
And a not so proud moment for Richard Sumner 
Sex God
Quote by Trevaunance
And a not so proud moment for Richard Sumner
Well could play in favour of the hunts, strangley as the hunting ban did
In market squares and outside country pubs around Britain, this coming Boxing Day will see gathered up to a quarter of a million people. They will represent a complete cross section of rural society, from fleeces to flat hats, from those elegantly attired in black jackets astride chestnut hunters to youngsters in outsize crash hats on skewbald ponies, all awaiting the flash of a scarlet jacket and the sound of the hunting horn as the foxhounds arrive to take centre stage.
Nearly eight years after hunting with dogs was banned, some 280 packs of hounds are still going strong. Boxing Day may be hunting’s most high profile meet, but it is only one day in a fixture list which continues week in, week out from November to March. Indeed, there are probably more people going hunting today than before the Hunting Act.
Quote by Bluefish2009
And a not so proud moment for Richard Sumner
Well could play in favour of the hunts, strangley as the hunting ban did
In market squares and outside country pubs around Britain, this coming Boxing Day will see gathered up to a quarter of a million people. They will represent a complete cross section of rural society, from fleeces to flat hats, from those elegantly attired in black jackets astride chestnut hunters to youngsters in outsize crash hats on skewbald ponies, all awaiting the flash of a scarlet jacket and the sound of the hunting horn as the foxhounds arrive to take centre stage.
Nearly eight years after hunting with dogs was banned, some 280 packs of hounds are still going strong. Boxing Day may be hunting’s most high profile meet, but it is only one day in a fixture list which continues week in, week out from November to March. Indeed, there are probably more people going hunting today than before the Hunting Act.
you don't think there are more participants because of the ban then?
Sex God
Quote by Stevie_and_Kitty
And a not so proud moment for Richard Sumner
Well could play in favour of the hunts, strangley as the hunting ban did
In market squares and outside country pubs around Britain, this coming Boxing Day will see gathered up to a quarter of a million people. They will represent a complete cross section of rural society, from fleeces to flat hats, from those elegantly attired in black jackets astride chestnut hunters to youngsters in outsize crash hats on skewbald ponies, all awaiting the flash of a scarlet jacket and the sound of the hunting horn as the foxhounds arrive to take centre stage.
Nearly eight years after hunting with dogs was banned, some 280 packs of hounds are still going strong. Boxing Day may be hunting's most high profile meet, but it is only one day in a fixture list which continues week in, week out from November to March. Indeed, there are probably more people going hunting today than before the Hunting Act.
you don't think there are more participants because of the ban then?
Sorry, the point I was trying to make, but badly, was that the ban and the publicity leading up to it worked as a massive recruiting tool for hunting, More people have been hunting since the ban than were before
So people are openly breaking the law, so the question I want asked is why are they being allowed to do so?
For as a tax paying member of the public I have to stay within the law of the land or face prosecution, and yet the toffy nose set are it seems allowed to flaunt the law almost at will.
There always seems to be laws for one section of society, and another set of laws for another. Depends who you know and how much money and influence you have sometimes, and certainly that is the case it seems in the hunting fraternity.
For as a tax paying member of the public I have to stay within the law of the land or face prosecution, and yet the toffy nose set are it seems allowed to flaunt the law almost at will.
There always seems to be laws for one section of society, and another set of laws for another. Depends who you know and how much money and influence you have sometimes, and certainly that is the case it seems in the hunting fraternity.
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
So people are openly breaking the law, so the question I want asked is why are they being allowed to do so?
For as a tax paying member of the public I have to stay within the law of the land or face prosecution, and yet the toffy nose set are it seems allowed to flaunt the law almost at will.
There always seems to be laws for one section of society, and another set of laws for another. Depends who you know and how much money and influence you have sometimes, and certainly that is the case it seems in the hunting fraternity.
There is not a ban on hunting, they must simply hunt within the law
You seam to have it in for the toff's this week star
the toffs are heavily out numbered by a broad spectrum of people Quote by Bluefish2009
So people are openly breaking the law, so the question I want asked is why are they being allowed to do so?
For as a tax paying member of the public I have to stay within the law of the land or face prosecution, and yet the toffy nose set are it seems allowed to flaunt the law almost at will.
There always seems to be laws for one section of society, and another set of laws for another. Depends who you know and how much money and influence you have sometimes, and certainly that is the case it seems in the hunting fraternity.
There is not a ban on hunting, they must simply hunt within the law
You seam to have it in for the toff's this week star
the toffs are heavily out numbered by a broad spectrum of peopleWhat veiled reply was that Blue? It is against the law to hunt for foxes, and hunt within the law? Are they going out without the hounds now then?
Actually Blue I can make no sense of your reply at all. But then I made no sense of the fact you agree with fox hunting and yet give money to a society that protects all animals.
Sex God
Out of the predicted 250,000 people that you are saying will be hunting with hounds on Boxing day, how many will be carrying out legal hunts?
I only ask because hunting a scent is allowed is it not?
It is not illegal to hunt an unspecified mammal provided you don't catch it
You may hunt on private land
you may hunt an animal you release yourself
These are forms of legal hunting with hounds
Are you in the belief that 250,000 people will ride horses and hunt with hounds to catch and kill a Fox in direct contravention of the Law? or will they stay within it and legally hunt?
I only ask because hunting a scent is allowed is it not?
It is not illegal to hunt an unspecified mammal provided you don't catch it
You may hunt on private land
you may hunt an animal you release yourself
These are forms of legal hunting with hounds
Are you in the belief that 250,000 people will ride horses and hunt with hounds to catch and kill a Fox in direct contravention of the Law? or will they stay within it and legally hunt?
Sex God
Quote by Trevaunance
Out of the predicted 250,000 people that you are saying will be hunting with hounds on Boxing day, how many will be carrying out legal hunts?
I only ask because hunting a scent is allowed is it not?
It is not illegal to hunt an unspecified mammal provided you don't catch it
You may hunt on private land
you may hunt an animal you release yourself
These are forms of legal hunting with hounds
Are you in the belief that 250,000 people will ride horses and hunt with hounds to catch and kill a Fox in direct contravention of the Law? or will they stay within it and legally hunt?
They will hunt within the law
Trail hunting is permitted, where an artificial trail is laid and the hunt follow that, one obvious problem with this is no one knows if the hounds are following the laid artificial scent or have crossed the path of a live fox, until its too late. In these circumstances the hunts man must do his utmost to stop the kill.
On that note, had the persons on the video been doing so when the footage was taken there probably would have been no case to answer.
There are other exemptions from the ban;
Rats and rabbits are exempt from the
Hunting Act. Permission of the landowner
or occupier is required to hunt them
Any number of dogs may be used (with
permission of the landowner or occupier)
to hunt a hare that has been shot.
Flushing of Mammals The Act allows dogs to
be used for stalking and flushing of wild mammals,
subject to a number of restrictions. No more
that 2 dogs may be used to "stalk or flush" a
wild mammal from cover for defined purposes.
? The protection of game birds, wild birds,
fisheries, crops and livestock; obtaining meat;
and field trials.
? To qualify as exempt, the above activities
must always be done with the permission of
the owner or occupier of the land and
“reasonable steps must be taken for the
purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible
after being found, or flushed, the wild
mammal is shot dead by a competent
person.” (Competent person is undefined
in the Act).
? Each dog used in the stalking or flushing out
must be kept under sufficiently close control
to ensure that it does not prevent or
obstruct the shooting of the mammal in
question.
? A single dog may be used below ground to
“stalk or flush” a wild mammal for the sole
purpose of preventing or reducing serious
damage to game birds or wild birds being
kept or preserved for shooting. In this case,
the person using the dog must carry written
permission (or evidence that he himself is
the landowner), which he must produce if
asked by a exemption also
requires that all the following conditions
are met:
? Reasonable steps are taken for the purpose
of ensuring that as soon as possible after
being found the wild mammal is flushed
out from below ground.
? Reasonable steps are taken for the purpose
of ensuring that as soon as possible after
being flushed out from below ground the
wild mammal is shot dead by a competent
person.
? In particular, the dog is brought under
sufficiently close control to ensure that it
does not prevent or obstruct the mammal
being shot.
Sounds just like the guy from the rifle lobby after last weeks shooting.
We need more guns to prevent this kind of thing, and protect ourselves.
The hunts people claim they need it to keep the livestock safe.
Funny how we have not heard of a huge rise in wild animal attacks since the ban though
We need more guns to prevent this kind of thing, and protect ourselves.
The hunts people claim they need it to keep the livestock safe.
Funny how we have not heard of a huge rise in wild animal attacks since the ban though
