Thousands are expected at Boxing Day hunts

DOZENS of riders and hounds will be out in Oxfordshire for traditional Boxing Day hunts.

Despite fox hunting being banned seven years ago, Oxfordshire hunts say thousands will come out to support them.

Following the ban the hunts have to stay within the law by following artificially-laid trails.

Bicester and Whaddon Chase Hound Club will meet at 11am in the field opposite Winslow Hall, east of Bicester, at 11am.

Patrick Martin, of the hound club which has its kennels in Stratton Audley, near Bicester, said up to 60 riders and 35 hounds could take part. He said: “People come because they believe in the traditions of this country and are more than happy to support their local hunt.”

Hunts met in Bicester’s Market Square, on Boxing Day, until 2001, when it was moved to avoid a £1,000 bill from Thames Valley Police and Cherwell District Council, for railings.

Joint master of Heythrop Hunt Simon Lawrance said it will once again meet in Chipping Norton’s Market Place, outside the Fox Hotel at 10.45am on Boxing Day.

He said: “It’s going to be a spectacle.”

Kimblewick Hunt, previously the Vale of Aylesbury with Garth and South Berks Hunt, which covers parts of Oxfordshire, is meeting at Cholsebury Common at 11.30am on Boxing Day.

Related links

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:12am Mon 24 Dec 12

carli says...

Disgusting....I hope the foxes get away and that the hunt is a disaster, may all the riders land in ditches. I hope the hounds go on strike and the horses buck all the riders off.......
Disgusting....I hope the foxes get away and that the hunt is a disaster, may all the riders land in ditches. I hope the hounds go on strike and the horses buck all the riders off....... carli

9:18am Mon 24 Dec 12

Cathena says...

and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road.
and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road. Cathena

9:29am Mon 24 Dec 12

Bob 1900 says...

Very simple-shoot the fox as vermin and then drag its carcass around the countryside laying the scent for the hounds-lunch for the hounds and all within the law-simple!
Very simple-shoot the fox as vermin and then drag its carcass around the countryside laying the scent for the hounds-lunch for the hounds and all within the law-simple! Bob 1900

10:43am Mon 24 Dec 12

Speckled Hen says...

Well, shame on the Oxford Mail for promoting Boxing Day hunts, especially in the light of the recent conviction of the Heythrop intentionally hunting foxes.
Despite what hunters say, the vast majority of people in this country both in the towns and in the countryside despise the hunt.

Monitors observe foxes running from local hunts every time they go out and they believe that hunts are blatantly breaking the law as they swore they would when they signed, in their thousands, their much publicized Declaration to do just that.

Anyone who wishes to see the evidence that convicted the Heythrop can now find it on You Tube, together with numerous other films showing the hostility, obstruction, abuse and downright aggression which hunts inflict on the monitors, who are massively outnumbered at every hunt.

You may ask yourself why hunts are so aggressive to monitors if they are, as they claim, hunting within the law.
Well, shame on the Oxford Mail for promoting Boxing Day hunts, especially in the light of the recent conviction of the Heythrop intentionally hunting foxes. Despite what hunters say, the vast majority of people in this country both in the towns and in the countryside despise the hunt. Monitors observe foxes running from local hunts every time they go out and they believe that hunts are blatantly breaking the law as they swore they would when they signed, in their thousands, their much publicized Declaration to do just that. Anyone who wishes to see the evidence that convicted the Heythrop can now find it on You Tube, together with numerous other films showing the hostility, obstruction, abuse and downright aggression which hunts inflict on the monitors, who are massively outnumbered at every hunt. You may ask yourself why hunts are so aggressive to monitors if they are, as they claim, hunting within the law. Speckled Hen

12:45pm Mon 24 Dec 12

Sugarandcandy says...

Cathena wrote:
and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road.
I worked on a farm in a rural location for 3 years. We had ducks, chickens, rabbits etc. We never ever had a problem with foxes attacking any of our animals as we kept them very secure in proper hutches and cages. We know the area was full of foxes as they were often spotted in the next field! If you keep your animals secure then you should have no trouble. It's just another excuse to take part in this archaic tradition. I think it's disgusting that, despite blatently breaking the law like common criminals, the Heythrop hunt continue to parade around like they own the place. I understand that the fox population may need to be controlled what I don't understand is how anyone can believe they have the right to torture and murder an animal in such a cruel and undignified way.
[quote][p][bold]Cathena[/bold] wrote: and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road.[/p][/quote]I worked on a farm in a rural location for 3 years. We had ducks, chickens, rabbits etc. We never ever had a problem with foxes attacking any of our animals as we kept them very secure in proper hutches and cages. We know the area was full of foxes as they were often spotted in the next field! If you keep your animals secure then you should have no trouble. It's just another excuse to take part in this archaic tradition. I think it's disgusting that, despite blatently breaking the law like common criminals, the Heythrop hunt continue to parade around like they own the place. I understand that the fox population may need to be controlled what I don't understand is how anyone can believe they have the right to torture and murder an animal in such a cruel and undignified way. Sugarandcandy

1:10pm Mon 24 Dec 12

Speckled Hen says...

Quite right Sugarandcandy. Though did you know that most hunts build artificial dens and provide a ready supply food near by to encourage foxes to breed, thus ensuring a ready suppy for their discusting 'sport' ? There is much evidence of this activity since the ban! See League Against Cruel Sports report on their web site
Quite right Sugarandcandy. Though did you know that most hunts build artificial dens and provide a ready supply food near by to encourage foxes to breed, thus ensuring a ready suppy for their discusting 'sport' ? There is much evidence of this activity since the ban! See League Against Cruel Sports report on their web site Speckled Hen

3:32pm Mon 24 Dec 12

museli says...

Yes shame on the Oxford Mail for promoting criminal behaviour - the editor must know as well as the rest of us that these hunts have no intention of abiding by the law.
Yes shame on the Oxford Mail for promoting criminal behaviour - the editor must know as well as the rest of us that these hunts have no intention of abiding by the law. museli

5:07pm Mon 24 Dec 12

Spike25 says...

I'll certainly be going to add my support - to the caring and compassionate people who want these bloodthirsty lawbreakers dealing with with the full force of the law.
I'll certainly be going to add my support - to the caring and compassionate people who want these bloodthirsty lawbreakers dealing with with the full force of the law. Spike25

6:54pm Mon 24 Dec 12

Bob 1900 says...

Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.
Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes. Bob 1900

7:13pm Mon 24 Dec 12

museli says...

Bob 1900 wrote:
Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.
The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around.
[quote][p][bold]Bob 1900[/bold] wrote: Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.[/p][/quote]The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around. museli

7:13pm Mon 24 Dec 12

museli says...

sorry that's 'convictions by private prosecution' ....
sorry that's 'convictions by private prosecution' .... museli

9:21am Tue 25 Dec 12

carli says...

Cathena wrote:
and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road.
merry christmas to you too.....
[quote][p][bold]Cathena[/bold] wrote: and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road.[/p][/quote]merry christmas to you too..... carli

5:38pm Wed 26 Dec 12

xjohnx says...

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes.

Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes???

More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.
I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds. xjohnx

8:25am Thu 27 Dec 12

Lord Palmerstone says...

museli wrote:
Bob 1900 wrote:
Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.
The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around.
They tend NOT to have spent north of 200K on each prosecution and their prosecutions have, quite properly, been of people who treat appallingly animals in their care. We both know this and we both know that the Heythrop thing was not "core" business but blatant political grandstanding. So why do you insist on denying the bl**ding obvious?
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob 1900[/bold] wrote: Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.[/p][/quote]The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around.[/p][/quote]They tend NOT to have spent north of 200K on each prosecution and their prosecutions have, quite properly, been of people who treat appallingly animals in their care. We both know this and we both know that the Heythrop thing was not "core" business but blatant political grandstanding. So why do you insist on denying the bl**ding obvious? Lord Palmerstone

10:24am Thu 27 Dec 12

museli says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
museli wrote:
Bob 1900 wrote:
Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.
The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around.
They tend NOT to have spent north of 200K on each prosecution and their prosecutions have, quite properly, been of people who treat appallingly animals in their care. We both know this and we both know that the Heythrop thing was not "core" business but blatant political grandstanding. So why do you insist on denying the bl**ding obvious?
Of course preventing cruelty to foxes is 'core business' for the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - the clues in their name. The prosecution of known criminals for blatantly breaking the law is not 'political grandstanding', someone had to bring Barnfield and his cronies to book and the CPS had mysteriously dropped the case last time they got charged. As those of us who bother to read your regular posts are well aware your Lordship's version of the bleeding obvious is not at all obvious to those of us that don't believe the entire country is under the thumb of some oppressive socialist regime.

(Oh why am I bothering to respond to a fundamentalist - I should know better by now!)
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob 1900[/bold] wrote: Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.[/p][/quote]The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around.[/p][/quote]They tend NOT to have spent north of 200K on each prosecution and their prosecutions have, quite properly, been of people who treat appallingly animals in their care. We both know this and we both know that the Heythrop thing was not "core" business but blatant political grandstanding. So why do you insist on denying the bl**ding obvious?[/p][/quote]Of course preventing cruelty to foxes is 'core business' for the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - the clues in their name. The prosecution of known criminals for blatantly breaking the law is not 'political grandstanding', someone had to bring Barnfield and his cronies to book and the CPS had mysteriously dropped the case last time they got charged. As those of us who bother to read your regular posts are well aware your Lordship's version of the bleeding obvious is not at all obvious to those of us that don't believe the entire country is under the thumb of some oppressive socialist regime. (Oh why am I bothering to respond to a fundamentalist - I should know better by now!) museli

11:38am Thu 27 Dec 12

Bartsimpson_uk says...

You all seem to forget,,,,,they BROKE the law and should be prosecuted, if not would you like to share what other laws people can break???
You all seem to forget,,,,,they BROKE the law and should be prosecuted, if not would you like to share what other laws people can break??? Bartsimpson_uk

4:38pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Lord Palmerstone says...

Bartsimpson_uk wrote:
You all seem to forget,,,,,they BROKE the law and should be prosecuted, if not would you like to share what other laws people can break???
The Abortion Act 1967, as amended. Next?
The pass laws.
The laws in occupied countries 1939-1945.
Bart, most of us are capable of recognising the difference between Blair's cheap political show and laws. I'm sure you can too.
Oh and Museli-the point is that they spent £300,000 on this prosecution, which is a disproportionate sum, and all the personal abuse doesn't obscure that point .Apologists like you are not going to be able to justify spending all that cash. The cash was not given by decent donors for this purpose, as you know. And if you think that, for example, starving puppies in a dark shed (RSPCA core business) is so much more trivial than chasing a bloomin' fox that the RSPCA should only spend 2% of the sum of money prosecuting such a case than on prosecuting to embarrass Cameron, then frankly you're barking-see I can do personal abuse as well, and it's as fatuous as your personal abuse.
[quote][p][bold]Bartsimpson_uk[/bold] wrote: You all seem to forget,,,,,they BROKE the law and should be prosecuted, if not would you like to share what other laws people can break???[/p][/quote]The Abortion Act 1967, as amended. Next? The pass laws. The laws in occupied countries 1939-1945. Bart, most of us are capable of recognising the difference between Blair's cheap political show and laws. I'm sure you can too. Oh and Museli-the point is that they spent £300,000 on this prosecution, which is a disproportionate sum, and all the personal abuse doesn't obscure that point .Apologists like you are not going to be able to justify spending all that cash. The cash was not given by decent donors for this purpose, as you know. And if you think that, for example, starving puppies in a dark shed (RSPCA core business) is so much more trivial than chasing a bloomin' fox that the RSPCA should only spend 2% of the sum of money prosecuting such a case than on prosecuting to embarrass Cameron, then frankly you're barking-see I can do personal abuse as well, and it's as fatuous as your personal abuse. Lord Palmerstone

6:52pm Fri 28 Dec 12

carfax cabby ox1 says...

Muesli, as you say the RSPCA had over 3,000 convictions, now if they were all at 300K a pop where is all that money coming from, my calculator has not enough numbers to calculate that figure. This was a politically motivated prosecution by a charity, that should now have it's charitable status revoked, and pay all relevant taxes in the UK.
Muesli, as you say the RSPCA had over 3,000 convictions, now if they were all at 300K a pop where is all that money coming from, my calculator has not enough numbers to calculate that figure. This was a politically motivated prosecution by a charity, that should now have it's charitable status revoked, and pay all relevant taxes in the UK. carfax cabby ox1

7:23am Sat 29 Dec 12

museli says...

I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there.

If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.
I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there. If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them. museli

9:19am Sat 29 Dec 12

Lord Palmerstone says...

museli wrote:
I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there.

If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.
"healed"What do you mean? Broughton is banged up now and the rest of his disgusting coven have not, as best I know , hurt anyone lately.
The RSPCA don't have to have any meetings because it was the decision of the autocrat who heads this (now) pseudo-charity to throw all the donations away on the enforcement of Blair's political diktat. At least the whole debacle has damaged RSPCA considerably and one hopes that wills are now being altered to benefit real charities
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there. If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.[/p][/quote]"healed"What do you mean? Broughton is banged up now and the rest of his disgusting coven have not, as best I know , hurt anyone lately. The RSPCA don't have to have any meetings because it was the decision of the autocrat who heads this (now) pseudo-charity to throw all the donations away on the enforcement of Blair's political diktat. At least the whole debacle has damaged RSPCA considerably and one hopes that wills are now being altered to benefit real charities Lord Palmerstone

10:18am Sat 29 Dec 12

oopsispiltmygravy says...

the reason why the RSPCA had to spend £320000 on prosecuting the heythrop Hunt was because the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to - possibly because they were worried that it might cause political fallout for themselves. The RSPCA stepped in as a last resort to stop a particularily arrogant and cruel hunt form continuing to break the law. The Hunt would have been represented by the best lawyers available, hence the requirement to spend by the RSPCA on prosecuting 54 charges, each of which the hunt denied for months until the second day of the trial thus forcing the RSPCA to spend lots of money. The Hunt is the problem here....if they had stuck to the law, this money would not need to have been spent !!
the reason why the RSPCA had to spend £320000 on prosecuting the heythrop Hunt was because the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to - possibly because they were worried that it might cause political fallout for themselves. The RSPCA stepped in as a last resort to stop a particularily arrogant and cruel hunt form continuing to break the law. The Hunt would have been represented by the best lawyers available, hence the requirement to spend by the RSPCA on prosecuting 54 charges, each of which the hunt denied for months until the second day of the trial thus forcing the RSPCA to spend lots of money. The Hunt is the problem here....if they had stuck to the law, this money would not need to have been spent !! oopsispiltmygravy

10:46am Sat 29 Dec 12

A34North says...

museli wrote:
I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there.

If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.
'The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron?'

That, unfortunately, is where you lost the argument!
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there. If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.[/p][/quote]'The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron?' That, unfortunately, is where you lost the argument! A34North

11:36am Sat 29 Dec 12

JanetJ says...

xjohnx wrote:
I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes.

Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes???

More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.
Or trapped or poisoned
[quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.[/p][/quote]Or trapped or poisoned JanetJ

1:03pm Sat 29 Dec 12

A34North says...

JanetJ wrote:
xjohnx wrote:
I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes.

Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes???

More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.
Or trapped or poisoned
Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.
[quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.[/p][/quote]Or trapped or poisoned[/p][/quote]Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to. A34North

3:23pm Sat 29 Dec 12

museli says...

A34North wrote:
museli wrote:
I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there.

If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.
'The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron?'

That, unfortunately, is where you lost the argument!
If you've got some evidence of this conspiracy being real then I'd really love to see it.
[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there. If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.[/p][/quote]'The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron?' That, unfortunately, is where you lost the argument![/p][/quote]If you've got some evidence of this conspiracy being real then I'd really love to see it. museli

3:26pm Sat 29 Dec 12

museli says...

A34North wrote:
JanetJ wrote:
xjohnx wrote:
I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes.

Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes???

More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.
Or trapped or poisoned
Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.
Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.
[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.[/p][/quote]Or trapped or poisoned[/p][/quote]Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.[/p][/quote]Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though. museli

6:20pm Sat 29 Dec 12

A34North says...

museli wrote:
A34North wrote:
JanetJ wrote:
xjohnx wrote:
I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes.

Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes???

More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.
Or trapped or poisoned
Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.
Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.
So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help..
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.[/p][/quote]Or trapped or poisoned[/p][/quote]Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.[/p][/quote]Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.[/p][/quote]So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help.. A34North

6:58pm Sat 29 Dec 12

museli says...

A34North wrote:
museli wrote:
A34North wrote:
JanetJ wrote:
xjohnx wrote:
I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes.

Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes???

More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.
Or trapped or poisoned
Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.
Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.
So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help..
Sorry? I'm at a total loss as to understanding how you could draw that conclusion from what I just posted. There's no point in arguing with the likes of you though - you're far to busy being right for truth or logic to get a look in.
[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.[/p][/quote]Or trapped or poisoned[/p][/quote]Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.[/p][/quote]Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.[/p][/quote]So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help..[/p][/quote]Sorry? I'm at a total loss as to understanding how you could draw that conclusion from what I just posted. There's no point in arguing with the likes of you though - you're far to busy being right for truth or logic to get a look in. museli

10:04am Sun 30 Dec 12

Lord Palmerstone says...

I know that there is no obligation to read what I write but don't keep banging on about a "conspiracy". No one needed to agree anything . The leftist former PR man who is Chief Exec of RSPCA and whose name I can't be a*sed to look up did it off his own bat because of his particular world view. Fine to have a world view, but to use 300K of donated funds to express it.....And the function of the CPS is to prosecute real offending. It doesn't always get it right and I'm one of its sternest critics. But if it turned this one down it was right. No part of its function to pander to the little vote winning joke Acts of Parliament of Blair. It is supposed to prosecute in the public interest, not to appease single issue fanatics like Muesli & cohort.
I know that there is no obligation to read what I write but don't keep banging on about a "conspiracy". No one needed to agree anything . The leftist former PR man who is Chief Exec of RSPCA and whose name I can't be a*sed to look up did it off his own bat because of his particular world view. Fine to have a world view, but to use 300K of donated funds to express it.....And the function of the CPS is to prosecute real offending. It doesn't always get it right and I'm one of its sternest critics. But if it turned this one down it was right. No part of its function to pander to the little vote winning joke Acts of Parliament of Blair. It is supposed to prosecute in the public interest, not to appease single issue fanatics like Muesli & cohort. Lord Palmerstone

11:00am Sun 30 Dec 12

museli says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
I know that there is no obligation to read what I write but don't keep banging on about a "conspiracy". No one needed to agree anything . The leftist former PR man who is Chief Exec of RSPCA and whose name I can't be a*sed to look up did it off his own bat because of his particular world view. Fine to have a world view, but to use 300K of donated funds to express it.....And the function of the CPS is to prosecute real offending. It doesn't always get it right and I'm one of its sternest critics. But if it turned this one down it was right. No part of its function to pander to the little vote winning joke Acts of Parliament of Blair. It is supposed to prosecute in the public interest, not to appease single issue fanatics like Muesli & cohort.
I think you'll find Gavin Grant is a long term Lib Dem and close supporter of Clegg.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: I know that there is no obligation to read what I write but don't keep banging on about a "conspiracy". No one needed to agree anything . The leftist former PR man who is Chief Exec of RSPCA and whose name I can't be a*sed to look up did it off his own bat because of his particular world view. Fine to have a world view, but to use 300K of donated funds to express it.....And the function of the CPS is to prosecute real offending. It doesn't always get it right and I'm one of its sternest critics. But if it turned this one down it was right. No part of its function to pander to the little vote winning joke Acts of Parliament of Blair. It is supposed to prosecute in the public interest, not to appease single issue fanatics like Muesli & cohort.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find Gavin Grant is a long term Lib Dem and close supporter of Clegg. museli

11:05am Sun 30 Dec 12

A34North says...

museli wrote:
A34North wrote:
museli wrote:
A34North wrote:
JanetJ wrote:
xjohnx wrote:
I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes.

Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes???

More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.
Or trapped or poisoned
Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.
Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.
So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help..
Sorry? I'm at a total loss as to understanding how you could draw that conclusion from what I just posted. There's no point in arguing with the likes of you though - you're far to busy being right for truth or logic to get a look in.
Then I should read your posts again museli. Oh, you are not arguing with me museli, I have far more pressing things to do than get involved with such a knowledgeable and worldly wise person.
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.[/p][/quote]Or trapped or poisoned[/p][/quote]Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.[/p][/quote]Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.[/p][/quote]So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help..[/p][/quote]Sorry? I'm at a total loss as to understanding how you could draw that conclusion from what I just posted. There's no point in arguing with the likes of you though - you're far to busy being right for truth or logic to get a look in.[/p][/quote]Then I should read your posts again museli. Oh, you are not arguing with me museli, I have far more pressing things to do than get involved with such a knowledgeable and worldly wise person. A34North

1:58pm Sun 30 Dec 12

Lord Palmerstone says...

Is not the (Liberal) Social Democrat Party a leftist party? I recall that one of their leading lights was very influential in the destruction of grammar schools, as extreme left a policy as you'd find anywhere...was she not?
Is not the (Liberal) Social Democrat Party a leftist party? I recall that one of their leading lights was very influential in the destruction of grammar schools, as extreme left a policy as you'd find anywhere...was she not? Lord Palmerstone

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