Boxing Day is always a time for hunts to put on a show of strength and this year was no different. National and local newspapers were full of stories covering hunt meets.
The Daily Telegraph carried an extensive interview with Countryside Alliance’s Executive Chairman, Sir Barney White-Spunner, covering a range of issues from the RSPCA to the BBC’s view of rural matters.
One issue that has been running virtually throughout 2013 is the how the RSPCA operates and in particular the charity’s attitude towards hunting and tackling bovine TB. Referring specifically to the way in which certain inspectors have acted, the dubious prosecutions taken and the enormous waste of charitable money, Sir Barney said that the society had become “sinister and nasty”. It’s a description that many who have suffered at the hands of the RSPCA might recognise.
The latest example of the society’s heavy-handedness involves a small disabled dog called Bobi, brought to this country from the gutters of Bulgaria. One might think that this abused animal, given his tough life up to now, might just deserve a few months or years in a caring environment – something that was being arranged for him. But that was not the view of the RSPCA, who took him, saying that he should be put down. Thankfully, due to a high-profile publicity campaign, Bobi will now be cared for by K9 Rescue.
Sir Barney’s views sparked a number of comments, not least on Twitter, where the usual suspects yelled about how evil hunting people are, how they are ‘vile psychopaths’ and how they love to “torture foxes”. Green MP Caroline Lucas defended the RSPCA against Sir Barney on the BBC’s Radio 4 PM programme, during which she claimed that their policies were “based on scientific evidence.” There was precious little of that produced before or after the Hunting Act was passed, while validated research on wounding was simply dismissed by the RSPCA because it didn’t suit their argument.
The same degree of duplicity was evident in a public opinion poll commissioned by the RSPCA and League Against Cruel Sports to coincide with Boxing Day. It showed on average 80% of those asked did not want the Hunting Act to be repealed. What was not made clear was the fact that the questions asked compared hunting with badger baiting and dog fighting, as if somehow these obscene ‘sports’ are the same as hunting and might also become legal once more. This is not the only time such deliberately confusing questions have been included in polls to achieve the desired result and yet this was the basis of Caroline Lucas’ argument when being interviewed.
And she’s not the only MP to rely on doubtful information. Here’s another example. What should one make of the claim by Bassetlaw MP John Mann, in which he describes an appalling incident he says he has witnessed? A ‘baby deer’ was locked in a pen by a hunt, who then set their dogs on it. Clearly such an act not only infringes hunting rules, but is also against the law, given that the wild deer had become captive and thereby protected. Surely the RSPCA or CPS would prosecute on the basis of evidence from such a reliable witness? But I don’t recall any such case and I would gladly have supported a prosecution. However, as you can see from the image, it’s very easy to say such things, but a little harder to provide evidence. I have no idea if this incident really did take place, but the anti hunting case is built upon such nonsense and so many people believe it.
The fact is, the RSPCA, the LACS and certain MPs know that all they have to do is portray hunting in a kind of ‘we antis love animals, those hunters hate them’ manner, knowing that many members of the public, who generally don’t think too deeply about hunting and certainly don’t see it as a political priority, will swallow anything they say. What these groups definitely don’t like is an alternative view being put and worse, an alternative law being proposed that would make their precious Hunting Act redundant. This is why there was a flurry of outraged comments from antis when the Countryside Alliance announced that I do talks to schools and colleges.
The very thought that schools have the audacity to want to know about hunting, wildlife management and life in the wild is so annoying to some people that they can hardly contain themselves. They scream that this is indoctrination, hunting is likened to rape and murder, parents should be worried, complaints should be made, teaching unions should be contacted and there was even a veiled implication of possible paedophilia, such was their hysterical reaction.
The outrage is palpable and the obsession with banning all things to do with hunting (and using any and every excuse to attack it) is almost laughable, or it would be if it were not the case that some of these people are in groups influencing politicians. The anti voice is the only one that is allowed to be heard. The good news is that many teachers do not agree and are happy to extend an invitation to speak, allowing their students to make up their own minds. The responses might be surprising to those who believe that 80% of the British public back their anti hunting views.
It might also be an education to attend one of the many Boxing Day hunt meets and witness the friendly atmosphere, food and drink being passed around and the numerous children and pet dogs running about. Hardly a gathering of ‘psychopaths’.
So once again another Boxing Day passes under the Hunting Act, with 250,000 hunt supporters attending meets up and down the country – something the dwindling memberships of both the RSPCA and LACS put together could never achieve. If their claims of genuine support were true, demonstrators would easily outnumber hunt supporters many times over.
I remember shortly after leaving the LACS, a former colleague saying to the press that six months after hunting had been banned it would all be forgotten and everyone would wonder what all the fuss was about.
Funny, I always thought propaganda was written to convince others…not the writer. Happy New Year.
It’s odd about John Mann I tweeted at him “Ægidius Ahenobarbus @GilesBradshaw 9h
@JohnMannMP could you please give the name of the hunt and details of the report you would have made to the police about this incident?”
And he blocked me. Surely he could provide further details about this incident which if true sounds very serious. Anyone who shuts a deer in pen and sets dogs on it is committing a very serious offence. I’d be very happy to report this to the police.
Dear Giles,
I sent John Mann MP an email and he has just replied with the following:
“Given to LACS and CA at the time. The CA failed to act. However your email had prompted me to raise three new abuses reported to me yesterday. Thank you for your kind efforts”
I can’t help wondering if his abuses are as bad as the ones that split communities into rivalling factions by the hunting ban. Guess I’ll just have to wait and see?
Thanks, Giles and Mike
So the incident was “Given to the LACS and CA at the time.”? The CA doesn’t have any record of that report. If passed to the LACS it looks like they didn’t act either. So where exactly is the evidence surrounding this serious accusation?
If I’d witnessed something like this, the image would remain with me for a long time, as would the name of the hunt, the place and date.
So once again, Mr Mann, what are those details? Or is it the case that you feel hunts are so bad that anything can be said about them, regardless of the truth?
Why let the truth spoil a good story? Mr Mann should be challenged publicly by the Countryside Alliance to produce empirical evidence to support his allegations. If they are true, the Alliance should be in the forefront helping to brig a prosecution. However I suspect Mr Mann was fed this story and asked to make it public and he will refuse to reveal his source. That then will give the game away and confirm what we now suspect about his tale – it`s just that; a fabricated fiction
James,
I can`t tell you how many times during the hunting debate I heard from opponents of hunting the ban was democracy at work. No surprises then these xenophobic idiots drop the main principle of democracy, freedom of speech when it suits them. There was someone who went by the surname of Hitler who only ever wanted his ideals and views expressed, ironically he banned hunting as well.
Everybody in this country should feel proud you and opponents of hunting can walk into schools, announce who you are, who you represent and express your views and the reasoning behind it, allowing our future generations to make up their own minds. Many a good man has died on the battlefield to give us this privilege.
What I find totally unacceptable are websites such as the one maintained by the mammal society. Claiming a connection to Bristol University it appears to have impeccable credentials and you would expect sound impartial information, a good source then for our children. Deceitfully it fails to mention the head of the Mammal society is a one Professor Stephen Harris who by and large gave the anti-hunting organizations their argument and is why it reflects wholly the anti-hunting view.
What I find very sad is Professor Stephen Harris compiled a research contract for the Burns inquiry into fox populations and management. This is an excellent impartial report that if replicated on a website would benefit our children’s knowledge of fox control and management.
Instead we get bias, twisted irrelevant out of date rubbish offered to us and our children,
Taken from the website,
“There is a myth that, once caught, the hounds killed the fox by a quick nip to the back of the neck: this is not true”
Aside from the fact hounds, domestic dogs and foxes are all from the same family (Canidae) and mock/serious fighting one another they instinctively go for the neck throat area. And Given dogs, hounds and foxes are mammals, it should not take a computer geek to inform the mammal society and indeed a Professor of this very basic instinct.
In any case attempting to attach importance to how a fox is killed is extremely deceitful in light of the Burns inquiry findings, he concluded,
“Arguably how a fox is killed is irrelevant, what is important is the time to insensibility and death”
In the vast majority of cases he went on to conclude in the case of hunting death occurred in a few seconds once caught.
So it does appear our friends from the mammal society are hoping to deceive our future generations with information dismissed by a Government inquiry some fourteen years ago.
James, I sincerely hope the Countryside alliances make the educational authorities aware of these types of websites for the sake of our children.
Dear All,
For an MP to fabricate evidence which he hasn’t been able to substantiate, must be one of the worse figments of the imagination because it is done to cause trouble. Labours juvenile politics.
Why set urbanites against their rural cousins? If this loathsome disease is allowed to grow unchecked, it will turn our citizens into myopic, open-mouthed sheep, incapable of constructive thought.
Why not be impartial and listen to his minority who support hunting and many other issues with some degree of intelligence and compassion as their MP. What would such a weak MP under pressure do to other minorities in a similar predicament? His election victory speech would have included the words “to represent everyone, irrespectively of how they voted”. Does this declaration mean nothing at all to his constituents?
This guy is clearly not fit for office and I would love someone to write to his local newspaper and point out his failings as an MP.
Hi Mike,
The infantile behaviour of John Mann MP does not finish there,
During the Christmas break I was out riding my horse when I stumbled upon a rabbit with myxomatosis hunkered down shivering and freezing in a field. Sadly my horse being a chestnut mare is not the kind you get off and attempt to put this poor suffering animal out of its misery. I returned the next day on foot with my terrier to find the rabbit and within seconds its suffering was no more. Given I have only 60 followers on twitter all hunters I am aware of, bar one, I posted the picture with the quote “Bunny huggers, one less for you to worry about in 2014” , largely as a chortle for them. I then read the conversation between James Barrington and John Mann and knowing John Mann was blatantly lying let my thoughts rather angrily be known to him via twitter. Personally I see nothing wrong in questioning why I have to fund such scurrilous behaviour knowing full well this idiot has the ability to make decisions for me in Parliament, to say I am disgusted is an understatement.
Befitting his infantile approach, he took the picture of my terrier with the rabbit and in capital letters wrote COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE and retweeted to his 5,828 followers. I am not in the employ of the countryside alliance, not a spokesperson for the countryside alliance and just a member, I have made him aware of this and asked he make a public apology to the Countryside alliance although I won’t hold my breath, I see it only fitting I respond back ,
IF YOU WANT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST DEMOCRACY SPEAK TO YOUR AVERAGE LABOUR MP.
Sound post as ever James. The prejudice and refusal to consider facts displayed by the antis angers and also saddens me!
Dear Nigel,
As a none member of the Countryside Alliance I can’t be accused as such, but this dip-stick (DS) MP I know little about except the claims and disclaims on his own website about the perilous state and depths the Labour party got the country into. DS is a plonker. Like the vast majority of his daft chums in LACS the poor sod thinks he can get away with pulling the wool over the publics eyes once too often?
Judging by his appearance in the media, this is not an implausible hypothesis.
I grew up on a council estate during the 70 – 80s and went to comprehensive school, I remember all too well the large and popular skinhead craze from this era. Unlike the original skinheads the late 60`s this new skinhead craze was engulfed with racism, it was not an uncommon sight for my mates who I grew up with to be seen walking around giving Nazi salutes. I could never be convinced to join them, never went skinhead and would argue with them over this extremism. When I pointed out those they despise so much only ever appear to me to work hard and were enterprising this claim would be met was with lies they had read from some Fascist newsletter they had picked up from the local football match.
I see the exact same behaviour and traits from Labour Mp`s towards hunting community as I did from my Skinhead friends towards “Foreigners”. The ability to lie to oneself and others with impunity is the trait most noticeable and one it appears John Mann MP in the last few days has given us an example of.
I also recall a story Janet George once told me concerning a labour MP from the Midlands area a while back – They had invited him to watch a hunt and Janet was to be his escort, during the course of the day and in front of Janet and this Labour MP a fox was caught and killed in text book fashion with a lead hound breaking the neck of the fox in a virtually instantaneous death. The hunts man was up with the lead hound, jumped off his horse held the dead fox in front of Janet and the Labour MP and gave it a shake to prove it was dead. The following week the Labour Mp wrote an article in the local newspaper on his day out with the hunt and explained how he was abhorred at watching a fox die an agonising death by being ripped apart.
My friends grew up, matured and developed the ability to reason and would be embarrassed to be reminded of their past political views. Sadly it would appear the ability to mature and develop reason is the trait they do not share with Labour MPS.
Heavens, Nigel – you have a good memory!! I vaguely remember the incident – it was with the Quorn in (I think) the 94-95 season – buit I CAN’T remember who the little twat of an MP was!! (Hopefuilly long gone as he was such a blatant liar!)
Mann is now claiming it was the “Exmoor hunt” there is no hunt of that name – does he mean the Emxoor foxhounds? If so when they go to great lengths to train their hounds NOT to hunt deer – why on earth would they do this? And if Mann really saw this happen why did he not contact the police?
Dear All,
The obnoxious little Mann is full to the brim with prejudice. Many within the Labour party are thankfully unable by law to call ethnic minorities names or go around bashing people because of their sexuality any longer, yet the Labour party has found a loop hole in the legislation that allows them to vent their primitive hatred of those with different beliefs and political persuasions (and who’s fault was that?) with the horrendous consequences of their badly drafted hunting act, which Mr Blair is on record as saying he regretted it?
It’s a disgrace this maverick MP is not criticised by Mr Miliband and brought to heel having got his facts wrong, and adding yet more insult to injury against the rural men, women and children who have been continually subjected to “Labours” hate crimes? When will the Labour party grow up and realise that history has taught us that you can’t legislate against people’s beliefs.
I have unlike the little Mann requested that politicians stay out of the hunting debate and allow the two opposing sides to compromise and resolve their differences amicably. No court in the land would have listened to the evidence provided by those who paid the jury for a result? And that Mr Mann, is simply not democracy at play – it is however the sort of stuff that loses your party rural votes, based on your mindless dribble.
Evening all
There are two old sayings which might well apply to John Mann MP.
One, he is a stranger to the the truth.
Two, he is the biggest liar to ever wear a pair of shoes.
(I think it’s the second.)
Produce your evidence Mr Mann. Give us dates, places and people. It’s simple stuff, put up or shut up.
Hi Janet,
Wonderful to hear from you, I hope you are keeping well. As you are no doubt aware, very little has changed in 20 years, Labour MPs are still blatantly lying through their teeth over hunting, however unlike the past they are exposed in a matter of seconds.
Remembering with pleasure the hound’s website and before that the BHS website, The Burns report in one afternoon would be championed by Antis and once we finished explaining its content to them, ridiculed as a pro hunt report.
All the Best Nigel
Hi Mike,
Why do Pro hunters not come clean? Why do we pussy foot calling the anti-hunt argument just a web of deceit. Let`s be honest with them, it’s all been done before by another who also banned hunting with hounds, at least he had the courtesy to call it the “Big Lie”
“Hitler and his cronies orchestrated what they called “the big lie.” This theory states that no matter how big the lie is (or more precisely, because it’s so big), people will believe it if you repeat it enough. Everyone tells small lies, Hitler reasoned, but few have the guts to tell colossal lies . Because a big lie is so unlikely, people will come to accept it”
Dear Janet,
The little Mann reminds me of something you said years ago – its the worse case of foot in mouth disease you had ever heard of ?
lol, I remember that one. It was the morning of the first Countryside March – March 1, 1998. That disstick Labour Minister, Jim Cunningham, had ‘fronted’ a big article in the Mail on Sunday – effectively claiming that the March was being funded by the American gun lobby! I held up the article at the press briefing and said the article was proof that Foot in Mouth disease was now endemic in the Min. of Ag, fisheries and food (now Defra.) 8 weeks later, when Cunningham was ‘replaced’, John Humphrys was talking about it on the Today program and said he’d never recovered from accusations of Foot in Mouth disease, lol! One of my more successful quotes. I gather that even 5 years later, he was still blaming me for his sacking (rather than the REAL reason – which was that he was an idiot!)
The “Big Lie” written and prepared for the great J Rich.
This report in no way is meant to imply anyone is a Nazi, it is the theory of the “Big Lie” and its use by the anti-hunting organizations we are discussing.
Origins of the Big Lie – Adolf Hitler and his cronies orchestrated what they called “the big lie.” This theory states that no matter how big the lie is (or more precisely, because it’s so big), people will believe it if you repeat it enough. Everyone tells small lies, Hitler reasoned, but few have the guts to tell colossal lies. Because a big lie is so unlikely, people will come to accept it.
Using the theory first put in places by Adolf Hitler anti hunt organizations for the last twenty five plus years have implemented the “Big Lie”. Ignoring the real life scenarios of fox control management and its success in limiting livestock damage, attempts are made to convince an otherwise uninterested public the fox is not worthy of the pest status and attempts to control it are pointless. We are also led to believe foxes control their own numbers. Using data from across a range studies usually the least likely scenario is propelled to the fore and offered as a reason, the most likely explanation conveniently ignored, it has been up to now fairly successful in drawing members of the public into the “Big Lie”.
The “Big Lie” was first found in propaganda flyers and leaflets posted through doors and handed out in town high streets. Twenty five plus years ago the lottery for media attention usually meant the press would only offer one comment from either side in an attempt to show a balanced view, this worked well for the opposition to hunting as their “Big Lie” would never be exposed in its entirety.
As technology progressed the “Big Lie” was then propagated through flawed scientific documents and websites. Originating from vehemently anti-hunting academics from Bristol University and funded by the RSPCA and IFAW these documents appear genuine. Those with preconceptions against hunting and school children are most susceptible and could quiet easily be misled by what they would see as an authentic impartial documents or websites from academics and once respectable charities or organizations. For the young it could be perceived as blatant indoctrination.
The whole purpose of fox control is to PREVENT livestock losses by using continual widespread fox control with a variety of methods most suited to the particular landscape in a kill the fox before the damage is done scenario. This is logical only a fool would sit around waiting for the damage to be done before they acted. (Would an anti leave the front door unlocked knowing he can call the police if burgled?) This is acknowledged in all the main scientific reports including the peer reviewed study by Heydon & Reynolds in 2000. Its spectacular success in reducing losses is acknowledged by all the main anti-hunting organizations they all agree livestock losses are low. It therefore can be concluded fox control is working as intended and the fox is not deemed a pest by farmers as they have not lost livestock to them.
The “Big Lie” turns the real life scenario on its head and claims low losses indicate the fox is not the pest it’s made out to be and surveys show only one third of farmers considers them a pest. It furthermore compares just the number of foxes killed by traditional mounted hunting to the whole of the overall fox mortality rate then suggests we should ban all forms of hunting with dogs which incidentally included terriers the method considered to kill more foxes than any form of shooting. The obvious fundamental flaw in that particular line of reasoning is very apparent. The “Big Lie” continues unabated, by suggesting deliberate culling has no effect on fox numbers and social factors play more of an important role, regardless of all the research contracts to the Burns Inquiry suggesting the complete opposite. Lastly it seeks to suggest importance to the nip to the neck kill by hounds although the relevance of this was dismissed some fourteen years ago by a Government inquiry.
The problem for those who gave us the “Big Lie” – Along came social media and those who had studied the hunting debate were at last given a platform from which to speak and spread the word. Exposed as the “Big Lie” and nothing less academics who provided the bed rock for the anti-hunting view are in a quandary. Having been funded by the main anti-hunting organizations they now have to stick by the “Big Lie” and are unable to close their rather misleading websites, this will no doubt put them in a very uncomfortable position as they are shown to be quiet mischievous, devious and willing to mislead.
I say you reap what you sow.
Dear Nigel,
Very good – but the little Mann is a complete fool and his constituents are even bigger ones for voting rubbish. If the Guardian told Mann on ” good authority” from LACS that milk came from bulls, he would be the first to shout his big gob off about their excellent work without firstly questioning why LACS can’t be trusted to even look after a cat?
Has this Mann not heard about the LACS TB infected deer sanctuary? Seen how LACS promote crueller alternatives to hunting, farming and considered wildlife management?
THE BUILDING BLOCK OF THE “BIG LIE”
A Report written for my Dad who on hearing I was to go hunting advised “take the argument to them for a change”
On the tenth anniversary of the hunting act and nearly fourteen years since the Burns inquiry reported it would appear many were not employed by the various organizations and charities at the time. They will be unaware of some crucial and soon to be explained, self-interested motives of some individuals in their desperate attempt to keep up the “Big Lie”.
For those opposing hunting to have any credibility they need to have scientific reports from academics proving their case. Therefore the RSCPA and IFAW have funded such reports from vehemently anti-hunting academics from Bristol University. Not that it really matters to bigoted prejudice Labour MP’s, they would take their science from a scrawl on the back of a fag packet written by a cretin if need be. Regardless claiming “Scientific data” from “Professors” fools the public that is what is important.
CRUCIAL to the anti-hunting argument is the primary motive of why those farmers and landowners seek to control foxes. Before the Burns inquiry this was fairly simple you could assume “reduce abundance” was the primary motive, this then gives you carte blanche to play accountant at what method kills most and by how many. Any fool can then manipulate figures, example Hunting with dogs kills 75,000 foxes, the use of rifle estimated 40,000, how about we ban shooting Mr Harris? Kids stuff really not science. It also has the additional reward for some individuals in the way of funding.
If the primary motive is found to “reduce livestock damage” you’re in big trouble. The whole focus changes and the only yardstick to measure this is what are the current levels of damage, if they are low, as they are, fox control will be deemed to be working and mounted hunting simply helps keeps damage to a minimum, therefore no real argument against hunting.
Unfortunately for some the Burns inquiry came along, assumptions or selectively using parts from research reports (Baines 95) that supported your view were to be swept under the carpet and the whole debate viewed in its entirety. However some were so desperate and needy to show the primary motive for culling foxes as “to reduce abundance” they were willing to twist figures even at government inquiry level. Five previous reports showing why farmers controlled foxes were to be analysed and the primary motive established.
*I have simplified the table for what is relevant
Reduce Predation on stock 1stStudy=? 2ndStudy=68% 3rdStudy=53% 4thStudy=60% 5thStudy=56%
Reduce Abundance 1stSudy=? 2ndStudy=65% 3rdStudy=73% 4thStudy=0% 5thStudy=0%
It’s blatantly obvious from the five surveys “Reduce Predation on stock” is the clear winner this was supported by Professor David Macdonald. The vehemently anti-hunting Professor Stephen Harris on the other hand cannot have this as the primary motive. The whole “Big Lie” argument rests on this as does future funding. He takes just the mean from just the two surveys ignores the other surveys and declares “Reduce abundance” the winner.
The Countryside alliance at the time complained bitterly this went unheard, fortunately as Janet George pointed out I do have quite a good memory, I guess unfortunate for others.
Ladies and Gentlemen I give you the Building Block of the “Big Lie”. To be repeated at every opportunity across the world wide web for the next 30 years at least. Feel free to plagiarise.
Dear Nigel,
Don’t underestimate the pro Labour BBC and ITV who are currently in dire need of some form of legislation to help others express an opinion. Our broadcasting media needs to have the socialist rug pulled out from under their feet if only to prevent this loathsome disease turning the public into myopic, open-mouthed sheep, incapable of constructive thought.
In the run up to the hunting vote, the socialist media claimed hunting was political and knowing it was undertaken with good reason and that we would win over the public if allowed to explain, they refused us that important window of opportunity to engage with those who needed answers to their doubts.
I believe the RSPCA is cuddling up to Labour for a back door deal to manage dog licencing. The proceeds from a very expensive dog licence will find its way into shoring up the shortfall in their membership and indirectly supporting their chums in politics just as IFAW currently does.
If the fight is tough now – its going to get considerably more difficult in the future.