Now showing on the League Against Cruel Sports’ website is a little film celebrating the 90 year history of the organisation. What’s interesting about the film is not that it concentrates on what it sees as victories, but how it skips over certain events.
So, in the interest of fairness and balance, here are a few of the omissions.
But first, has anyone ever wondered why the Labour Party has such an obsession with banning hunting with dogs and why so many senior members listen to the League Against Cruel Sports, apparently accepting whatever it says almost without question? The answer lies in a series of events omitted from the film.
Shortly before the general election in 1979, the League made a donation of £80,000 to the Labour Party. A ban on hare coursing and deer hunting had been included in its manifesto. Of the amount given, £30,000 was for the promotion of animal welfare and £50,000 for general funds. The move outraged some Conservative voting members of the League who started a legal action to have the monies returned. By sheer coincidence the case concluded less than a month before the 1983 general election and the court ordered that as the £50,000 given for general party use had been outside the League’s objectives, it had to be returned plus interest of a further £25,000… and all this in the run-up to the 1983 polling day.
The late Richard Course, then executive director of the LACS and a Labour councillor, was furious and promised to give, “more than £100,000 to the Labour Party” in recognition of the party’s pledge to ban hunting. This was duly done through payments to individual constituency parties and all that was required was a line about improving animal welfare inserted in one of the election leaflets of the respective candidate. The process was repeated for the 1987 general election, but the actual details of both series of payments were deliberately concealed within the League’s annual accounts under the heading of general ‘political campaigning’.
Further problems had arisen in 1983. Before the court ruling, the League had ordered the printing of 6 million campaigning leaflets for the Labour Party, but with only 2 million referring to animal welfare. The other 4 million had already been distributed, but were now not permitted to be funded by the LACS. The whole fiasco nevertheless cost the LACS £14,000.
Yet those in charge of the League still saw the money as being well spent. What is interesting are the names of the candidates in the local parties that received these donations – names that will be familiar to many as some of the most vociferous anti-hunt MPs: Alun Michael, Gerald Kaufman, Peter Hain, Tony Benn, Paul Flynn, Graham Allen, John Denham, Roy Hattersley, Hilary Benn and the list goes on.
The 1980s was a period when the League and the Labour Party cemented their relationship. Exactly how much money was given to the Labour Party by various means during this time will probably never be known. However, it all turned sour when Richard Course was forced to leave the League following his unruly behaviour. He wrote to the Department of Trade and Industry saying that political candidates had been funded without the knowledge of LACS’ members and that accounts had been faked to conceal the transactions. The subsequent investigation by the DTI certainly revealed wrong-doing, but appeared to point the finger at Mr Course himself.
During those years the League was almost seen as an off-shoot of the Labour Party, with committee members, president, vice-presidents and staff members pretty much exclusively Labour supporters. No criticism of the party was allowed in the League’s journal. Attendance at the Labour Party conference was a priority, with little or no attempt to attend other political party events.
When I became executive director of the League in 1988 I tried to change that ethos and certainly no money was given to any political party during my time. Nevertheless, many committee members were determined not to allow the organisation to widen its political appeal. “No bastard Tories on this committee” was a comment I distinctly recall being made at a committee meeting when a Conservative MP’s name was put forward as a possible vice-president.
While it’s clear that there are Labour supporters who see the anti-hunting campaign by their party as divisive and possibly costly in terms of rural votes, many do not see it that way and cling to simplistic class war-type views. It’s only when detailed questions on the validity of the Hunting Act and the party’s position in defending it are raised that the cracks show and the hypocrisy becomes apparent.
Why is it that the Labour Party leadership seems not to be able to see this, just as it can’t see the anomaly in the League’s position regarding the recent proposal to make the Hunting Act in England and Wales the same as the ban in Scotland? Does it not see the duplicity in the praising one law while condemning the moves that would create the same law south of the border? Why does the Labour Party play the same point scoring game as the League in pretending that such a move was “repeal by the back door” when they and the LACS know full well that the process of a statutory instrument cannot overturn the original purpose of an Act? Why does it not support the eminently sensible proposal from Labour Peer and former minister Lord Donoughue to make genuine cruelty to all wild mammals a criminal offence? Why does the Labour Party use the same child-like language as the LACS – “We love animals and want to save them, you just kill them for sport” – in demonising those who are engaged in wildlife management and wish to use selective scenting hounds in that process? What, indeed, does the Labour Party accept as being the best way to achieve healthy wildlife populations? Once again, just like the LACS, we know what they dislike, but hear precious little about what they support.
Has the League reverted back to its old ways? There are some who would say it has and in more ways than one. This might explain why the relationship between the Labour Party and the League Against Cruel Sports, despite the latter now being a charity and thereby non-party political, appears to be a little too cosy.
Hi James,
Very interesting comment James, I have always suspected labour Politian’s and the LACS are incapable of any reasoning abilities and when challenged stamp their feet like little children and insist they are right they doggedly refuse to look at the big picture, all the time the good people of Britain and the wildlife suffer.
Let’s remember firstly the LACS would inform folk shooting is much more effective than hunting and in a bizarre twist compare the numbers of foxes killed by shooting against the number of foxes just killed by Traditional mounted hunting then claim we should ban all forms of hunting with dogs which in total kill the same as shooting. This sort of reasoning is ok for the extremists but you really do not want to be a political party lining yourself up to support such garbage. Ridiculed for a lifetime and I intend to do just that.
Interesting I am currently engaged in a twitter conversation discussing the Hen Harrier and its plight with Mark Avery. Mark currently has an e-petition going to ban driven grouse shooting in England http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/65627 , to be honest when I took a cursory glance at the information I thought why put folk out of work for a few birds that can’t get it on with each other. I then found out the opposite was happening it’s because the male can have two females on the go can lead to their breeding failure ironic. I also noticed breeding numbers in England had dropped after 2004, well no surprise there, traditional hunting was banned there is your answer, I have subsequently advised Mark to petition for a reintroduction of packs of hounds and terriers on moorlands to safe guard the Hen harriers. The evidence is compelling, Mark notes 300+ pairs could breed in England what he fails to inform you is, the majority of this area deemed suitable for Harrier breeding is not grouse moorland but as noted by the Moorland association “Most of the potentially suitable nesting habitat in the English uplands has no grouse shooting, therefore no motive for persecution”. Moorland may give cover at ground level but from the air that’s different, No surprise then the Hen Harrier Males start looking for places to breed right when Charlie is most visible and active out searching for food to feed the new-born cubs. Does anyone think instinct won’t tell the Hen harrier just maybe this place is not ideal? Herein lies the problem, the most effective way of killing foxes on the expanse of a moorland was by the use of scenting hounds who can cover vast areas quickly. Before the ban a friend of mine phoned me to inform me he had been with a Northumberland pack on the moors, they had ran six foxes to ground subsequently six dug out and shot. He went on to say, “most of the field where on quad bikes including the huntsman, nothing to do with sport up here pure pest control”. Of course they no longer have this effective option, using two hounds to flush on moorland a waste of time and you no longer can put terriers to ground for general pest control purposes. Sadly the Labour party again with their immature minds swallowed the LACS argument that foxes do not predate on lambs as losses run at 2% from fox predation and therefore terriers can only put to ground to protect game birds. Ignoring the evidence suggesting farmers culled to prevent damage and 2% loss rate is what they were achieving with widespread control proving the methods in place are actually working. Mark did attempt to counter my reasoning by pointing out there are no driven grouse shoots in wales and the breeding pairs have increased, in the upland regions. As I said no surprise to me the Peer reviewed study used by the Burns inquiry showed 96% of farmers in the region he was referring to culled foxes.
My advice to Mark has changed your e-petition should also include a call for any Government to ignore the likes the League against cruel sports to protect our endangered wild birds and animals.
Interestingly I wrote the above comment without prior knowledge of the League against cruel sports supporting Mark Averys e-petition on their website. Mark in return on twitter thanked them for their support and which I immediately commented you should be blaming them, not thanking them. As I have stated above a pack of scenting hounds can cover a great distance over moorland searching for foxes, flushing with two hounds is not an effective option on this type of terrain.
Mark Avery should be blaming the League against cruel sports for Hen harriers failure to breed not thanking them.
A fruitless day Andy Rouse Wildlife Photograper,
https://www.facebook.com/notes/andy-rouse-wildlife-photography/a-fruitless-day/10150238694059176
Yesterday I spent time with a hen harrier expert looking for a site where I could work on these magnificent birds of prey. It has to be very private, away from any kind of disturbance, as the birds are easily put off and do not like the presence of humans during their nesting times. I would be spending upwards of a day in the hide at a time, entering and leaving under the cover of darkness. The responsibility is enormous to avoid any disturbance at all costs since they are easily scared and very suspicious birds.
Hen Harriers require a schedule 1 license as well, and to get one for them you need to be very experienced at other schedule 1 species; it’s about the same level of pressure as for my osprey project last year. Anyway the sad fact is that the nest failed and the chicks were more than likely predated. This year there have been a glut of hen harrier failures and it really worries me for the future of this incredible bird. The reasons for these failures are not totally known, but usually it is the fox that is the culprit. Our beautiful fox is expanding a lot in numbers and ground nesting birds like the hen harrier are really suffering from fox predation. Of course this is a natural battle for survival, but the reality now is that there are a lot more foxes and a lot less hen harriers than there used to be. More often than not the fox also kills the chicks and just leaves them on the nest. The Hen Harrier has always been persecuted, it is hated by anyone running a sporting estate as it is a highly efficient predator of game birds. They call them “jump jets” and I have heard many gamekeepers refer to them as this. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against gamekeepers, far from it. They have a job to do, a difficult one, and need to maintain a balance of the species on their land. The Hen Harrier gets blamed for anything that happens in its moorland habitat, it is a much maligned bird of prey. I want to photograph the male as part of the 2020Vision project, so that others can see how beautiful this bird is. Only by having public opinion wanting to save this bird can we ever hope to change anything. Of course the short term solution is obvious, we either want to have hen harriers nesting or not. My opinion is that the moors would be a poorer place without them but right now hen harriers are hanging on the brink in the UK and the decline is most definitely downwards.
For those who are wondering where the picture is….being a wildlife photographer is more about caring for the environment than anything else.
Dear Nigel,
Not one but two excellent articles Nigel. The League doesn’t care one iota about hen harriers, foxes, badgers, deer or hares. It’s blatantly obvious what motivates the League is attention seeking expressions and emotive garbage devoid of any sense whatsoever. Such nonsense by the League my dear friend brings in the money to bankroll the Labour party and in return they introduce laws not based on fact, but emotive, irrational knee jerk reactions that symbolises Labour to the core. They are now endangering good land management for a sort of animated cartoon to appease an ignorant public. Most of which would not know a straw from hay or a sweet chestnut from a horse chestnut.
The only certainty is to keep Labour out of office and well away from our wildlife if we genuinely want to help!
As a rural dweller with a PhD in ecology , namely animal behaviour, I find your comments a tad ignorant. I more than likely have more knowledge of flora and fauna than you will ever have.
The fox is an apex predator and if you take the time to research their behaviuor and what regulates their population you will find you arguments totally unfounded and conclude it is indeed you who are from ignorance
Well, knowledge and modesty in equal measure.
I think you’ll find that the definition of an apex predator is one that is not predated upon (in adult life) by any other predator. In countries where they co-exist, foxes are chased and killed by wolves, coyotes, golden eagles, cougars and other large cats.
Generally, people with views based on sound knowledge do not need to be rude or boastful.
Hi Debbie – with your PHD you will no doubt be interested in this scholarly article
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.12051/abstract
Foxes are naturally mesopredators and in whole/healthy eco systems their numbers would be limited by apex predators. This is also true of deer – technically meso predators although they ‘predate’ on vegetation. Apex predators can actually benefit the ecosystem and their complete removal can damage it.
The effect of apex predators on mesopredators is not only due to predation but also behavioural factors as you are no doubt aware. If you take the time to research what regulates mesopredator populations in whole ecosystems you will find that being hunted is often an important factor.
There’s a strong argument that the absence of wolves/lynx/bears &c can lead to mesopredator release with consequential damage.
I have always found it difficult to separate the LACS `welfare` activities and those directed towards support for the Labour Party. Some time ago I came to the conclusion that LACS was merely a campaigning arm of Labour, helping them to prosecute Class War with hunting in all its forms as merely a convenient excuse.
But the lessons of history lead one down some interesting byways. Until the arrival of the Normans in 1066 and their subsequent conquest of this land, every man was free to hunt for sport or for subsistence. Then William 1st brought with him stringent game laws that restricted all hunting by right to the aristocracy an landed classes. Those laws persisted until well into the 19th century and I believe this has formed the basis for the divide between those who were allowed to hunt and those who were not. The Industrial Revolution saw a mass movement to the towns and cities from rural areas and this allowed a continuation of the alienation from country pursuits of those who became `townees` but with residual grievances about hunting rights that their ancestors had forfeited.
When Labour emerged as `their` Party, this ancient hostility continued and only comparatively recently is it being eroded by the education efforts of the Alliance and others. It is crucial that we continue to undermine the LACS position by this means so that the truth about country sports can be understood by those to whom it remains a mystery.
I think it is worth noting how cracks have started to appear in the League’s once 100% support for the Hunting Act. This seems to be partly Joe Duckworth’s doing. From what I understand when Joe turned up he proposed some kind of review of the law but there was much opposition to this from within the League because it is felt that admitting anything is wrong with the law would be politically weakening.
It is in my opinion important to remember that from either point of view pro or anti hunt the law clearly has flaws. Duckworth has admitted this in a recent blog ‘Desperate times’ with respect to the flushing exemption:
“The Hunting Act isn’t perfect”
If the Hunting Act isn’t perfect then clearly it has flaws. It therefore is only appropriate that there should be a political discussion around what those flaws might be, whether they matter and whether and how they should be rectified.
However as Jim says whenever one attempts to engage politically with any anti hunt Labour MP or minister about possible flaws in the law they simply do not want to know. Any attempt to point out short comings in the law is shouted down or met with a wall of silence as it is seen as ‘weakening’ the act which has achieved the prominence and sanctity of some kind of religious artifact.
I know this from experience having written on my own behalf and via my MP to various Labour Ministers on the subject of flushing wildlife from cover with dogs. As Jim is aware I have tried every trick in the book to try and get these people to state whether they do or do not support what Joe Duckworth terms the ‘strict guidance’ that:
‘the animal must then be shot’
It’s not ‘guidance’ strict or otherwise; it’s the law. Duckworth calls it ‘guidance’ because he is embarrassed by it and doesn’t actually agree with it. It’s proved over the years that no Labour MP or minister is actually willing to state on record whether he or she agrees with it even when questioned by other MPs.
I think my MP Nick Harvey hit the nail on the head when he wrote to me saying he didn’t think that the police would make people like me obey the Hunting Act in this respect because they would be worried about what the press would say.
In simple terms they are too embarrassed to enforce the law and people are therefore allowed to flout it with impunity.
It goes further than that though – both Labour ministers and shadow ministers are simply too embarrassed to even discuss let alone justify the requirement that wild mammals have to be shot when flushed.
It is not too strong to say that this clause in the law is politically taboo.
This is why in my view people are justified in not complying with the Hunting Act as long as they do so openly. If the police are too embarrassed to enforce it and the politicians too embarrassed to discuss it why on earth should people comply with it?
I would like this year to start giving permission for people to come onto my land and flush wildlife on the strict condition that they do NOT shoot it. Why should I be made a criminal for doing that and why should anyone that complies with my wishes be made a criminal for doing so?
Surely if I happen not to want guns to be used on my property to slaughter any wildlife emerging from my woods just because a few dogs are rooting around in it then I should be entitled not to have them.
In my opinion my woods are well managed they don’t have hundreds of sick and dieing deer like at the League’s sanctuary and I don’t have people blasting herds of fleeing deer with lines of guns. I can’t really see what I am doing wrong and I don’t see why I should have to risk having strange unscreened people hidden in bushes filming myself and my family for dubious purposes.
Despair was in the air as I stood down at Brighton outside the labour party conference, one man shouted if only we could ban those bastards. An old man next to me muttered under his breath, “we can, we can ban them from power”
The Labour party came in on a landslide back in 97. Everyone had got sick and tired of Tory rule and the upturn in the economy promised by John Major never materialized. Newspapers mocked him what is it now 14 times the recovery is around the corner they would say. No surprise then Blair came in on a landslide victory and more importantly they won Tory seats in rural areas.
Amazingly the economic recovery did come to fruition I wondered what Labour had done to make this happen and could think of nothing, it became apparent they were riding off the back of John Majors delayed recovery.
This led Labour into a massive sense of false security over the hunting issue, if they had been voted in with the promise of a ban the country folk must want it, the fact they were re-elected over the next two general elections supported this view point. Of course we have the daft push pull polls they choose to believe from the Anti-hunt brigade fuelling the fire of their beliefs. What they failed to grasp is by and large rural folk do care about hunting but they care, as everyone does about the pennies in their pocket. They we’re retaining their seats because folk saw no reason to change and not because country folk were endorsing their actions over hunting.
In 2010 the pennies in the pockets of the rural folk were being affected by Labour rule and with the continued outcry over the hunting issue it was easy for vote ok to shift many Labour MPs from rural seats at one of the most crucial general elections ever. Britain is an ageing population and older folk are more likely to vote Tory. Older folk now realise Blair at 42 as a prime minister was a wet behind the ears idiot with no life experience. Cameron the older he gets the more appealing he becomes to an older wiser nation. Forget the mid-term polls and the protest votes come General election day you can bank on a Tory win for at least the next 20 years.
The funny thing is Labour MPs who are blighted with such bigotry and prejudice and who will spend their whole political career on the opposition benches will never accept the reason for this is over how we kill foxes. As the old man said “We can ban them from power”
I wonder if the Labour party will give Rolf Harris his money back?
Apparently according to the RSPCA & IFAW repeal of the ban on hunting would be a backward step for a civilized society. And hunting has no place in a modern society, you can read it here, (Cut and paste for downloadable pdf)
http://www.google.fr/url?url=http://media.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset%3Fasset%3Ddocument%26assetId%3D1232734583908%26mode%3Dprd&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=gIu6U_jVKfH70gXI9ICIAg&ved=0CCMQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNFKx2HxBMNO-8Np_eP9rmGC3G3DLA
Which is somewhat ironic as a key figure in the Scottish ban got banged up for Arson and a key figure in the English ban Elliot Morley got banged up for fraud. Now we find a celebrity who has worked for both the RSPCA & IFAW has just been banged up for being a paedophile.
WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN THE RSPCA & IFAW CIVILIZED SOCIETY, ANY TAKERS?
http://www.fundraising.co.uk/2007/02/11/rolf-harris-releases-charity-single-ifaw/
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-18064311
Nigel,
Our opponents represent everything dishonest and corrupt about politics today.
I posted on the recent telegraph article concerning hunt prosecutions the two following comments. What kind of a country do we live in when the person seeing fit to respond does not even act surprised at the content in unable to contest the content and instead attempts to insinuate you are mad?
We have become a nation of feeble minded idiots no thanks to the Labour party and the supporting organizations like the League against cruel sports.
Comment 1
Apparently according to the RSPCA & IFAW repeal of the ban on hunting would be a backward step for a civilized society. And hunting has no place in a modern society, you can read it here, (Cut and paste for downloadable pdf)
http://www.google.fr/url?url=h…
Which is somewhat ironic as a key figure in the Scottish ban got banged up for Arson and a key figure in the English ban Elliot Morley got banged up for fraud.
If you think that is ironic how about Dr Richard Ryder Former chairmen of RSPCA who is responsible for much of the current RSPCA ideology making analogies to the burns inquiry between hunting and child abuse. At the time Rolf Harris is working with the RSPCA and BBC making a program called animal hospital.
Matched in irony by Douglas Batchelor the Ex CEO of the LACS in a letter in part read out in the House of Lords and documented in Hansard equating hunting to child abuse,
“In much the same way as while paedophiles may feel that they enjoy abusing children and are therefore justified, a civilised society condemns their pleasures and regards them as socially unacceptable”.
And then LACS despite howls of protest for almost a year only just taking down a video of a little girl playing near a dead stag, taken without parental consent and by men hiding in bushes.
Finally we come to IFAW who apparently helped with a £600,000 pound loan to fund the one million pound bung to the Labour Party from PAL, (Political animal lobby) for a hunting ban. Not forgetting IFAW funding in part to secretaries for both the jail bird Elliot Morley and the now deceased, Tony Banks. No doubt funds replenished years later from the charity single from Rolf Harris.
http://www.fundraising.co.uk/2…
Anyone want to be a part of their civilized society?
Comment 2
This article only tells half the story, in what has to be the most perverse collaboration of our time the CPS appears to have teamed up with the League against cruel sports in a desperate bid to secure more convictions. The latest attempt to prosecute hunt staff was announced just after the failed prosecution of the Banwell two, just why the CPS want to aid the LACS in another PR stunt to cheer the LACS membership is beyond me. It could be the CPS are so bitter and twisted at losing the last court case they want to rekindle the collaboration and attempt to get even.
Why the CPS should be so bitter would be totally incomprehensible to the public when they learn at the last trial the desperate duo put up a claimed independent expert witness who features extensively in a report called “The misuse & abuse of science to obtain the hunting act” Seriously folks you could not make it up if you tried….. Read it for yourselves…… http://tinyurl.com/op5jjvn
The League against cruel sports have a string of ASA adjudications against them for misleading the public, have been described as a cult by ex-members and who’s view is so unbelievable it caused the departure of no less than six High Ranking officials. To cap it all, their leader Douglas Batchelor for many years until 2012 caused controversy at Government inquiry in 2000 when he claimed to the inquiry he had pioneered sheep housing in wales. Someone heard this and wrote to the inquiry stating categorically this was not true —-“Douglas Batchelor did not pioneer sheep housing in wales,
Dominic Grieve Attorney General, using hard earned tax payer’s money to collaborate with a bunch of desperados to aid their sick obsessive little game will do you no favours. It certainly is not up to the CPS to try and get even after they failed to secure a conviction at the Banwell trial. The LACS care not they are causing undue stress to folk and their families. I do not need to remind you it is not for you or the CPS to take the same careless attitude.
PS
…..Speech to the Expert Witness Institute annual conference 2013 Delivered by Attorney General’s Office and Oliver Heald QC MP Delivered on 13th October 2013……………………..”The quality of the expert witness can have a decisive effect on the trial. Their evidence can lead to the conviction or acquittal of the defendant. This is why the independence of the expert is important. Experts quite properly disagree but their duty to the court means that their loyalty should not be in question.”
Dear Nigel,
The Tories and UKIP claim to support hunting, yet none of them speak up on our behalf against the CPS or LACS. I’m of the opinion not to bother voting for any party until someone, somewhere has the balls to speak up for us!
We are a few months off the anniversary of what has to be the biggest load of rubbish ever written about the hunting act and the cruelty question since the hunting act came into being. The article was written in opposition to Tim Bonners article for the Western morning news under the heading “hunting: The cruelty question debated by both side” What is immediately apparent is the RSPCA are unable to put up their own spokesperson largely due to the fact they are and always have been totally ignorant of hunting. A string of ASA adjudications against them for providing incorrect information to the public proves this out. What adds to the farce is the RSPCA would not know if Noel Sweeney the Barrister who wrote this rubbish is anywhere near correct in his article and not making them look incredibly stupid as is the case. Of course this is no doubt a cosy little arrangement where Noel Sweeney the Barrister either received a fee for the article or had the nod and wink of work his way as he specializes in animal law.
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Lord-Burns-clear-ndash-hunting-cruel/story-20088778-detail/story.html?afterReg=Y
His opening gambit is to refer to four post mortems and make the astonishing claim “The Report logically leads to the view that hunting as a blood-sport has cruelty at its core”
Previously he had said, “The views of those who have clinically examined each claim are what counts” So I hope he is not including himself as one of these clinical examiners as he would have known Lord Burns the author of the report he had referred to had already made it plainly clear in the house of Lords “There is not enough verifiable data to reach a view on cruelty”
From his already ludicrous claim he then continues with what now has become a child’s fairy tale, “Surprisingly the Countryside Alliance did not agree. So they appealed to the High Court. They lost. So they appealed to the Court of Appeal. They lost” One could be forgiven for thinking the Countryside alliance had gone to court to defend hunting against claims of cruelty not for the real reason to challenge the validity of the parliament act in bringing in the ban.
The ridiculous claims from Sweeney come in thick and fast as he now moves to the High court hearings 2008 again you could be mistaken for believing the case was for a decision if hunting is cruel and not for breaches of human rights as was the case. Apparently his lordship nailed the countryside alliance claims to the floor, had he actually read the burns report in its entirety he would have known he was stating the obvious Burns reported “None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications”
“His Lordship then nailed the Countryside Alliance’s claims to the Court floor:”
“There is, however, a body of reputable opinion which accepts that the pursuit and digging out of foxes, and their killing by hounds, imposes a degree of suffering. This accords with common sense. To suppose that the contrary is generally true strains one’s credulity to breaking point.”
Perhaps you could restore public faith in the judicial system Noel Sweeney and explain to me and the public at large why John Rolls of the RSPCA who claimed at one of the high court hearings “The society believes that is plain from the evidence and examination of the hunting process that the quarry is caused to suffer” When in fact there is no such evidence for foxes or hares, why he has not been charged with perjury?
The Royal Sociopathic for the prevention of cruelty to animals
For years I believed the animal rights brigade were nothing but ignorant prejudice bigots and class warriors however I could never quiet account for the more intellectual ones some in prominent respectable positions. Then the penny dropped for me at last, I finally identified the string pullers and leading figures as it were, they are sociopaths and Sociopathic Liars.
Read the following 10 Red flags it all becomes apparent
http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html
Who else but the league against cruel sports would put up a professor with such a long history of anti-hunting campaigning and funding as an independent expert witness? The fact he believes he is independent and the organization that put him up believes he is speaks volumes. That the CPS did not do the home work on their expert witness is an indication of why Dominic Grieve may well have departed.
The same professor throwing his toys out of the pram and stamping his feet when his research is countered by a peer reviewed study by Nick fox on shooting wounding rates. Of course there is no chance he is wrong is there?
How could John Rolls then of the RSPCA walk into a high court and inform a judge “The society believes that is plain from the evidence and examination of the hunting process that the quarry is caused to suffer” When there was absolutely no evidence on foxes and hares at the time.
This is why the RSPCA spend a disproportionate amount of the charitable donations on entertaining and influential people like Politian’s rather than animal welfare, it’s the sociopaths in the society calling the shots and that is what they are good at spinning and lying not animal welfare. The hunting ban did not cost the society just the initial 16 million pounds, year on year they pay to have a word in the ear of Politian’s.
The sociopath is more interested in having a cause rather than what the cause is about, they care little that foxes would suffer more as a result of a ban, if they were really that concerned then they would have been arguing at the time to ban snaring and not hunting.
Sociopaths seek to dominate others and “win” at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity. A fine example of which can be found below, this is a conversation I had recently with a hard line AR member of the RSPCA.
ME – 6.1.1. There have been many occasions when anti-hunt groups have stated that there is an enormous amount of scientific evidence that supports the case to ban hunting with dogs.This is an extract from one of the letters sent from Jackie Ballard, the Director General of the RSPCA to Lord Donoughue, “The RSPCA’s policy on hunting, which has been developed over many years on the basis of a large body of scientific and technical evidence, is clear…” 6.1.2. Yet despite numerous requests from both Lord Donoughue and Lembit Öpik MP to the RSPCA over a two-year period requesting them to provide just one valid scientific study that shows hunting with dogs causes an unacceptable degree of suffering to the quarry, no such research has been produced.
AR – Logically then, the Cheeky Girl’s former partner is arguing that, in the course of the sport, hunting causes an ‘acceptable degree of suffering’ to the quarry? What is that ‘acceptable degree of suffering’?
ME – Perhaps we could discuss it in depth with the large body of scientific and technical evidence the RSPCA has so where is it?
AR – Perhaps we could discuss ‘unacceptable suffering’ when there is an agreed definition of ‘acceptable suffering’. Where is it?
I see. We’re in one of your can’t-answer/repeat-yourself loops.
The claim is that there is no “…scientific study that shows hunting with dogs causes an unacceptable degree of suffering to the quarry…”
So, what is an ‘acceptable degree of suffering’?
ME – The claim is for you to produce your evidence you claim you have, then we can discuss what and what is not acceptable where is it?
Hang on think I found it or at least a response to it. With regard to his work, Dr Kreeger said in 2000, “There has been a continuing problem with misinterpretation of my data that apparently began with an anti-hunting group in the U.S. That group’s web page attributed changes recorded in trapped foxes to changes in foxes chased by dogs. This is blatantly incorrect and, I suspect, wilfully done.”
AR – So, there is no definition of ‘acceptable degree of suffering’?
ME – Lets use your evidence you claim to have and decide what is acceptable and what is not, John Rolls of the RSPCA who claimed at one of the high court hearings “The society believes that is plain from the evidence and examination of the hunting process that the quarry is caused to suffer”
Your evidence please?
AR – I thought you said there was no evidence. What about Lord Donoughue and Lembit Öpik?
ME – RSPCA Submissions to Burns – The RSPCA has very grave concerns about the welfare of hunted animals during the chase and kill. The evidence indicates unacceptable levels of suffering.
Asking for what you are claiming, where is it?
AR – With respect, fella – if you look again – it’s Lord Donoughue and Lembit Öpik who said that there is no evidence.
I’m asking for a definition of ‘acceptable suffering’.
If you’re going to say to someone, “Provide evidence that hunting involves unacceptable suffering”, it’s not unreasonable to first ask, “What do you mean by acceptable suffering?”
In order to demonstrate that something involves unacceptable suffering, you’d have to first say what acceptable suffering is
ME – No they never,” no research has been produced”
If you are claiming unacceptable levels of suffering you produce the evidence, Where is it?
AR – “requesting them to provide just one valid scientific study that shows hunting with dogs causes an unacceptable degree of suffering to the quarry”
No definition of acceptable suffering.
ME – Here is a thought, as a member of the RSPCA and as they have the degrees of suffering why don’t you ask them for a definition of acceptable suffering?
AR Will do. And you’ll ask Lembit Öpik for a definition?
Beware Stephen Wooler on your dealings with the RSPCA.
Of course there may be some of you who think the particular gentleman above was trying to wind me up, think again, I was soon to discover the depths of his deceit that I found very disturbing.
He wrote the comment below and this gives us a perfect example of how a story of upland farmers in Cumbria struggling to survive is spun into anti-hunting rhetoric. This no doubt is the kind of indoctrination repeated at RSPCA meetings and whispered in the ears of Members of Parliament. This is also partly how they achieved a ban.
“Yes, it is interesting isn’t it that in an article entitled ‘The hill farmers fighting for their livelihoods’, written about the plight of upland sheep farmers, references to hunting with dogs (a subject claimed by some to be absolutely essential to the daily existence of hill farmers fighting for their livelihoods) are conspicuous by their absence*
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/photography/10683582/The-hill-farmers-fighting-for-their-livelihoods.html
*Apart from the authors of the article, who, in subsequent exchanges, expressed concern that hunting interests were looking, in pursuit of their own agendas, to ‘exploit’ the difficulties faced by hill farmers, and that hunting wasn’t ever mentioned by the more than thirty farmers they worked with over a two-year study period.”
The true shock was yet to come, I discovered the “subsequent exchanges” of information was from the RSPCA member and the Frasers in comments below the article, he obvious does not want you to know that. This can be seen below the RSPCA member is seen to bring up the subject of hunting which has nothing to do with the article and the Frasers answer as honestly as possible, this has been then spun to suit as the above shows.
“RSPCA Member – I sympathize with any working man who sees his livelihood and community suffering. I feel the same for our former miners and mining villages, our former shipbuilders and shipbuilding towns. However, there is a sense – in this specific regard – that there may be, interwoven in the complexity of the problem, a ‘softening up’ process. It is not unreasonable that suspicions will arise when an item of this kind appears in the Right Wing press coincident with manoeuvres to sneak through a relaxation of the Hunting Act (there is an allusion to this very subject in the comments below). Given that an open vote on a repeal of the Act is dead in the water, there are those pushing for a change to the Act which would allow flushing to guns with a pack, ostensibly to benefit hill farmers, but that would (surprise, surprise) extend also to ‘recreational hunts’. Everyone involved acknowledges – openly or tacitly – that this represents an attempt at repeal by the back door; no-one bothers even to dispute the accusation of underhandedness. Is this item, as serious as it is, a preparation of the canvas, so-to-speak, for the clumsy daubs of argument to follow? At the end of the day, if a sneak relaxation of the Hunting Act is the answer, then I would want to suggest that we are asking the wrong question”
Rob Frazer – …and just to throw this in the mix: none of the thirty+ farmers we met with ever mentioned hunting and I think only two had a horse. But of course they complain about various critters, including badgers and foxes, affecting their stock. Most horrid example of this seemed to be crows hanging around for a difficult sheep birth on the fells and then taking out the tongue and the eyes of struggling newborn. The cycles of life are a little bit more raw when you work so closely to the land.
RSPCA Member – An interesting insight, Rob. Thanks. Glad to hear that hunting is not the issue there that some would have us believe! I’ve never worked in Cumbria, but my missus and I have walked many of the fells. We stay on a farm, when we’re there, and I know the family has a tough time (hence renting out a cottage onsite).
Harriet Frazer – I can assure you from our point of view that there is no agenda related to hunting, none at all. Our interest lies purely with the hill farmers in the uplands of Cumbria, and the value of culture to both local and natural communities, and landscapes. In this world everything is interconnected so I understand why you suggest there might be a ‘softening up’ process going on; however, it is equally plausible that this article has been given space simply because of its main subject and the very current debate on hill farming.
RSPCA Member – Thank-you, Harriet, for taking the time to reply. It is good to hear your perspective. Yes, you are quite right: There may be no ulterior motive behind this item; I for one would be very pleased if that were so. However, there certainly are those who, on other hunting-related threads, have sought to exploit the challenges presently faced by hill farmers as a means to advance their own pro-hunting agenda. It is distasteful that they would do so, you might agree; but there it is. Thank-you again.
Aside from the fact the article has nothing to do with hunting and the RSPCA member really does not give a hoot about the miners or ship workers he makes no attempt to correct the belief from Rob Fraser that they hunt on horseback in the Cumbrian uplands when in fact they hunt on foot. Also important to note the claim for an amendment to the hunting act came from the welsh upland gun packs and not Cumbria, where they do not use gun packs. And of course the obvious they are having problems with pests including foxes he fails to mention this.
Sadly the Frazer’s are left feeling hunters are complete rat bags and the RSPCA member gets to spin his web of deceit through their honesty no doubt at the local RSPCA branch meeting.
I am reminded now of the RSPCA lady insisting to me even today they regularly used bagged foxes at English hunts and yet despite persistent requests for evidence could only produce a blurred photo from Ireland in the 80’s. Mike Fry corrected me at the time as I was very critical of her he suggested it was not her fault just what she had been fed by the RSPCA .
Is there no depth to their deceit?
At least we know they are Sociopaths now.
May I make it crystal clear that I am not the Mike Fry mentioned above!
Mike , Still more to that story showing how utterly devious our RSPCA member was, do you want to read it?
Will tell you anyway, when this RSPCA member first put the below atrocious deceitful spin up in comments in an entirely different thread to the one we were on I initially commented that if farmers were controlling pests and it was working they would not be complaining and probably would have no need to mention hunting or pest control. Basically control was working as intended. I had not realised “subsequent exchanges” was meaning in comments below the article. He then referred back to a previous conversation we had “See your own posts, below. “fox control is working as intended”. So, no need for amendment. He had duped the Frazer’s he was now trying to dupe me into agreeing we do not need to amend the hunting act. At no point did he make any attempt to correct me with the comment from Rob Frazer “But of course they complain about various critters, including badgers and foxes, affecting their stock” By chance I did go back and read the article again and comments when all became apparent. Normal people would correct you a sociopath wont.
“Yes, it is interesting isn’t it that in an article entitled ‘The hill farmers fighting for their livelihoods’, written about the plight of upland sheep farmers, references to hunting with dogs (a subject claimed by some to be absolutely essential to the daily existence of hill farmers fighting for their livelihoods) are conspicuous by their absence*
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/photography/10683582/The-hill-farmers-fighting-for-their-livelihoods.html
*Apart from the authors of the article, who, in subsequent exchanges, expressed concern that hunting interests were looking, in pursuit of their own agendas, to ‘exploit’ the difficulties faced by hill farmers, and that hunting wasn’t ever mentioned by the more than thirty farmers they worked with over a two-year study period.”
Burn Inquiry:-
“Even those who hunt essentially for recreational purposes, though, usually believe their enjoyment is ultimately in a good cause managing the population of the animal concerned”
And so in one simple sentence the ridiculous worn out claim of sociopathic hunters was destroyed by the Burns inquiry. A sociopath will not do anything to benefit another human let alone an animal.
Of course Burns did refer to a “few” people up and down the country mainly away from public gaze and often illegally – who hunt simply because they enjoy using their dogs to kill animals”. They were doing it before the ban their activity was already illegal. This does not make them sociopaths just idiots. They are using their dogs for what they are bred for in much the same way a greyhound owner races his dog. Normal folk would not say we should ban the whole of one activity because of an idiotic few a sociopath will it’s for the cause.
It was the Banwell trial that set my alarm bells ringing, how could you put up a man who played a pivotal role in achieving a ban as an independent expert witness? It’s easy to dismiss him as I originally did as a prejudice bigot. But the activities of our RSPCA member above had me looking further afield for a more logic explanation on the basis our man from Bristol university must consider himself independent and the organization putting him up to it must believe it also.
I found it in seconds on the web 10 ways to identify a sociopath, of course he believes he is an independent witness because he says so. I see it now.
Of course, sociopaths love a cause and one no better than the fox hunting debate with its already well indoctrinated opponents. This gives the sociopath a chance to first charm their way in and then start spinning a web of deceit to the rest who fall for their charm become entranced then start repeating what the sociopath has said, how many times have you heard foxes don’t need controlling they control their own numbers?
This sudden realization had me reaching for Charlie Pye-Smith’s book Rural rites, more examples became apparent. The Bristol Professors bitter critic of Dr Nick Foxes research into wounding rates. Publicly aired his opinion in Animal welfare. Provided criticisms of the research on request to MPs and journalist. Stated both Dr Nick fox and his researched lacked merit, asked by a journal to give a brief assessment of the scientific/ technical value of the paper he said I don’t see any. Asked about the statically method he replied, absolutely awful. He claimed if the report had been an undergraduate study it would have got a lower second class mark. Typical behaviour of a sociopath who is finding his views questioned, reacts angrily and goes on the attack. Contrasted against Dr Jonathans Reynolds gracious and courtesy comments to our Bristol Professor at the portcullis hearings over his foot and mouth study on fox numbers. Let’s also not forget Dr Nick Foxes research was peer reviewed our Bristol Professors was not.
John Rolls then of the RSPCA walk into a high court and inform a judge “The society believes that is plain from the evidence and examination of the hunting process that the quarry is caused to suffer” When there was absolutely no evidence on foxes and hares at the time. Sociopathic behaviour again, John Rolls believes there is because he is saying it. And like all sociopaths who can convince you black is blue the Judge believed him.
Douglas Batchelor announcing to the burns inquiry he pioneered sheep housing in Wales only for someone to come forward and state they were doing it 17 years before Batchelor was on the scene. Sociopaths brag and make up stories to big themselves up.
And the biggest give away of them all folks, Patricia Betty describing our Bristol Professor as a charming man.
“This is why you will find many very “successful” sociopaths in high levels of government, in any nation”
I conclude folks, successful sociopaths were at the top the animal rights organizations leading up to a ban and when it was implemented. Labour Bigots fell for the charm and even gave them centre stage they so crave at various Government hearings and inquiries. Vote Labour and they let nutters make the decisions for the country, quality.
All agreed?