Anti-hunt legislation needs to be tougher
FARMER Giles Bradshaw, a frequent Echo correspondent, contends that the Hunting Act 2004 is unenforceable, Next step is repeal of the Hunting Act, Points of view, August 20.
Crimes committed by paedophiles, burglars, thugs and thieves are reported in the Echo every week.
However, I have never heard of calls for the repeal of Acts of Parliament relating to such law-breaking on the grounds that the legislation is unenforceable.
But it is often said that some of these laws should be strengthened and punishments increased in their severity.
I agree with Helen Weeks, Hunting Act must be tightened, Points of view, August 8.
Protect Our Wild Animals has a website explaining in detail why this legislation needs to be strengthened — please see www.powa.org.uk.
It would be interesting to know whether Mr Bradshaw supports Early Day Motion 122.
This, now before the House of Commons, has been signed by more than 100 Members of Parliament. It reads:
"That this House notes that prior to Parliament's decision to outlaw the hunting of wild animals with dogs, a reported 50,000 hunt members and supporters signed a declaration that they would disobey such a law; further notes that there is mounting evidence that hunts are avoiding the law and by various devices are continuing the barbaric practice of hunting foxes down to a bloody kill and claiming that such kills are accidental; and therefore calls on the Government to act to prevent this abuse of the spirit of the anti-hunting legislation by means of an amendment to the Hunting Act to include a reckless behaviour clause."
A simple amendment to the Hunting Act 2004, inserting a reckless behaviour clause, would facilitate prosecution as a claim by the huntsman that a kill was accidental, or he was accidentally hunting, could probably not be accepted by the court.
John Phelps
Argyll Road,
Exeter
(by email)
5 Comments
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Monday, August 31 2009, 10:37PM
“There waqs a very intersting letter from Animal aid in the IoS today John.
I shall quote it in full
"Foxhounds have been bred to run more slowly than foxes, to make the chase last. If hunters wanted to minimise suffering, they would use greyhounds or lurchers, who would catch a fox in seconds. But, of course, that would spoil the fun.
Richard Mountford
Animal Aid"
If using long dogs minimises suffering why is it illegal?
We know that perfect legal methods like shooting foxes causes up to 65% wounding rates.
Surely we should regulate ALL forms of animal control so that they are only used on the basis of need, benefit, animal welfare and ecological impact.”
by John Phelps, Exeter
Sunday, August 30 2009, 5:31PM
“Giles is right - that is exactly the reason why the Hunting Act needs to be strengthend.”
by N BRYANT, Horsham, West Sussex
Saturday, August 29 2009, 8:13PM
“The reason for the repeal is that the Hunting Act is a bad law and bad laws do not work, the other crimes and laws relating to those are sensible and one would expect to uphold those, the Hunting Act was brought in against the will of the Upper House to please the Labour Back Benchers who were calling out for blood and a weak Primeminister gave way albeit at the end he was not in favour of a ban but this is what the Labour thugs wanted.
They feel that to go Hunting one must be Upper Class, have gone to a public School and work for a Merchant Bank, wake up you Labour idiots Hunting is followed by all types of person the majority being ordinary law abiding people who do not fiddle their living allowances and claim for mortgages they don't have like many Labour MP's have done so look closer to home for law breakers and fight to uphold good laws.”
by Jon Burgess, Worcestershire
Saturday, August 29 2009, 7:44PM
“I wonder Mr Phelps does the POWA web site includes a call for the tough enforcement of the law when it comes to murder or the manslaughter of hunt supporters?”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Saturday, August 29 2009, 9:08AM
“The hunts are indeed 'avoiding the law' - by not breaking it. What is wrong with that?”