Police must continue to enforce hunt laws
I WAS angry to read, that the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has issued guidance to police forces across the land that the Hunting Act is too difficult to police.
How dare ACPO publicly give the green light to hunters, by telling them that their cruel and barbaric sport will not be policed; this will have the effect of giving hunters even more encouragement to break the law, safe in the knowledge that they will not be caught.
Instead their spokesperson, Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom, of North Wales, should have spoken to the Home Office of the difficulty of policing hunts, so a way forward could be found such as a reckless behaviour clause, to stop hunters claiming an "accident" when caught red-handed, as is the case as the law now stands.
No one should forget (least of all the police) that the Hunting Act is a very popular piece of legislation, brought about by the will of the people, through their democratically elected representatives, and we, the people, expect the Hunting Act to work as parliament intended.
We also expect the MPs to lobby for action on this. The law is the law and no one should be above it, no matter how rich and influential they are.
David Cameron, the Conservative leader, should also remember the will of the people.
It is disgraceful, that if elected, he plans to reward the hunters' lawbreaking by repealing the Hunting Act to make hunting lawful again.
Does Mr Cameron not believe in democracy or the law of the land?
Nor can the Labour Government continue to turn a blind eye to this appalling cruelty inflicted on wild animals in the countryside, or to the arrogant behaviour of hunts towards those of us who live in rural areas, and how we live in fear of our much loved pets being torn apart by out-of-control hounds, not to mention the danger to the general public of hounds running across roads, railways, gardens and farms in pursuit of a fox.
The only sensible and democratic way forward is for Parliament to strengthen the Act.
A stronger Act would aid both the police and the Crown Prosecution lawyers in getting illegal hunting successfully prosecuted, and then the Hunting Act would start to work as the public and their MPs intended.
Helen Weeks
Hunt Monitors Association
West Coker, Somerset
(by post)
7 Comments
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Friday, June 19 2009, 2:31PM
“"The only sensible and democratic way forward" is for parliament to have a debate and a free vote on the future of the Hunting Act. Only one party is promising this.
The Conservatives.
If Helen Weeks wants the law to be reconsidered she should vote Tory.”
by BN, Cullompton
Friday, June 19 2009, 1:35PM
“Sorry Derek - but this is a quite natural phnomenon know as a killing frenzy caused by man's insistence on keeping large numbers of prey animals together. There is no driving force of 'fun' in this particular instance.
Try to avoid anthropomorphising animals - it destroys any rational argument along with scaremongering over 'stolen babies'.”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Friday, June 19 2009, 11:34AM
“One of the many flaws in the anti hunting argument is that the means of killing foxes which they prefer, shooting them actually causes far more suffering to them than hunting ever did.
This is because shot foxes can be wounded and a wounded fox can take a long time to die in far more pain.
In contrast the hunted fox either escapes the hounds within a few minutes or if it is caught is killed very quickly with no possibility of only being wounded.
People are very presumptive to assume that we can do a better job with guns than dogs can do with the facilities given to them by millions of years of evolution.”
by Nick Steele, Gloucestershire
Thursday, June 18 2009, 9:08PM
“I think this is madness the police time should be spent on serious issues and I do think people should stick to facts, several studies have shown hunting actualy helps the countryside in many ways and that foxes do need to be kept under control.”
by M Stoneman, Suffolk
Thursday, June 18 2009, 8:09PM
“No...you cannot say that an animal "kills for the fun of it"as we can't read their mind, but we do know that people kill for fun and as was written...people like hunting, which to the compassionate person means torturing for pleasure. As for 100 chickens being killed...that was a lot of noise that some irresposible people ignored, all hell was let loose if my solitary hen was disturbed .”
by Derek, Exeter
Thursday, June 18 2009, 5:38PM
“Havn't we had enough about fox hunting to last us for years?
The fox business is already getting out of hand, as I expected. My daughter at Broadclyst has already had chicken stolen by a fox. My son in Newton Poppleford chased
two foxes each with a chicken in its mouth. These animals have been getting more and more plentiful since hunting was stopped. They are now getting more confident and operating in broad daylight.. As I have mentioned before, if this goes on they will be taking a baby out of the pram in the back garden. What will our dogooders have to say about that? I have never hunted in my life, or followed the hunt. I am merely trying to point out that these creatures are dangerous and kill for the sake of killing. I have seen a chicken house containing 100 chickens every one killed and left in the chicken house. Killed for the fun of it. We are now over run by these creatures. Are these people who keep clucking about the poor fox, going to get out their guns and sort out these creatures, or are they just going to keep on expressing their dislike of the people who like hunting?”
by M Stoneman, Suffolk
Thursday, June 18 2009, 10:43AM
“Of course the police must enforce the the law of the land...whoever signed a declaration not to abide by it...and all dogs should be led, where ever they are exercised.”