Image of the Day – 36

When you’re out and about this weekend, don’t be surprised if you find hunters running havoc on roads, railways and other public places. It’s what they do, arrogant to a tee.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

2 Responses so far »

  1. 1

    gilesbradshaw said,

    Arrogant? Too right! Arrogance in the face of ignorance is a virtue not a vice.

  2. 2

    gilesbradshaw said,

    Dear Douglas,

    Thank you for your letter. I contacted the RSPCA regarding flushing out
    the deer recently and a Mr John Pollock responded with a message in my
    voicemail. He is the RSPCA officer at West Hatch.

    He said that because the law is ambiguous he had had to get advice from
    his legal team. Interesting in itself as you claim the law is clear.

    He went on to say that he has no problem with me flushing out deer with
    dogs as it (and I quote) ‘seems like an ideal way to move the deer
    through the wood.’ The current advice from the RSPCA to me is that I
    can flush but with only two dogs as long as I don’t chase the deer.

    Not actually what the law says of course!

    I have also been writing via my MP to Jim Fitzpatrick the farming
    minister. As you know defra have given varying advice on the legality
    of flushing out. At first they said as it involved ‘chasing away’ it
    was legal, then they said it is illegal, now Mr Fitzpatrick in his
    letters has said the legality of my activities is ‘uncertain’, when
    pushed he has said that flushing out is ‘probably’ not hunting as
    defined in the Act.

    Personally I don’t think the man has a clue what he is talking about.

    You say that I refuse to accept that flushing out and chasing the deer
    is hunting. Not so, I have always argued that it is illegal under the
    hunting act.

    Interestingly of course the law does not actually make it clear if the
    definition of hunting under the Act requires an intention to catch the
    animal or not. We know it does not include all the ordinary English
    meanings of the word following the Tony Wright case where the judge
    found that ‘searching’ was not illegal.

    Yes I am deliberately using my dogs to chase deer.

    I recently had a number of emails from your Joshua Kaile threatening to
    send some LACS monitors down to observe me intentionally using my dogs
    to hunt deer. I made it very clear to Joshua that the monitors were
    welcome and I would do my best to ensure they got plenty of footage of
    any chase that occured and a signed statement from me that I was
    deliberately using my dogs to hunt the deer.

    Needless to say the monitors did not turn up which was a shame as I got
    up at dawn on the Saturday as I often do and the dogs found some deer in
    the woods which they chased.

    I am not the slightest bit ashamed of what I do as you probably realise.
    I am afraid I do regard the hunting Act as it applies to me as a bit of
    a joke.

    The fact is Douglas as you perfectly well know you will not lift a
    finger to prevent me breaking the Hunting Act. Inspite of your alleged
    support for what i do being illegal you have never taken any action
    whatsoever to prevent me breaking the hunting Act. You’ve not even
    reported me to the police.

    I discussed the flushing out exemption with your Joshua Kaile and put a
    direct question to him as to whether he supported it. His answer was
    quite clear. ‘No’.

    LACS claim that shooting flushed out deer is a humane alternative to
    illegal hunting. I’m sorry but in my case it is not. It is completely
    ridiculous for you to suggest that me taking a few dogs into a wood and
    flushing a deer out is less humane than gunning the animal down as it is
    fleeing from hounds.

    I simply do not believe that you think this is the case.

    I am copying this letter to Stephen Otter my Chief Constable. As you
    know the police are well aware of my activities and some time ago the
    force legal advisor Rober Glass wrote to me to assure me it was unlikely
    that I would face prosecution as it would not be in the public interest.

    I fully support the police’s position on this and so should you.

    At the end of the day no one is prepared to take any action whatsoever
    to prevent me from breaking the Hunting Act. Not you, not the RSPCA and
    not the police. This is due to one simple fact. By not shooting the
    flushed out deer I am not hurting them. If I obeyed the law and took
    reasonable steps to shoot the deer after they are flushed out I would be
    causing them massive trauma and pain.

    A condition to shoot animals dead where there is no sensible argument
    for it has no place in the Hunting Act. You know this, the Government
    know this and the police know this. It is simply a bizzare and stupid
    piece of legislation. There is a fundamental principle here and that is
    that people have a perfect right to break absurd laws where the
    Government is unable to enforce them. I have fought hard for the right
    to break the Hunting Act and I have won it.

    There is a proud heritage of breaking unjust and ridiculous laws in this

    Please understand that although i copy James Barrington my actions are
    entirely off my own bat and not sanctioned by MWG, CA etc.

    I am also posting this onto your website.

    I am very proud to do just that.

    Best wishes to you and your family over Christmas.


    cc james Barrington
    Stephen Otter
    Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    Joshua Kaile
    Louise Robertson
    John Pollock c/o west hatch

    On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 15:49 +0000, Douglas Batchelor wrote:
    > Dear Giles,
    > I am glad to hear that you have never killed a deer.
    > The bit that you persistently refuse to accept is that setting your dogs
    > onto deer is every bit as much hunting as killing them would be. The
    > chase is an unnecessary and deliberate disturbance organised by you
    > using your dogs, and that in law appears to me to be hunting with dogs
    > as defined in the Act.
    > Surely if you have the best interests of the deer at heart, you would be
    > allowing them appropriate shelter on your land from the activities of
    > any hunts and hunters you mention who may wish them harm. You can of
    > course legally use appropriate fencing to keep the deer out of any areas
    > where they might cause damage to crops or trees.
    > Yours,
    > Douglas
    > —–Original Message—–
    > From: Giles Bradshaw
    > Sent: 18 December 2009 10:54
    > To: Douglas Batchelor
    > Subject: letter
    > I sent this to Joshua Louise and Steve too:
    > I really don’t get why the League does not accept that my method of
    > managing deer is less cruel than shooting them.
    > What seems especially ironic is that it is precisely the flushing out
    > exemption which I campaign on which is used by the Hunts to carry on
    > killing animals.
    > Can’t you see that?
    > Fair enough I am pro and you are anti but why don’t we appeal together
    > to get the Government to recognise flaws in the law. From your point of
    > view you could use this to try and get the exemption in the law under
    > which the hunts are killing animals removed. Obviously I feel that
    > where there is no chance of the deer being hurt then what I do should be
    > legal but that could be debated.
    > I am being completely honest when I say I have never killed a deer. I
    > genuinely love the animals on my land. They are truly beautiful
    > creatures. I am standing up for a humane and non lethal way of managing
    > them.
    > Do you not realise how much worse it would be for a fleeing deer to be
    > mown down by bullets? It’s ridiculous to argue that that is more
    > ‘humane’.
    > It’s just plain wrong for the Hunting Act to contain a condition that
    > animals are shot dead. And it’s wrong that the law is framed so it can
    > be openly broken.
    > I am sure that you accept this.
    > best wishes for xmas.
    > BTW I am sure we could debate this in an open manner as we all clearly
    > care a lot about the issues.

Comment RSS · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: