Robert DG Smith
:Google Is the Last Company I'd Begrudge for Avoiding Taxes
Emma Seery
:The Truth About British Treasure Islands
Harry Cooper
:A Referendum on Europe Tomorrow Would Not Stop Ukip
Alice Farmer
:A Real-Life 'Hunger Games'
Ed Miliband
:A Distant and Distracted Cameron Cannot Tackle Tax Avoidance
The beginning of November sees us enter autumn in earnest; the clocks go back, the nights draw in and there is an ever-present chill in the air. This weekend also heralds the beginning of the hunting season, with hunts up and down the country holding their opening meets.
To mark the start of this season, the Countryside Alliance has - for the very first time - been able to show the success rates of the Hunting Act, and in so doing revealed the true extent of the failure of the Hunting Act.
Figures provided by the Ministry of Justice show that last year six police forces cautioned eleven individuals under the Hunting Act. Yet not one of these cautions was for an individual associated with a registered hunt. In fact, ninety seven per cent of convictions since the Hunting Act came into force in 2005 relate to poaching or other casual hunting activities. All of these would have been able to be prosecuted under legislation which existed before the Hunting Act came into being.
From the outset, the practical application of the Hunting Act has been surrounded by confusion. The series of 'exemptions' designed to allow some types of hunting to continue were the result of political wrangling and are both illogical and unclear. For instance it is legal to hunt a rabbit, but not a hare (unless it has been shot!); a rat, but not a mouse.
It is this inconsistency and the Act's failure as a piece of legislation that continues to place a significant and unnecessary strain on rural communities, the police and the courts. The difficulty in interpreting and adhering to these often-contradictory "exemptions", means that policing of the Act and the investigation of unfounded allegations against hunts continue to waste valuable police resources, that could be much better deployed in dealing with issues of real concern.
As a consequence, commentators from the Left to the Right almost universally condemn the Act as an example of bad governance. Indeed, in his memoirs, Tony Blair describes the act as "one of the domestic legislative measures I most regret."
For a society which wishes to be moderate and tolerant, the Hunting Act remains an extremely divisive piece of legislation with many people feeling aggrieved that a large number of those who championed the Hunting Act did so based on prejudice, rather than any scientific evidence.
The failure of the Hunting Act to improve the welfare of wild mammals or to provide a clear and workable legal framework has further undermined public confidence in this piece of legislation.
The legal confusion and uncertainty surrounding the Act has led to a growing body of opinion, both inside and outside Parliament, believing that this legislation does not work and should be repealed.
The Act must not only be repealed out of consideration for animal welfare and the sustainability of the countryside, but so too that we do not set a precedent for such an illiberal, divisive and ineffective piece of legislation to remain on the Statute Book.
To quote a Sunday Times editorial: "Such a bad law has no right to survive and it would be better to get rid of it."
An aspect of your analysis that I particularly concurr with, and that worries me most about this awful Act is the divisive aspects. That a very substantial, diverse and in my experience incredibly public spirited group of people can be dismissed as a criminal fraternity by LACS, and the idea that this absurd notion might gain any traction is very upsetting and so desperately unjust. LACS are evidently determined to ignore all the evidence and to do all they can to make the atmospherics around this issue as poisonous as possible. Hats off to the Countryside Alliance for standing up to this.
If hunts are acting within the law, as you suggest, then that is why there are no convictions. If hunts are breaking the law, but there are no convictions, then that suggests a problem not with the legislation but with enforcement - so surely more police time should be devoted to it.
The reality, as you well know Olivia, is that there is a long catalogue of law breaking by hunts, and you and your organisation stand as apologists for that thuggery. You oppose the Hunting Act the same as burglars oppose the Theft Act, and rapists oppose the Sexual Offences Act.
The roll call of offenders this season is impressive. As our chief executive said, "whether they're hunting illegally, stealing cameras, beating up pensioners or blocking up badger setts, [hunters] are a criminal fraternity with an intimidating grip on the countryside. The police must rise to the challenge and stand up for the majority of rural people who find hunting abhorrent."
http://www.league.org.uk/news/1021/Alliance-report-is--nonsense-
There is absolutely nothing wrong with my using my dogs to manage the deer on my farm in this manner and I will not stop.
The truth is that even though you and the police know I am breaking the law you do nothing to stop me.
Under the law flushing and chasing wild deer is perfectly legal - provided you then shoot them.
How would shooting the wild deer once I have flushed and chased them improve their welfare? You cannot answer that simple question because you know full well this law is a nonsense. I was out last evening with my dogs searching for wildlife on my farm to chase and will be again soon.
If LACS thinks this is such a wonderful enforceable law why don't you come and film me chasing wildlife? You'd be perfectly welcome and I would give you full permission to set up your cameras on my land. You wouldn't even have to break the law of trespass like your monitors often do.
I can carry on with what I do with your full knowledge and with complete impunity. No one should have to respect such a deeply absurd law based on ignorance and spite.