Wednesday 7 February 2024

MY PERSONAL.VIEWS ON A POST FROM PROTECT THE WILD. I LIKE WHAT THEY DO

 Protect the Wild should be complimented on their work and, I think, deserve a response on some of the posts and point they make. Below is my personal view so, please read and comment if you wish.


I have read the five pages of the post on Friday 2nd by Protect the Wild. It is lengthy and poses questions. I will not take as long because I have decided to focus only on certain points. 


The main issue is one of conflict between opposing groups who are blind to the reasons for the others intentions. I know my last sentence can be seen as contentious but I will explain.


I was brought up in rural Herefordshire where the myth persisted that ‘the fox’ was vermin and a wanton killer. I have kept chickens and never seen any such wanton destruction. So, for me, the myth is a lie. The tenant farmer where my father worked would not the let the hunt on his land although they met regularly nearby. As a child I could not understand his reasoning because I had been ‘normalised’ by the culture and tradition of the countryside ways. Taphonomic views are as fossilised as ancient footprints but they exist in the hunting fraternity. Those of us who have mentally moved on know better and because of this realisation, the killing for fun is opposed. 


I will now deal point by point.


  1. Where laws are concerned sound legal advice should be sought.

2.   Public Nuisance. Like any legislation any study needs to be in depth. In this instance excessive use of noise could be deemed a nuisance. I think including a personal alarm (although Helen did not have one) is over stretching the point. It can be easily argued that a hunt with hounds on a highway is a nuisance. Although that can be dealt with by different legislation.

3. Stop & Search has been an emotive issue for some of my lifetime. Misunderstood by many including politicians. Legislation has tried to eliminate guess work (correctly so too) but analysis and interpretation must occur. Protect the Wild make a good point when being spoken to by police. It will be viewed by many as confrontational but if you have nothing illegal in your possession and have not committed a crime behave as though you are innocent. Becoming confrontational creates a confrontation!

4. Police Crime Sentencing etc, Public Order Act 2023 need to be viewed with regard to the situation in Abergavenny. Again scrutiny of the law needs to be done by legal professionals. And good luck with that. At a cursory glance I cannot see any relevance.

5. You say there is a caveat when intentionally causing alarm and distress but there is no reference given.

6. You state a personal alarm is no longer in the possession of the owner. There has been no crime reported. The facts are bare here and in my view more explanation is needed. What actually is occurring? Are there recorded instances of where personal alarms are used when hunts meet by anti-hunt supporters? And what effect did it have if any? Such knowledge is worth having.

7. Police have a duty to act when provided with some sort of information. Putting it bluntly they will be damned if they do and also damned if they don’t. There are people out there who tell lies.

8. There is one thing that does need consideration is that all of us come from the society we live in. Therefore any organisation can only gain labour mainly from that source. Groups and organisations should not be stigmatised by the behaviour of some members. The reference to The Metropolitan Police is erroneous and is best left out.


By final point is a personal one. In the general sense there is a class divide where the power lies with the wealthy, the well connected but supported by others lower down the social scale, such as The Terriermen. This group are confronted by The Hunt Saboteurs who deplore fox hunting and try to verify illegal activity by the hunting fraternity. All credit to them. They, the SABS, display courage and should be complimented.


My personal stance is simple. Killing for fun is abhorrent to me, should be condemned by society as a whole and dealt with more vociferously within the legal context.


No comments:

Post a Comment