Proof that the Hunting with Dogs legislation was a complete waste of parliamentary time

Interesting answers to a parliamentary question put down by Tory MP David Ruffley.

Mr Ruffley asked the Home Office "how many (a) charges, (b) prosecutions, (c) convictions, (d) cautions and (e) fines there have been for breaches of the Hunting Act 2004 in each police force area since its enactment?".

The reply came yesterday.

Apparently there were three prosecutions by three constabularies in 2005.  There were three fines and one caution in total.

In 2006 there were eleven prosecutions by four different police forces.  There were five guilty verdicts.  Five fines.  No cautions.

There two plausible explanations for these staggering low levels of prosecution:

1. The hunting community is almost entirely law-abiding and is no longer chasing foxes with dogs.
2. The law was incredibly badly drafted, almost unenforceable and perhaps the biggest ever waste of parliamentary time.

Comments

[Politico]

Just stop and think for a moment regarding the following -:

I implore all to watch the Fox New debate for South Carolina (its on their news page) and please blog for Ron Paul - he could be a isolationist president and has a total opposite message of peaceful change rather than global uncertainty - we shouldn't have been in a war - bush has succeeded in turning them into long term issues that will affect us for generations - its time to pull out and pursue an agenda of peace and democracy. Bin laden was in tora bora....but the whole islamofascism thing may not have occurred had America dealt with the jewish/Muslim issues first and the image that America is pro jewish, and sought resolution and democracy before jumping to war (we have forgotten that the war was on a false pretence and the fact that the US is now engadging with North Korea destroys the argument for getting rid of Saddam. Also, what message does that send to Iran. NK gets all the attention after getting the bomb - doesn't that show Iran that to get American attention it needs the bomb, also think - why are American ships there in the first place if not for provocation - why should it police the world - just think of the ramifications - its a travesty that this is not reported more - it truly is complete change..

Just look at how they tried to spin the Iran boat thing..the economy is in dire straights and he wants another war ..the BBC news was getting it, but no one else.

[Editor]

Politico: That's way off topic. Please use the homepage to make such points in future.

[Malcolm Dunn]

I suspect the correct answer is 2. I read recently (can't remember where) that more foxes were being killed by hunting than before the 'ban' was imposed.

[Alan S]

The sooner the Act is repealed by a Conservative government the better. Fortunately Ann Widdecombe won't be around anymore to vote against repeal either.

[oscar peter]

None of these cases had anything to do with organised or registered hunt. The only huntsman prosecuted during this period was Tony Wright, of the Exmoor Foxhounds, who was convicted in Barnstaple Magistrates Court in August 2006, but that conviction was thrown out by the Crown Court in Exeter in November last year when the Act came in for serious criticism in the judgement.

See the Sunday Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/02/nhunt102.xml

These figures re-inforce the view that the Hunting Act is mainly being used as a more practical alternative to the 19th century Game Laws for tackling poachers. Not quite what all those obsessive backbenchers thought they spent 700 hours of parliamentary time to acheive...

[Sally Roberts]

What a complete waste of time it was! I have to say this comes as absolutely no surprise!!

[ken]

The "hunting community" always believed they were above the law and this just goes to show that they were right.

[Sally Roberts]

"The "hunting community" always believed they were above the law"

Ken that is rather a sweeping statement! Would you like to back up your assertion with some facts?

[Happy Tory]

Let sleeping dogs lie.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

The "hunting community" always believed they were above the law and this just goes to show that they were right.

Posted by: ken | January 11, 2008 at 12:32

I disagree with that comment Ken - the law, in this case, is an ass.
Rather, there are some politicians who appear to believe they are above the law, but like the fox, are hard to catch. At the moment the chase is on for the fox in the form of Peter Hain, but like the fox and the foxhunters I believe he is entirely innocent - don't you?

[London Tory]

Just about the first act of the incoming Tory Government must be to repeal this Act. Labour at its most odious, righting a few perceived wrongs from 84-85.
As the sponsor of the Hunting Bill Peter Bradley let slip at the time, 'this is about class war'. He lost his seat soon afterwards.

[Simon Chapman]

The two explanations aren't mutually exclusive, Tim.

[Dave]

"Just about the first act of the incoming Tory Government must be to repeal this Act."

Try to develop a sense of perspective FFS.
There won't be an incoming Tory government if we get too many more nonsensical comments like that.

[seasider]

Yes, after 700 hours of debate it was then 'forced through'!!
I'm sure that the decent, well respected, example setting, law abiding, hunting fraternity are acting within the law. Aren't you?
And if it's all going so well, and hunts are thriving and behaving properly, and no-one has lost their job, why does the hunting ban need repealing?

[David]

I'd really hope that option 1 did apply.

[ceidwadwyr]

My two local foot packs have continued hunting as they did before the ban and are killing more foxes than ever. They realize it is the mounted hunts that Zanulab are after because they are still engaged in some class war fantasy.

[London Tory]

@Dave

And the second act of the next Conservative Government should be to repeal the equally odious public smoking ban. You are either in favour of all minorities rights, or you are not. Nothing is more important than the rights and liberties of the individual citizen (FFS).

[James Burdett]

So having complained about the waste of Parliamentary time enacting this legislation which has changed little and hasn't resulted in the end of life as we know it, some people now propose to waste a bit more repealing it. I can guarentee that when we get back into government there will be at least a dozen issues more worthy of our attention than repealing this law.

[gezmond 007]

Arent there more important topic,s that need addressing first ?

I don,t belive some of the people on this site ! Wake up and stop rabbiting on about a few horses and dogs chasing foxes !

[gezmond 007]

Arent there more important topic,s that need addressing first ?

I don,t belive some of the people on this site ! Wake up and stop rabbiting on about a few horses and dogs chasing foxes !

[Dave]

14.38

I am certainly NOT "in favour of all minorities rights". Some "minorities" should be in jail IMO, paedophiles for instance.

As for repealing the fox hunting act and the ban on smoking in pubs being the imperatives for a new Tory government I think that, after ten or more years of this vile Labour crowd, there will be far more pressing matters than those two. Don't you?

[London Tory]

This Act has resulted in the persecution and harrassment of the decent and law abiding back bone of this country. It drips with vitriol, comptempt and hatred for a whole way of life. Foxes are an absolute pest, as anyone who tries to put their dustbin out in a laege city will tell you.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Quite agree Dave, compared to many of the issues facing a Conservative government these two issues are pretty trivial.Not even sure if reestablishing the right to smoke in pubs is desirable at all.

[ceidwadwyr]

Arent there more important topic,s that need addressing first ?

Depends where you live. For me nothing makes my blood boil more than this spiteful piece of legislation.

[seasider]

London Tory....'persecution and harrassment of the decent and law abiding back bone of this country'.
Dear me -such typical arrogance.
In rural areas it's mostly the hunting fraternity who are a pest not the foxes.
If you city types are too lazy to make your bins secure, you can hardly blame the foxes for getting at it.
No rubbish lying about - no food for foxes.

Incidently, there was a good hunting debate on CiF recently , and Kate Hoey was asked to explain cubbing - but refused.

[London Tory]

seasider

Dear me- such typical chippiness.

The rural hunting fraternity you describe as 'a pest' are very often the same people who are the major employers in the area, and the chief funders of the local economy.
Or did you think that the kennel lads and stable hands were members of the local landed gentry too? Are do you only glamourise the Working Class when they go "down pit" or work in a steel mill ?
Please, no crocodile tears for those lovely, furry, cuddly wuddly little brown creatures. This was all about a chippy metropolitan elite bullying a rural minority. The supreme irony is that some of the most virolent anti hunting MPs were from minorities themselves........

Is often the way.

[Adam Johns]

It was legislative toff-bashing and it served no useful purpose barring allowing Blair and the other clowns to claim they weren't complete artistos themselves for a time. It does not benefit the public or even foxes. It has to be repealed.

[Scotty]

"This Act has resulted in the persecution and harrassment of the decent and law abiding back bone of this country. It drips with vitriol, comptempt and hatred for a whole way of life."

The Act served two purposes, it was all about getting back at what some perceived as the upper classes, it was also hauled out for debate every time Tony Blair needed to sweet talk and persuade his backbenchers over other unpopular legislation or decision.
What it never did was address animal welfare or the problems and way of life in the countryside.

[Forester]

The purpose it served was to live up to a Labour manifesto promise. There is overwhelming (but mostly quiet) public support for the hunting ban. You will discover this if the Conservatives make too big a noise about hunting prior to an election. Being the party who want to "bring back killing for fun and promote smelly pubs" is a recipe for disaster.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"In rural areas it's mostly the hunting fraternity who are a pest not the foxes.
If you city types are too lazy to make your bins secure, you can hardly blame the foxes for getting at it".
No rubbish lying about - no food for foxes"
Posted by: seasider | January 11, 2008 at 15:46

When I was on the Countryside March along with 407,001 others (I was the odd 1 - being in the loo when the count was made) there were many rural types there, apart from hunts, that did not regard hunting as a pest, although it is possible some could be inconvenienced by the hunt. Neither does Dave regarding fox hunting as a pest; he has boldly called for a free vote when the two sides in the HoC do a swop.
Changing the law was an unnecessary waste of time and effort and could have been better spent checking up on Peter Hain's donations or whoever was in the frame at the time.
As for bins - we don't have - just plastic bags? We do not have any bins because the Council thinks it stops foxes feeding.

Oh we do like to be beside the seaside!!
(Cos we've have got bins)

[passing leftie]

Was of the most amusing sights I've seen was just after the Countryside Alliance march, when a pro-hunting demonstrator was interviewed by the BBC. His nose was bleeding. He was outraged and surprised. "I can't believe a police officer just hit me with a baton. I was doing nothing wrong at all!"

Welcome to the real world, pal.

[David Eyles]

Do not forget that Labour received (and, unlike the Ecclestone £1 million, did not hand it back) £1 million from the Political Animal Lobby in 1997, before the General Election which got them in. That donation was made on the undertaking that they banned foxhunting when they got into government. They took the money and that was precisely what they did. What perhaps should be discovered is how that money was used in terms of helping to fund sympathetic Labour candidates and how much influence it had upon the result.

[NorthernMonkey]

I hope those on here who advocate repealing the law appreciate the irony of criticising the government for wasting Parliamentary time pushing it through only to then want a Conservative government to waste more Parliamentary time repealing it.

First lets understand that fox hunting (as well as smoking) is not a human right. Nobody has a right to fox hunt and the people who have been banned from doing so are not oppressed in any way.

The British public overwhelmingly backs a fox hunting ban and if we push forward with an essentially immoral repeal of the law, we would encounter hard opposition to it.

My advice, leave this law alone and get on with more important things.

[ceidwadwyr]

DC has promised to repeal the act in its entirety with a one line piece of legislation when he gets in. The hunts have been vital for us when campaigning in marginal rural seats and deserve to be rewarded, whatever the astro-turfers on here think.

[Little Black Sambo]

Northern Monkey says, "Fox hunting (as well as smoking) is not a human right," and in a Humpty-Dumpty way goes on to say that repealing the Act would be "immoral".
What have "human rights" got to do with it? I have no "right" to hunt foxes, but neither have you any "right" to stop me. "Human rights" - whatever they may be - are irrelevant.

[seasider]

Didn't the Countyside Alliance, in one of their court cases campaign against the hunting ban on the grounds of 'loss of their human right to hunt'? And lost?
And yes, DC has said he'll allow a free vote - to keep the Alliance onside.
In the run-up to a GE it will be a poisonous issue to fight over, and Labour will use it ruthlessly and to their advantage.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Strange that you should find that amusing Passing Leftie. You must have a very strange set of values.

[Sam R]

They couldnt even get the title of the act right. As a broad Devon accent informed listeners to "Any Questions" at the height of the debate: "Its HOUNDS! HOUNDS!

[Yet Another Anon]

Foxes still have to be controlled, I don't suppose they like much being trapped or shot either, they won't live long once the hounds get them - I rather think that people jumping around the countryside after foxes are a bunch of idiots, but then again so are the saboteurs - maybe they could take an idea from the film The Most Dangerous Game and hunt the saboteurs instead. Indeed if services were to be provided for free - as one means of execution of criminals, hunting them with hounds about the country might be a rather excellent way of killing them and tickets could be sold for people to take part in the hunt.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Was of the most amusing sights I've seen was just after the Countryside Alliance march, when a pro-hunting demonstrator was interviewed by the BBC. His nose was bleeding. He was outraged and surprised. "I can't believe a police officer just hit me with a baton. I was doing nothing wrong at all!"

Welcome to the real world, pal.

Posted by: passing leftie | January 11, 2008 at 17:39

The Countryside Alliance march was a very peaceful affair - so peaceful the foxy woxies BBC hardly mentioned it. The incident you refer to took place outside Parliament when the Bill was being debated. I have never seen the police act so ferociously against a demonstration, admittedly with unarmed but very angry people. The fox-hunters, showing true British bloody mindedness have won in the end. If only the same spirit could be aroused to demonstrate against the Democracy Deniers and the clueless politicians trashing Britain.

"Welcome to the real world, pal"

The real world awaits - laughing at our foolishness.

[Sally Roberts]

Malcolm @ 20:34 - I couldn't agree with you more! Shame on you, Passing Leftie! Violence is never funny even if you disagree vehemently with the point of view of the person upon which it is being inflicted!

[seasider]

David Eyles | January 11, 2008 at 17:42
In your post you could insert Conservative in place of Labour, and Countyside Alliance in place of Political Animal Lobby.

It is difficult to obtain straight answers from fox hunting supporters, like the statement posed here: 'Kate Hoey was asked to explain cubbing - but refused'
Will anyone else explain it?

And what is the response to:
'And if it's all going so well, and hunts are thriving and behaving properly, and no-one has lost their job, why does the hunting ban need repealing'?

[Gary Hills]

There have been 21 convictions using the Hunting Act 2004 with more set to follow. This ban is not only just it was long overdue. If people chose to ignore it then they are not only flouting society law but damaging the very fabric of our democracy. Lets make this point clear they certainly do not deserve any praise. This is a criminal act, its not civil law if people break it they are criminals. It makes no difference if people are apposed to it, nobody has a right to break it. The ban will stay and it will be tightened to stop abuses of societies democratic will. The arguments for a ban or against are irrelevant now as the case was won and the hunters lost. This ban has set a important principle in place that is right and just and that 'nobody has the right to cause immense pain & suffering on a living animal for fun' If those that support hunting do not like that then either they live with it or campaign within the law not outside of it. Hunting belongs only in one place the history books. And despite the efforts of the hunt lobby and friends in the media and press and of course Mr Cameron, the position will not change and the ban is working for why else would pro hunters being calling for it to be scraped if it was not?

[Ginger Snowman]

Well have just seen this site and I welcome its aims..
www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com

oops just noticed this is an old thread