UK hunt-ban unenforceable, ill-concieved (Sunday Times)‏

Sent: May 18, 2009 1:43:00 PM

The Sunday Times (UK)
The hunt ban: a bad law with nowhere to run
Penny Mortimer
May 17, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6301515.ece

Thank God for our sensible police forces. At a time when our
parliament is in complete disarray, the Association of Chief Police
Officers has announced that the ban on hunting is hard to enforce and
chief constables have more pressing priorities.

To force the ban through, more than 700 hours of parliamentary time
and the Parliament Act were used to introduce a ridiculous and badly
drafted bill. Since then there have been eight prosecutions of hunts,
of which only three have been successful.

Tony Wright, a huntsman in Devon, was in 2006 found guilty of illegal
hunting by a district judge at Barnstaple magistrates’ court in a
private prosecution taken out by the League Against Cruel Sports.
After 3½ years, his case ended up in the High Court and he was
acquitted.

The judgment interpreted the muddled law in such a way that two other
prosecutions were dropped. If the courts can’t decide how to deal with
this law, how can the police be expected to do so? There have been
scenes of high comedy, with packs of hounds, huntsmen, saboteurs and
policemen chasing each other round England’s pastures green.

There are 325 registered hunts in England and Wales and, as a result
of the publicity engendered by the ban, more people than ever before
are today following them, on foot or on horses or in cars. The police
know that 99.9% of them are decent, law-abiding citizens who hold no
brief for cruelty to animals.

The truth is that when this law came about Tony Blair, then prime
minister, and other middle-of-the-road new Labour bigwigs had no real
interest in banning hunting. Indeed, I had always wondered if the
£1.1m they received from animal rights organisations, including the
Political Animal Lobby, influenced their policy. A hunting ban was a
bone to be thrown to their tiresome backbench dogs, many of whom saw
it as “a revenge for the miners”, assuming that everyone who followed
hounds was a signed-up Tory toff who had cheered for Margaret Thatcher
when she closed down the mines.

I went to Wales before the ban and met former miners who said their
jobs had been taken away from them, they couldn’t afford to go on
holiday, no leisure centres had been built for them and now the
powers-that-be wanted to take away hunting, their only pastime and
pleasure.

By contrast, the zealots of the animal rights movement were delighted
when the ban came into effect. In the 1990s I helped to run an
organisation called Leave Country Sports Alone which represented
members and supporters of the Labour party who objected to the
proposed bill.

I received through the post not only razor blades stuck to the inside
of an envelope, but also excrement – whether human or otherwise I
didn’t care to investigate – which Terry, our poor postman, was
required by law to deliver, even though the package had broken open en
route.

I also received anonymous letters with such messages as “I hope your
balls drop off (if you have any) and your fannies shrivel and dry up”
and “I hope you get cancer and die a slow and painful death. Yours
sincerely a well wisher”.

Earlier this year a supporter of the Warwickshire hunt was killed by a
gyrocopter that had been used by anti-hunt “monitors” to follow the
hunt for some weeks. A man linked to a local animal rights group,
Protect Our Wild Animals, has been charged with murder and is now
awaiting trial.

Animal rights “monitors” must be instructed firmly that it is the role
of the police, and no one else, to uphold the law. Activists cannot
appoint themselves to police hunting any more than other citizens can
appoint themselves to police any other law.

The Hunting Act has done nothing to improve animal welfare but has, in
fact, harmed it. The rights and wrongs of hunting have been debated ad
nauseam for decades. It has to be accepted that legislation cannot
change the predatory instincts of foxes or the views of farmers who
seek to protect their pigs, sheep and poultry.

In places where there is now no hunting, such as over National Trust
land, the fox population is contained by trapping or shooting or
worse. It is an utter fallacy to believe that shooting involves less
suffering for foxes than hunting. Many people argue that it would be
better for the welfare of the fox if there were more hunting taking
place than at present.

There are no reasonable arguments left for retaining the Hunting Act.
Bad laws should be repealed and this is a very bad law. David Cameron
said about it last year: “It’s quite clear it isn’t working. There are
more people hunting than ever before. The law is being made to look an
idiot and that isn’t a good situation to be in. We have a very clear
position on this: there will be a free vote and if there is a vote to
repeal the hunting ban, there will be a government bill in government
time.”

For the sake of our overburdened policemen, trying to foil terrorist
plots, solve knife crime and keep the traffic moving, let’s hope he is
one politician who will stick to his word.

Glad I don't live in jolly ole England. Imagine having to register a fox hunt with the federal government.

I once saw a tv show featuring a high speed car chase in England through the winding streets of those towns. Had to have been going all of 35 mph. Might have gotten up to 45 in the countryside between towns. Can't imagine living in a country you could drive across in 2 hours if there was a decent highway.

amusing really imo...