# Hunt sab knocks huntsman unconscious



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Just for a bit of balance, I know there are good and bad everywhere.

Joint Master of Tedworth Hunt is beaten unconscious by protesters with iron bars | Daily Mail Online


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

good, taste of his own medicine.
Funny how they dont like hunting when theyre the ones being hunted...


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Just for a bit of balance, I know there are good and bad everywhere.
> 
> Joint Master of Tedworth Hunt is beaten unconscious by protesters with iron bars | Daily Mail Online


According to Stop The Cull on FB, the hunt attacked the sabs first in a 2 on 1 situation. It can be caught very briefly at the beginning of the video. They also clarified that they do NOT spray the dogs, only the ground where they are trying to cover up any fox scent.

As this is being reported in the Daily Mail, I know who my money is on for telling the actual truth......

.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Anyone, regardless of their motives, who resorts to violence is the lowest of the low IMO.

They do their causes no good at all.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Firstly, I'm completely anti -hunting. Having said that, I do have concerns to the motivation of some of the sabs, who seem to be more about having a fight than protecting animals. Hope he makes a full recovery, both for his family's sake and the family of the sab. Worst case scenario could have been death or coma, and a prison term for the culprit. How does that help anyone?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> *Anyone, regardless of their motives*, who resorts to violence is the lowest of the low IMO.


so if someone was to attack me and i defended myself i'd be the lowest of the low? "ok"

I say we've been placid for far too long.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Nobody has the right to beat another person into unconsciousness with an iron bar.

I am very anti-hunting, but I'm also anti violence.

I don't believe the Protestors help their cause with this kind of behaviour.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

This wasn't self defence with a walking stick/bit of tree branch/anything that came to hand, it was going into a confrontation carrying a weapon. Thank God it wasn't more serious for all concerned, sab as well as huntsman.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> This wasn't self defence with a walking stick/bit of tree branch/anything that came to hand, it was going into a confrontation carrying a weapon. Thank God it wasn't more serious for all concerned, sab as well as huntsman.


i didnt say THAT was self defense. i wasnt there so i couldnt say whether it was or wasnt. I just offered a hypothetical situation to see if the statement "anyone, *regardless of their motives,* who resorts to violence is the lowest of the low." actually holds true. i personally dont think it does.


----------



## ItsonlyChris (Mar 12, 2013)

The protesters were not at risk. It was unprovoked violence which could have potentially ended in manslaughter.

There isn't any justification for what they did and I hope that they spend time in prison when they are caught.


----------



## Sparkle22 (Oct 26, 2013)

The article says during a DRAG HUNT so an animal free hunt where the hounds follow a lure?
What on earth is wrong with people?!
I dislike people who kill or maim others for fun intensely, like fox hunters, but this is so out of order!
They weren't even after real foxes?!


----------



## Apollo2012 (Jun 10, 2013)

MoggyBaby said:


> According to Stop The Cull on FB, the hunt attacked the sabs first in a 2 on 1 situation. It can be caught very briefly at the beginning of the video. They also clarified that they do NOT spray the dogs, only the ground where they are trying to cover up any fox scent.
> 
> As this is being reported in the Daily Mail, I know who my money is on for telling the actual truth......
> 
> .


You say they 'apparently' didn't attack first yet these sabs have weapons not just a stick or something randomly picked up to 'defend' themselves but weapons they've brought with them and used to seriously hurt someone.

This hunt was a drag hunt no foxes involved so no need for spraying the dogs with 'citronella' and these people were clearly out looking to make trouble this wasn't first reported by the daily mail either so saying because it's a daily mail article means they aren't telling the truth doesn't really mean anything. Infact the article I read last night on horse and hound contains a comment from someone who was there and filmed it they said

*'Having read this article I fully agree with the Tedworth Hunts account of what happened. Although I have too say that the hunt master has no need too claim he was kicked in the head. I can 110% say he was definitely kicked several times in the head and that the anti's were indeed carrying metal bars attached too ropes. I can fully back this article as I am the member of the public who filmed the incident and have given a statement along with copies of the assault to the police. From the footage I took I was able too take several clear images of the anti's who committed this unprovoked attack and these have also been passed too the police. I can confirm I have nothing too do with the Tedworth Hunt, but I'm glad that I had my phone too hand as this attack began and will assist the police in any way I can to help them with their inquiries. I wish the hunt master a speedy recovery'
*

Luckily the hunt I and my daughter go to watch (they drag hunt just for clarification) don't have any sabs following them around so I don't have to be worried about thugs like these. I'm not usually one to get involved in hunting debates but this is a disgusting thing to have happened and worrying too, a lot of hunts have children there both riding and watching.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Very sad and I am totally against hunting but to go with prepared weapons?????


----------



## Sparkle22 (Oct 26, 2013)

To be fair, there is a hell of a lot of footage showing huntsmen getting nasty with sabs first, attempting to run them over, ride horses into them etc.
I am not surprised they carry weapons to defend themselves.
They wear balaclavas to protect themselves from abuse by the hunt.

BUT I absolutely do not condone what these people did.
I feel these 'Sabs' are not true demonstrators but thugs, using sabbing as an excuse to beat people.
Even if the hunt attacked them first, self defence would be one or two whacks to get the person to leave you alone, not a senseless beating. 

Hope the huntsman makes a full recovery.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

It was a drag hunt so I don't understand why the Saboteurs were even there in the first place.

It seems clear that they had gone looking for trouble.


----------



## Apollo2012 (Jun 10, 2013)

Sparkle22 said:


> To be fair, there is a hell of a lot of footage showing huntsmen getting nasty with sabs first, attempting to run them over, ride horses into them etc.
> I am not surprised they carry weapons to defend themselves.
> They wear balaclavas to protect themselves from abuse by the hunt.
> 
> ...


If you watch that video the huntsman has already been attacked and is on the floor, so that video does not show people from the hunt attacking the sabs first.

Do you know how hard horses are to control??, especially out hunting. at every yard I've worked at most of the horses have hunted and just playing a recording of a hunt horn will get them excited and sometimes hard to handle.

they are also a prey animal being surrounded or approached by abusive people while out hunting when they're already wound up is a recipe for disaster, yet these sabs go on and get in the way, I know plenty of horses who are near enough unstoppable when out hunting to some idiot placing themselves in front of them is likely to get run down, you wouldn't run into a field of stampeding cows and expect them to stop just because your stood there. Do you know how much damage would be done to someone if they were actually really trampled by a horse??

As for the balaclavas nobody gives a damn who they are, people from the hunt aren't going to go out looking for sabs just because they saw their face that's ridiculous the only reason for covering there face is so they can't be identified when they do discusting things like this.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Sparkle22 said:


> To be fair, there is a hell of a lot of footage showing huntsmen getting nasty with sabs first, attempting to run them over, ride horses into them etc.
> I am not surprised they carry weapons to defend themselves.
> They wear balaclavas to protect themselves from abuse by the hunt.
> 
> ...


totally illegal to carry anything offensive as a weapon.....if they didn't go near the hunt, they wouldn't need to "defend" themselves.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Sweety said:


> It was a drag hunt so I don't understand why the Saboteurs were even there in the first place.
> 
> It seems clear that they had gone looking for trouble.


I used to go drag hunting but never met any sabs....but that was back in the day when fox hunting was still legal...so prob sabs were more interested in hunts going hunting rather than a scent.

I did hear of hounds flushing a hare or 2 when out on the drag but I never saw it.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Apollo2012 said:


> If you watch that video the huntsman has already been attacked and is on the floor, so that video does not show people from the hunt attacking the sabs first.
> 
> Do you know how hard horses are to control??, especially out hunting. at every yard I've worked at most of the horses have hunted and just playing a recording of a hunt horn will get them excited and sometimes hard to handle.
> 
> ...


if they cant control the horses they shouldnt be out with them. Why is it ok to have an out of control horse but not an out of control dog?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Catharinem said:


> This wasn't self defence with a walking stick/bit of tree branch/anything that came to hand, it was going into a confrontation carrying a weapon. Thank God it wasn't more serious for all concerned, sab as well as huntsman.


It was a whip they use for rating the hounds.



ItsonlyChris said:


> The protesters were not at risk. It was unprovoked violence which could have potentially ended in manslaughter.
> 
> There isn't any justification for what they did and I hope that they spend time in prison when they are caught.


How do you know the sabs weren't at risk & this was unprovoked violence? Because the Fail said so? And we all know the fail never distorts the truth lol 
Sabs face intimidation & violence from these knuckle draggers on a regular basis.

Pro fox hunters always say sabs are the violent ones, however they can rarely supply any evidence of this. On the other hand - heres an A to Z of hunt convictions Hunt convictions | Real Countryside Alliance

Hunt saboteur Hospitalised after Being ridden down by Fox hunter - Hunt Saboteurs Association

VIDEO: Police called to tense stand-off between huntsmen and saboteurs in Fife - Fife / Local / News / The Courier

Hunt saboteur 'beaten by gang' - Crime - UK - The Independent


----------



## Sparkle22 (Oct 26, 2013)

Apollo2012 said:


> If you watch that video the huntsman has already been attacked and is on the floor, so that video does not show people from the hunt attacking the sabs first.
> 
> Do you know how hard horses are to control??, especially out hunting. at every yard I've worked at most of the horses have hunted and just playing a recording of a hunt horn will get them excited and sometimes hard to handle.
> 
> ...


I wasn't referring to that video alone.
There is a lot of footage, taken over many years, of lots of different hunts.

I rode horses from four years old up to about 16 so I think I have a fair idea.
It's hard to claim over excitement though when you have watched footage showing huntsmen actually kicking and willing horses towards towards people...

Genuine sabs are not abusive people.
You want to talk about abusive then what about the hunts woman I saw in Spurs that kicked her horse so hard it had blood running down its legs and stomach? The footage that shows hounds being encouraged to run across a train track, the hounds that don't make the grade, injured animals, the threats of putting down the hounds when the ban came in despite knowing they could drag hunt them.
I could go on but I won't.

At the end of the day, I think what these people did to the huntsman is revolting.
I don't condone it all and said that clearly.
I merely explained why some sabd carry weapons and why they are covered. 
So why are you so aggressive in your post?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> if they cant control the horses they shouldnt be out with them. Why is it ok to have an out of control horse but not an out of control dog?


The horses aren't "out of control".

They can be a little wound up and excited when they know they're going to hunt and can be a little harder to keep control of.

If Hunt Saboteurs want to get themselves in the middle of that situation, then they run the risk of being injured.

Even then, if a horse hurt a Saboteur, it would be a genuine accident. Nothing accidental about them turning up to a Drag Hunt, wielding iron bars and beating a man unconscious.

I'm assuming the Huntsman will have been wearing his hard hat. Had he not been, I'm sure he could easily have been killed.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sweety said:


> I'm assuming the Huntsman will have been wearing his hard hat. Had he not been, I'm sure he could easily have been killed.


wonder how many foxes he's killed before it got banned. sorry i have no sympathy for them. what goes around comes around.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Ah peace and love until of course someone does something you don't agree with, then violence is perfectly acceptable. Just typical of some kinds of people who like to fantasise about being revolutionaries, god forbid any of you ever get actual power we've seen that happen over and over again.

I don't agree with fox hunting but I also don't agree with spraying dogs with citronella, reminds of those people who "Love" animals but want to go to westminster or crufts and throw things at the dogs. And I certainly don't agree with beating someone senseless with an iron bar. Maybe some of you do but that's up to your conscience.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Bullying an elderly lady

[youtube_browser]/jScSr_kVW78[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_browser]/bByOrAtl3rI[/youtube_browser]


----------



## Apollo2012 (Jun 10, 2013)

Sparkle22 said:


> I wasn't referring to that video alone.
> There is a lot of footage, taken over many years, of lots of different hunts.
> 
> I rode horses from four years old up to about 16 so I think I have a fair idea.
> ...


because there are no reasons to carry weapons, run about in balaclavas or on someone's private land without permission, my worry is the fact that it's not just adults out drag hunting it's children and teenagers too why shouldn't they be able to ride in or watch a legal hunt for fear of people like that running around in balaclavas and carrying weapons.

That's why my post may have came across as aggressive as a parent of a child who loves to watch the drag hunting, meet the people, horses and hounds and someone who knows people whose young children take part in them too, it sickens, saddens and downright scares me that people who advocate 'animal rights' can attack hounds and be verbally and physically abusive towards people for just doing something they enjoy that isn't illegal. if antis just stood there on the footpaths they're legally allowed to be on holding up signs there wouldn't be half as many problems but instead they seem to make it there goal to cause as much trouble as possible


----------



## Jackie99 (Mar 5, 2010)

They're stooping to their level by resorting to violence, these hunters are the worst kind of scum but no one is going to take anyone seriously if they use their fists to try and prove a point, don't have any sympathy at all for the huntsman though, see how he feels being set upon and way outnumbered.


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Sweety said:


> It was a drag hunt so I don't understand why the Saboteurs were even there in the first place.
> 
> It seems clear that they had gone looking for trouble.


Surely the only legal hunting is drag hunting , there not going to say they are out fox hunting are they


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Apollo2012 said:


> because there are no reasons to carry weapons, run about in balaclavas or on someone's private land without permission, my worry is the fact that it's not just adults out drag hunting it's children and teenagers too why shouldn't they be able to ride in or watch a legal hunt for fear of people like that running around in balaclavas and carrying weapons.
> 
> That's why my post may have came across as aggressive as a parent of a child who loves to watch the drag hunting, meet the people, horses and hounds and someone who knows people whose young children take part in them too, it sickens, saddens and downright scares me that people who advocate 'animal rights' can attack hounds and be verbally and physically abusive towards people for just doing something they enjoy that isn't illegal. if antis just stood there on the footpaths they're legally allowed to be on holding up signs there wouldn't be half as many problems but instead they seem to make it there goal to cause as much trouble as possible


They don't carry weapons, that was a whip used for rating the hounds.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Apollo2012 said:


> if antis just stood there on the footpaths they're legally allowed to be on holding up signs there wouldn't be half as many problems but instead they seem to make it there goal to cause as much trouble as possible


of thats what they are there for. the clue is in the name "saboteur".


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I have always been anti bloodsports but always loved horses. I first decided to go hunting cos I wanted the white knuckle ride...and to see if I could actually manage to get all the way round without falling......

Its a magical feeling and my horse loved it. When we got ready, her bottom lip used to quiver and her head went into obsession mode. and then everyone went to a really good pub afterwards...and people moaned at me cos they said it was cruel to horses.

I put off going for years, never ever had any grief from sabs.

I can totally sympathise with anybody getting upset at people going killing wildlife......but not to go with weapons..where will this end? Sabs take what appear to be iron bars and then the hunters take maybe a gun? Madness.

If sabs can take offensive weapons to protect themselves, hunters could use the same argument.

Not saying there aren't tragic stories from both sides and both sides guilty of illegal activity but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

As long as people go hunting....and drag hunts are known to actually hunt..then there will be people who oppose it so there is always going to be confrontation.

Can't be allowed to carry weapons though....madness.


----------



## Sparkle22 (Oct 26, 2013)

Apollo2012 said:


> because there are no reasons to carry weapons, run about in balaclavas or on someone's private land without permission, my worry is the fact that it's not just adults out drag hunting it's children and teenagers too why shouldn't they be able to ride in or watch a legal hunt for fear of people like that running around in balaclavas and carrying weapons.
> 
> That's why my post may have came across as aggressive as a parent of a child who loves to watch the drag hunting, meet the people, horses and hounds and someone who knows people whose young children take part in them too, it sickens, saddens and downright scares me that people who advocate 'animal rights' can attack hounds and be verbally and physically abusive towards people for just doing something they enjoy that isn't illegal. if antis just stood there on the footpaths they're legally allowed to be on holding up signs there wouldn't be half as many problems but instead they seem to make it there goal to cause as much trouble as possible


Well, I don't think you can really class these people as saboteurs.
What they are are thugs, I think it's like any controversial subject, there will always be certain individuals who are not in it for the cause, but using the cause as an excuse to riot and be violent.
Some sabs do carry weapons because they have been assaulted before.
So they carry them in case they need them in self defence.

I agree that people and children should be able to participate in legal hunts without fear of violence, I imagine that sabs attend certain drag hunts because those particular hunts have previous for openly flouting the law. 
The overwhelming manjority if Sabs have one aim - to intercept illegal hunting activity and avoid the death of an animal.
They aren't out to pick fights with people.

I certainly don't think any genuine sab is going to be attacking hounds.
Again, there is a lot of footage of sabs cuddling them, feeding them etc.
You can't blame the hound, it's only doing what it has been trained to do. 
Sabs do use citronella spray, to cover scent when the hounds are picking up fox scent.
But they don't go spraying it at the hounds or anything like it.
Let's not forget, many hounds and horses have suffered terrible abuse at the hands of certain hunts.

It isn't about causing trouble, it's about preventing the death of animals.
Holding a placard is fine, but it isn't going to save a fox if the hounds suddenly pick up the scent of one and veer off course.
Nor is it going to save a hare or cat that the hounds might spot and give chase after.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

No no they can carry weapons, their sense of superiority makes them better than the hunters duh . Thugs playing at being superior and loving animals, it's charming really.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

My hunting horse came to me as a bit of a sad case and had been used as a brood mare and basically had no life. 

She was very gentle and very steady and only 15hh so I thought well if I fell, not too far to fall.

She loved it and became totally heedless when we were out...but there wasn;t a nasty bone in her body.

Normally, a horse will avoid you...on hunting days, my gentle old mare would have walked through or jumped anything to get on a good white knuckle ride. She wasn't out of control, just enjoyed a good ride with plenty more horses.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sweety said:


> The horses aren't "out of control".
> 
> They can be a little wound up and excited when they know they're going to hunt and can be a little harder to keep control of.
> 
> ...


Yes they run the risk of being injured every time they go sabbing, that's how selfless they are.

This sab was ridden down by a huntsman and seriously injured. Hunt vehicles deliberately blocked the road to prevent the ambulance reaching her. People who put themselves at risk to defend the defenceless are true heroes in my eyes.

Hunt saboteur Hospitalised after Being ridden down by Fox hunter - Hunt Saboteurs Association


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Yes they run the risk of being injured every time they go sabbing, that's how selfless they are.
> 
> This sab was ridden down by a huntsman and seriously injured. Hunt vehicles deliberately blocked the road to prevent the ambulance reaching her. People who put themselves at risk to defend the defenceless are true heroes in my eyes.
> 
> Hunt saboteur Hospitalised after Being ridden down by Fox hunter - Hunt Saboteurs Association


I agree, I really do.

But what defenceless animal was being protected here? It was a drag hunt. Why the iron bars?

I really do question whether these people are genuine Hunt Saboteurs or weapon wielding thugs out to do real harm.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

should we have a thread about huntsmen committing violence upon sabbers, then link up lots of stories of sabbers committing violence upon huntsmen?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sweety said:


> I agree, I really do.
> 
> But what defenceless animal was being protected here? It was a drag hunt. Why the iron bars?
> 
> I really do question whether these people are genuine Hunt Saboteurs or weapon wielding thugs out to do real harm.


Foxes. The Tedworth hunt (like many 'drag' hunts) is notorious for hunting foxes illegally - hence why the sabs follow them. It was a whip with a wooden handle Sweety, not an iron bar.

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Tails and Trails said:


> should we have a thread about huntsmen committing violence upon sabbers, then link up lots of stories of sabbers committing violence upon huntsmen?


Do your worst


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Stupid thing to do and will not further the cause of those of us against hunting at all particularly with the election coming up where no doubt this subject will be discussed a great deal. I understand tempers run high and there is often provocation on both sides but violence doesn't solve anything. I know the drag hunts often do end up chasing and killing a fox so can see why the sabs still follow them but I think unless you know you can keep control of your temper you are best staying at home and fighting the cause in a different way. Unfortunately my usually quiet and mild mannered husband finds it very difficult to keep his temper around hunters so I spend most of hunting season trying to avoid going any place that we might run into them.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Do your worst


the point is, it would be inhumane


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

No, no one should be hit with an iron bar, maybe the dogs should have been set on him in stead.


----------



## spoiltmadam (May 21, 2013)

And what about the recent case of sabs using a hunting horn the other side of a dual carriageway, enticing the hounds across the road into danger! Not only endangering the hounds but the general public driving along that road, and the hunt staff who had to ride along the road to try cut the hounds off from endangering themselves and innocent drivers!!
Sabs are scum just out for trouble!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

spoiltmadam said:


> And what about the recent case of sabs using a hunting horn the other side of a dual carriageway, enticing the hounds across the road into danger! Not only endangering the hounds but the general public driving along that road, and the hunt staff who had to ride along the road to try cut the hounds off from endangering themselves and innocent drivers!!
> Sabs are scum just out for trouble!


No doubt someone will be along with articles solely from a pro-sab site, which totally isn't biased as all, to say that's rubbish. It doesn't surprise me though, they hardly have a reputation as animal lovers.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

spoiltmadam said:


> And what about the recent case of sabs using a hunting horn the other side of a dual carriageway, enticing the hounds across the road into danger! Not only endangering the hounds but the general public driving along that road, and the hunt staff who had to ride along the road to try cut the hounds off from endangering themselves and innocent drivers!!
> *Sabs are scum just out for trouble!*


Of course they are spoiltmadam. They are all nasty animal hating trouble makers. That reminds me my subs are overdue.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

spoiltmadam said:


> And what about the recent case of sabs using a hunting horn the other side of a dual carriageway, enticing the hounds across the road into danger! Not only endangering the hounds but the general public driving along that road, and the hunt staff who had to ride along the road to try cut the hounds off from endangering themselves and innocent drivers!!
> *Sabs are scum just out for trouble!*


That's as bad as calling all people who hunt, bloodthirsty killers :hand:

I'm sure some sabs are genuine animal lovers. I've just never seen that type. Most around here seem to be rent a mob who run around scaring the locals


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Sweety said:


> It was a drag hunt so I don't understand why the Saboteurs were even there in the first place.
> 
> It seems clear that they had gone looking for trouble.


Unfortunately, a lot of saboteurs are trouble makers rather than animal lovers. How can anyone object to a drag hunt? Despicable and shows sabs in their true colours - thugs.


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> Unfortunately, a lot of saboteurs are trouble makers rather than animal lovers. How can anyone object to a drag hunt? Despicable and shows sabs in their true colours - thugs.


Probably the same people who turn up to Anti-Capitalist marches just to have a scrap with the Police


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

negative creep said:


> Probably the same people who turn up to Anti-Capitalist marches just to have a scrap with the Police


Wherever you get possible conflict you'll have those who simply want the adrenaline rush. What is necessary is complete condemnation from both sides with no excuses or justification for violence.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

negative creep said:


> Probably the same people who turn up to Anti-Capitalist marches just to have a scrap with the Police


Yep the rent-a-mob types for all your protesting needs . Found anywhere they can act like thugs then play the victim.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

rocco33 said:


> Unfortunately, a lot of saboteurs are trouble makers rather than animal lovers. How can anyone object to a drag hunt? Despicable and shows sabs in their true colours - thugs.


I've met many many sabs over the years and the vast majority have been animal lovers and non violent. As others have said some tag along just to cause trouble as they do on all sorts of demonstrations. Sadly drag hunts frequently do chase and kill foxes "by accident" apparently.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

spoiltmadam said:


> And what about the recent case of sabs using a hunting horn the other side of a dual carriageway, enticing the hounds across the road into danger! Not only endangering the hounds but the general public driving along that road, and the hunt staff who had to ride along the road to try cut the hounds off from endangering themselves and innocent drivers!!
> Sabs are scum just out for trouble!


Have you got a link to this case?

What do you think of scum like this then?









Nicky10 said:


> No doubt someone will be along with articles solely from a pro-sab site, which totally isn't biased as all, to say that's rubbish. It doesn't surprise me though, they hardly have a reputation as animal lovers.


If this is a dig at me Nicky, they are of course bias sources, but that doesn't make them any less factual - convictions & video footage as evidence Sabs have a reputation as selfless heroes in the circles I move in. They not only save animals from cruel hunts but goodness knows how many badgers they saved in the badger culls. I for one am eternally grateful to these people for the sacrifices they make protecting our wildlife from brutal thugs!



rocco33 said:


> Unfortunately, a lot of saboteurs are trouble makers rather than animal lovers. How can anyone object to a drag hunt? Despicable and shows sabs in their true colours - thugs.


The Tedworth hunt isn't infact a drag hunt but a trial hunt - basically a cover for illegal fox hunting. Fail being deliberately misleading as per.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I've met many many sabs over the years and the vast majority have been animal lovers and non violent. As others have said some tag along just to cause trouble as they do on all sorts of demonstrations. Sadly drag hunts frequently do chase and kill foxes "by accident" apparently.


Hunting is illegal - what makes them think it is acceptable to act as vigilantes - it is not. There are legal channels to go down but beating someone senseless is not the way even if they are an obnoxious upper class twit!

The thing that really gets me about these so called animal loving sabs is that they have no worries about hurting the dogs or horses involved - talk about hypocrites!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

As I did say earlier I oppose fox hunting and find it utterly barbaric. I just find it funny that people who hate war will support violence on a smaller scale because it matches their ambitions. It just brings to mind certain other revolutionaries from the last century. I don't support the sabs or the hunters attacking each other.

I wouldn't believe what those sources said without outside verification any more than I would hunters saying they were innocent of it. We all know the facts can be twisted to say whatever the person wants them to.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> Hunting is illegal - what makes them think it is acceptable to act as vigilantes - it is not. There are legal channels to go down but beating someone senseless is not the way even if they are an obnoxious upper class twit!
> 
> The thing that really gets me about these so called animal loving sabs is that they have no worries about hurting the dogs or horses involved - talk about hypocrites!


Genuine sabs love ALL animals. All these tales of sabs hurting horses & hounds & have you ever seen a single piece of evidence to prove it? I haven't & yet I can show you plenty of hunt members hurting horses & hounds.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

porps said:


> so if someone was to attack me and i defended myself i'd be the lowest of the low? "ok"
> 
> I say we've been placid for far too long.


That's not what I meant at all. Defending oneself is one thing.

To attack another person physically because you don't agree with the fact that they hunt foxes *is* pretty low IMO.

Just as it would be if a huntsman attacked a sab for trying to spoil the hunt.

(BTW - I did not click on the link, but was responding to the idea of people using violence against others.)


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Nicky10 said:


> As I did say earlier I oppose fox hunting and find it utterly barbaric. I just find it funny that people who hate war will support violence on a smaller scale because it matches their ambitions. It just brings to mind certain other revolutionaries from the last century. I don't support the sabs or the hunters attacking each other.
> 
> I wouldn't believe what those sources said without outside verification any more than I would hunters saying they were innocent of it. We all know the facts can be twisted to say whatever the person wants them to.


They don't support violence, they are trying to stop violence to wildlife.

Yet you seem to believe this fail article



Nicky10 said:


> No no they can carry weapons, their sense of superiority makes them better than the hunters duh . Thugs playing at being superior and loving animals, it's charming really.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> I wouldn't believe what those sources said without outside verification any more than I would hunters saying they were innocent of it. We all know the facts can be twisted to say whatever the person wants them to.


I wouldn't trust the sources either but the excuses and justifications coming out show the mentality of some of those involved in the scene and that is just as telling.

Police investigate clash between hunt and saboteurs that left huntsman unconscious - Horse & Hound is the link previously mentioned with the comment which indicates a video of the incident has been given to the police.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Genuine sabs love ALL animals. All these tales of sabs hurting horses & hounds & have you ever seen a single piece of evidence to prove it? I haven't & yet I can show you plenty of hunt members hurting horses & hounds.


Not hunting but I've seen them on shoots! and yes, they did try to hurt the dogs.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Please don't post horrific pictures on threads. Post a link by all means, with a warning.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> Hunting is illegal - what makes them think it is acceptable to act as vigilantes - it is not. There are legal channels to go down but beating someone senseless is not the way even if they are an obnoxious upper class twit!!


hahahaha, good one. legal channels... might aswell just pray for change instead, would be just as (un)likely to yield a result.



Lurcherlad said:


> That's not what I meant at all. Defending oneself is one thing.


Ah right. Then please excuse me for wrongly interpreting "any reason" as meaning "*any* reason". Hopefully you can understand how that can be confusing for those of us here without psychic powers.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> I wouldn't trust the sources either but the excuses and justifications coming out show the mentality of some of those involved in the scene and that is just as telling.
> 
> Police investigate clash between hunt and saboteurs that left huntsman unconscious - Horse & Hound is the link previously mentioned with the comment which indicates a video of the incident has been given to the police.


Yes because some of us know the depths these blood thirsty liars will stoop to.

And the sabs side of the story -



__ https://www.facebook.com/huntsabs/posts/838014216256014



Berkshire Hunt Sabs via Somerset Hunt Saboteur Group
3 hrs · 
"Shocking moment master of the hunt is beaten unconscious"
****Reality check****
Only 15 seconds of video (convenient that!) edited by the hunt. If you look closely at the start of the video you will see the end of two hunt staff attacking one sab, edited to only show the sab fighting back.
As you can expect this story is full of lies and propaganda. Why has the video evidence been cut to hide the attack that the video starts on? Why can we not see the hunts master unconscious? And metal bars? This 'metal bar' looks flexible, in actual fact it is a whip the sab is carrying! But hunt never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
This is what we face every week out in the field, but if we DARE to defend ourselves from their weekly attacks WE are called the thugs. Why should we have to get beaten up every week by these criminals?
Five months after a sab was put in intensive care by a hunts master.
In solidarity.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

With some of the attitudes of these hunt masters I can see why people would feel the urge to enact violence on them as bad as it sounds. Not that it makes it right but it's a very emotional topic for many people on both sides and well, when emotions run high things often get out of hand.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

porps said:


> hahahaha, good one. legal channels... might aswell just pray for change instead, would be just as (un)likely to yield a result.
> 
> *Ah right. Then please excuse me for wrongly interpreting "any reason" as meaning "any reason". Hopefully you can understand how that can be confusing for those of us here without psychic powers*.




:dita:


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

rocco33 said:


> Hunting is illegal - what makes them think it is acceptable to act as vigilantes - it is not. There are legal channels to go down but beating someone senseless is not the way even if they are an obnoxious upper class twit!
> 
> The thing that really gets me about these so called animal loving sabs is that they have no worries about hurting the dogs or horses involved - talk about hypocrites!


I already said way back in the thread that I don't agree with violence and think it was a stupid thing to do but I also know from my own experience that thugs do join any demo that they think is anti establishment and where there might be a chance to cause trouble. You might call them hypocrites but then do you actually know any? I call them dedicated and selfless individuals who are prepared to put their own safety at risk to protect foxes from these countryside vandals who happen to think they have a divine right to kill anything they like and wow betide anyone who gets in their way.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I already said way back in the thread that I don't agree with violence and think it was a stupid thing to do but I also know from my own experience that thugs do join any demo that they think is anti establishment and where there might be a chance to cause trouble.* You might call them hypocrites but then do you actually know any?* I call them dedicated and selfless individuals who are prepared to put their own safety at risk to protect foxes from these countryside vandals who happen to think they have a divine right to kill anything they like and wow betide anyone who gets in their way.


Personally, no. But I have already said they have come on shoots I've been on and yes, they did try to get to the dogs - so much being animal lovers!!!!!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

How can the answer to a perceived act of violence to be to exact your own justice through violence?

I abhor fox hunting and have always spoken out against it. Hunting any creature from fox to bird is barbaric, in my view.

Beating someone's head with metal rods is barbaric too and will achieve absolutely nothing.

Nobody has the right to play God over Man or Beast.

You cannot rule out a wrong by carrying out your own act of wrong.

How can these Saboteurs condemn those who hunt wildlife and yet nearly kill a man by battering him?

These Saboteurs are, apparently, there to try and ensure an animal is not treated mercilessly and yet, they think it's justifiable to beat someone in this way.

I'll say it again. I question whether these thugs are genuinely there to protect wildlife. It was a drag hunt. Does it not equate to 'football fans' who turn up to matches in the hope of a violent encounter with the opposing fans after the match?

They have no real interest in football ........ they're looking for an opportunity to unlease their violence


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> Personally, no. But I have already said they have come on shoots I've been on and yes, they did try to get to the dogs - so much for their animal loving traits!!!!!


Bit like the so called animal lovers who released mink into the British countryside!


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

No matter how just your cause there are certain types of people that you do not want representing it because they do more harm than good. If you are represented by those wearing balaclavas and wielding makeshift weapons it's not going to look good. You cannot take the moral high ground by taking the moral low ground.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

"those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable"

"violence may not be the answer but it is an option"

"sometimes violence IS the answer"

"Violence isnt the answer... Violence is a question, and the answer is yes."


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

porps said:


> "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable"
> 
> "violence may not be the answer but it is an option"
> 
> ...


Well be sure to let me know when you have the secret police and internment camps running.


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

They were not hunt sabs, they were a bunch of mindless cowards not brave enough to show their faces out to make trouble
It was a DRAG HUNT for goodness sake.Or do they believe a DRAG is a fluffy animal being chased by a pack of ferocious dogs


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> Personally, no. But I have already said they have come on shoots I've been on and yes, they did try to get to the dogs - so much being animal lovers!!!!!


Then they weren't genuine sabs because most sabs are people like me who feel compassion for ALL species of animal. And sab groups will not tolerate cruelty to ANY animal, some one hurting a dog/horse would be ostracised. When sabs sab shoots they don't even need to have any contact with the dogs like they do with hounds, just their presence is enough to disrupt a shoot. The shooters cant shoot their guns if people are at risk of being hurt. I hope you contacted the police because these people really aren't genuine sabs.



Sweety said:


> How can the answer to a perceived act of violence to be to exact your own justice through violence?
> 
> I abhor fox hunting and have always spoken out against it. Hunting any creature from fox to bird is barbaric, in my view.
> 
> ...





diefenbaker said:


> No matter how just your cause there are certain types of people that you do not want representing it because they do more harm than good. If you are represented by those wearing balaclavas and wielding makeshift weapons it's not going to look good. You cannot take the moral high ground by taking the moral low ground.





Bisbow said:


> They were not hunt sabs, they were a bunch of mindless cowards not brave enough to show their faces out to make trouble
> It was a DRAG HUNT for goodness sake.Or do they believe a DRAG is a fluffy animal being chased by a pack of ferocious dogs


OK i'll try again.

1) The Tedworth hunt is not a DRAG HUNT it is a TRAIL HUNT. In a trail hunt they use fox urine because they want to keep the hounds interested in foxes. Why do you think foxes are still being killed illegally by hunts?. Sabs would love to be redundant , for hunts to act within law, but trail hunts think they are above the law - the killing goes on.

2) No one was carrying a weapon - it was NOT an iron bar it WAS A WHIP (they use for rating the hounds.) It was used in self defence. The video has been edited.

I wonder how many of you would _normally_ dismiss a fail story as inaccurate? :/

-



__ https://www.facebook.com/huntsabs/posts/838014216256014



Berkshire Hunt Sabs via Somerset Hunt Saboteur Group
3 hrs · 
"Shocking moment master of the hunt is beaten unconscious"
****Reality check****
Only 15 seconds of video (convenient that!) edited by the hunt. If you look closely at the start of the video you will see the end of two hunt staff attacking one sab, edited to only show the sab fighting back.
As you can expect this story is full of lies and propaganda. Why has the video evidence been cut to hide the attack that the video starts on? Why can we not see the hunts master unconscious? And metal bars? This 'metal bar' looks flexible, in actual fact it is a whip the sab is carrying! But hunt never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
This is what we face every week out in the field, but if we DARE to defend ourselves from their weekly attacks WE are called the thugs. Why should we have to get beaten up every week by these criminals?
Five months after a sab was put in intensive care by a hunts master.
In solidarity.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> Hunting is illegal - what makes them think it is acceptable to act as vigilantes - it is not. There are legal channels to go down but beating someone senseless is not the way even if they are an obnoxious upper class twit!
> 
> The thing that really gets me about these so called animal loving sabs is that they have no worries about hurting the dogs or horses involved - talk about hypocrites!


Hunting with dogs is illegal but it still goes on. Unless someone is out there with the hounds etc then they can't know exactly what is going on...and its this sense of injustice that pushes some people into doing this sort of thing.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> *Then they weren't genuine sabs* because most sabs are people like me who feel compassion for ALL species of animal. And sab groups will not tolerate cruelty to ANY animal, some one hurting a dog/horse would be ostracised. When sabs sab shoots they don't even need to have any contact with the dogs like they do with hounds, just their presence is enough to disrupt a shoot. The shooters cant shoot their guns if people are at risk of being hurt. I hope you contacted the police because these people really aren't genuine sabs.
> 
> .


Well, they were sabs because that was what they set out to do - sabotage the day and they did (for a while). They may not have been YOUR idea of a sab, but they were still sabs and to anyone looking on or on the other side they were sabs.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

rocco33 said:


> Well, they were sabs because that was what they set out to do - sabotage the day and they did (for a while). They may not have been YOUR idea of a sab, but they were still sabs and to anyone looking on or on the other side they were sabs.


quite

thats de ja vu on all those they arent real muslim threads when talking about the terrorists.
such a statement is a bit empty and inconsequential really to the issue really


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> Well, they were sabs because that was what they set out to do - sabotage the day and they did (for a while). They may not have been YOUR idea of a sab, but they were still sabs and to anyone looking on or on the other side they were sabs.


Sabotaging shoots is exactly their aim - but why would they need to harm the dogs to do that? All they need to do is to put themselves in the way of the guns & the shoot has to pack up.

Like this - 














I can assure you that was not a genuine sab group.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Debate all you want. The fact of the matter is its a daily fail article so you will never know facts! Speculate away


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

Trail or Drag makes no difference, beating someone unconscious with a weapon, and a whip is a weapon when used that way, of any sort is brutal and unforgivable. There is no excuse fort that sort of behaviour what ever your beliefs are.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

ClaireLouise said:


> Debate all you want. The fact of the matter is its a daily fail article so you will never know facts! Speculate away


And the other side of the story is on Facebook so it must be 100% accurate 

Any one going with a weapon and their face hidden is clearly intending to break the law - its for that very reason many people do not support their cause


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ClaireLouise said:


> Debate all you want. The fact of the matter is its a daily fail article so you will never know facts! Speculate away


conversely, just because its in the daily fail, doesnt mean it isnt factual

you could say the same about the BBC

i remember everyone quoting the mail over a story entitled Nigel Farage tells breast feeding women to go in the corned covered in a blanket.
which referred to a half hour show he does on LBC, when he never quite said that, as they had taken, in true tabloid style, a couple comments out of context of an entire conversation

the fail has an agenda, an agenda equal to those that will dismiss instantly dismiss a story just because its in the mail, or quote a story from the mail


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Bisbow said:


> Trail or Drag makes no difference, beating someone unconscious with a weapon, and a whip is a weapon when used that way, of any sort is brutal and unforgivable. There is no excuse fort that sort of behaviour what ever your beliefs are.


And what if its used in self defence?



DoodlesRule said:


> And the other side of the story is on Facebook so it must be 100% accurate
> 
> Any one going with a weapon and their face hidden is clearly intending to break the law - its for that very reason many people do not support their cause


They take a whip for rating the hounds. They hide their faces for fear of reprisals from the hunt mob.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

people _also _hide there faces in order not to be recognizable to the authorities.
thats a no brainer


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> And what if its used in self defence?
> 
> They take a whip for rating the hounds. They hide their faces for fear of reprisals from the hunt mob.


They hide their faces because they are cowards, the huntsmen don't hide theirs

Self defence ??? One man with his face on view against a mob of people with hidden faces. Or was the huntsman Hercules and could beat them all unless they used weapons.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Tails and Trails said:


> people _also _hide there faces in order not to be recognizable to the authorities.
> thats a no brainer


Yes that's another reason they wear them - aggravated trespass is a 'crime' they commit all the time.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

if i were a hunt sabber, and i dont particularly have a general issue with hunt sabbing, then i would be seething right now, as it reflects badly upon me

i wouldnt be using all my time and energy looking for mitigation


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Well, after reading through this thread I can now fully understand why the country is in the state it is - because so many people think what is reported in the media press is the absolute truth.

Try to tell them this is not the case and we get a classic example of this:










If the population of this country were to wake up and realise just how much we are manipulated by the government and the media there WOULD be a revolution!!! But there's no chance of that ever happening because folks enjoy their quiet, easy lives too much!

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Bisbow said:


> They hide their faces because they are cowards, the huntsmen don't hide theirs
> 
> Self defence ??? One man with his face on view against a mob of people with hidden faces. Or was the huntsman Hercules and could beat them all unless they used weapons.


Cowards? I don't think so. They risk serious assault everytime they go sabbing. Here is a list of hunt scum CONVICTED for serious attacks on sabs. Hunt convictions | Real Countryside Alliance
I challenge you to show me half as many sab convictions for serious assaults on huntsmen?

The Berkshire sabs have slowed the video down - have a look what you think of the situation now.

https://m.facebook.com/huntsabs

.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> *Sabotaging shoots is exactly their aim *- but why would they need to harm the dogs to do that? All they need to do is to put themselves in the way of the guns & the shoot has to pack up.
> 
> Like this -
> 
> ...


Actually, it wasn't - they came to sabotage the hunt next door but when they found the hounds were all in their kennels they heard the gunshot and decided to not to waste the day  The shoot didn't pack up, the police were called and they went eventually went on their way, but they were hypocrites. They didn't even intend to come to a shoot, then they decided they'd kick up at a legal activity.

PS - it has nothing to do with giving assurance that as to whether they were genuine or not. They were hunt saboteurs - end of story. The ideal that all hunt saboteurs are animal lovers is a myth. Some are, some are thugs out for a fight, and for some it has a class issue as they see bloodsports as the sports of the wealthy (they are wrong on that). They are all saboteurs and they have their own agenda.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> Actually, it wasn't - they came to sabotage the hunt next door but when they found the hounds were all in their kennels they heard the gunshot and decided to not to waste the day  The shoot didn't pack up, the police were called and they went eventually went on their way, but they were hypocrites. They didn't even intend to come to a shoot, then they decided they'd kick up at a legal activity.


That isn't hypocritical to me, if they can save any life it would be a successful days sabbing imo.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> Actually, it wasn't - they came to sabotage the hunt next door but when they found the hounds were all in their kennels they heard the gunshot and decided to not to waste the day  The shoot didn't pack up, the police were called and they went eventually went on their way, but they were hypocrites. They didn't even intend to come to a shoot, then they decided *they'd kick up at a legal activity*.


What, like drag hunts?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> What, like drag hunts?


It was a TRAIL hunt


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> That isn't hypocritical to me, if they can save any life it would be a successful days sabbing imo.


I meant hypocrites that they were trying to save the birds but were quite happy to try to kick the dogs.
They may have been trying to make a point, but they were no animal lovers if they were prepared to hurt dogs in the process.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> It was a TRAIL hunt


Here Noush, have one of these to bang your head against - the people just ain't for listening!!!










.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MoggyBaby said:


> Here Noush, have one of these to bang your head against - the people just ain't for listening!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


HAHA thank you MB! I needed that


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> I meant hypocrites that they were trying to save the birds but were quite happy to try to kick the dogs.
> They may have been trying to make a point, but they were no animal lovers if they were prepared to hurt dogs in the process.


No if they kicked the dogs they weren't animal lovers. These are not your regular saboteurs at all. To stop a shoot there isn't even need to have contact with the dogs


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Trail Hunting | HuntingAct.org

Notes on Trail Hunting
"The trail is laid across the country taking a route that might be taken by a fox  ie through hedgerows and woods and along ditches in essence simulating the natural movement of a fox across the countryside. It is laid by dragging a scent infected sock/cloth/sack along the ground. This can be done from a horse, a quad-bike or on foot, though good results maybe best achieved using a combination of all three. Common sense dictates that it is easier to walk or run through thick cover than to try to ride a bike through it.

The trail is not laid constantly, but is occasionally lifted for a distance of, say, 400 yards and then dropped again thus allowing the hounds to cast (ie to fan out to search (using their noses) for the scent) as they would have done when hunting a live quarry. The less that the Huntsman or the followers know of the route of the trail, the more the hunting will mimic its realistic and challenging form."


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

When I was younger I used to ride and drag hunt. I never hunted foxes, I didn't like it then and I don't now.
I try to see both sides of the coin but noushka, you won't or can't see both sides your mind is so set against people who hunt.
It is pointless arguing with a stone wall so I will leave you with your beliefs and keep mine.
There is blame on both sides but I still think knocking someone unconscious is uncalled for


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Bisbow said:


> When I was younger I used to ride and drag hunt. I never hunted foxes, I didn't like it then and I don't now.
> I try to see both sides of the coin but noushka, you won't or can't see both sides your mind is so set against people who hunt.
> It is pointless arguing with a stone wall so I will leave you with your beliefs and keep mine.
> There is blame on both sides but I still think knocking someone unconscious is uncalled for


You didn't watch the unedited video then? You must admit you are a tad bias towards the hunters though Brisbow lol

I cant ever see both sides. I will never agree that killing animals for 'sport' is ever acceptable. To kill animals for some perverse pleasure is totally beyond me.

But I'm happy to agree to disagree with you


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I don't even want to see both sides of the coin when it involves arrogant ******s out to rip foxes to shreds  and Yes, while most hunts remain in the law now, doesn't stop their attitudes and want to overturn the law to be able to continue hunting foxes. While drag hunting sounds fun for those who take part, the attitudes don't sound like fun!


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> You didn't watch the unedited video then? You must admit you are a tad bias towards the hunters though Brisbow lol
> 
> I cant ever see both sides. I will never agree that killing animals for 'sport' is ever acceptable. To kill animals for some perverse pleasure is totally beyond me.
> 
> But I'm happy to agree to disagree with you


I did see the video but it was so small it was hard to make out and who is to say it was not reedited. ( Mypoor old eyes arn't what they were)

I am only biased towards rhe hunters because the don't hide their faces.

No hard feelings then, we agree to disagree


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Trail Hunting | HuntingAct.org
> 
> Notes on Trail Hunting
> "The trail is laid across the country taking a route that might be taken by a fox  ie through hedgerows and woods and along ditches in essence simulating the natural movement of a fox across the countryside. It is laid by dragging a scent infected sock/cloth/sack along the ground. This can be done from a horse, a quad-bike or on foot, though good results maybe best achieved using a combination of all three. Common sense dictates that it is easier to walk or run through thick cover than to try to ride a bike through it.
> ...


Exactly! which is why trail hounds still hunt the scent of REAL LIVE foxes - & 'accidentally' rip them to shreds!


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

When you watch the unedited video, and watch the area round the hunt master, there are no sabs anywhere near him when he 'falls over' - no one close enough to knock him unconcious except his own people.  

So how can the sabs be blamed for it?

Oh... of course... it's the Daily Lies printing it that's why!!!! DUH!!!!!!! 

There are none so blind as those who can see but won't open their eyes to look. 

.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Bisbow said:


> They hide their faces because they are cowards, the huntsmen don't hide theirs
> 
> Self defence ??? One man with his face on view against a mob of people with hidden faces. Or was the huntsman Hercules and could beat them all unless they used weapons.


I don't think I'd describe someone who stands in the way of a horse or gets in the way of a shoot a coward. Depends what your idea of a coward is I suppose. Mine is a bunch of yobs dressed in red jackets acting like they own the countryside and inflicting their out of control packs of hounds on the general public. You know the type that really really want to get back to being allowed to rip foxes to pieces and then wipe the blood over the faces of the young children. It actually takes guts to stand up to these people. When we had horses and kept them on a livery yard I once dared to tell the master of the local hunt who was in talking to the yard owner that I didn't approve of his "sport" (back when hunting was legal), he tried to get the yard owner to get rid of me because we don't want her sort associated with keeping horses.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Report I read says he stated he fell down, not was forced down. The thing is, once down he was hit repeatedly. I suppose people are saying he did that himself. Knocking someone down and continuing an attack you could say is spur of the moment for one or two blows. Hitting someone who is down already is the act of a opportunist coward.

Nobody here has condoned fox hunting however the lengths people go to excuse violence against another human being has destroyed any idea of hunt sabateurs having a right to claim any moral high ground along with any who support them.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Goblin said:


> Report I read says he stated he fell down, not was forced down. The thing is, once down he was hit repeatedly. I suppose people are saying he did that himself. Knocking someone down and continuing an attack you could say is spur of the moment for one or two blows. Hitting someone who is down already is the act of a opportunist coward.
> 
> Nobody here has condoned fox hunting however the lengths people go to excuse violence against another human being has destroyed any idea of hunt sabateurs having a right to claim any moral high ground along with any who support them.


Funny I thought I read pretty much every poster bar one say they did not condone violence and that the majority of sabs are not violent and do not harm horses/dogs etc. Some of us have then gone on to explain why the whole story may not be as it seems, why sabs might be present at a drag hunt and how the hunt supporters have behaved towards them. Saying I don't support violence but hey this happened to me does not mean I excuse violence any more than those members who are saying that because they like/enjoy drag hunting it does not mean the like or support fox hunting.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

rona said:


> What, like drag hunts?


No the shoot that was happening nearby - they heard the gunshot


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

and..what the fox say?


People who enjoy killing defenceless animals got a taste of brutality?
And it was not too nice to be the one attacked on the floor?

I do not like hunting, dog fights, corrida - any killing of animals which not meant as necessary to eat is unpardonable..so not much sympathy fro me...

Hunting, corrida, throwing goats from the roofs , dog fights are just the same...killing animals just for the fun of it...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> Debate all you want. The fact of the matter is its a daily fail article so you will never know facts! Speculate away





Tails and Trails said:


> conversely, just because its in the daily fail, doesnt mean it isnt factual


No, but it usually means that the facts have been twisted and presented in such a way that their meaning becomes changed.

This story is actually a very good example of that. The headlines scream:

"_Shocking video shows moment master of the hunt was beaten unconscious by balaclava-wearing protesters armed with iron bars _"

but the video shows nothing of the sort. And when you read the Master of the Hunt's own words in the article - yes, the article with the above headlines - he also admits that nothing like that happened at all. He said:

'_I went over to try to calm it all down and one of them spat in my face. I was then punched by another and a scuffle broke out. I slipped over and on the ground one of them kicked me in the head twice and knocked me out.' He added that after that, he has no recollection of what happened, but recalls 'iron bars being swung on lengths of rope'.
_
So despite the Daily Wail's headline shocker, what had actually happened was the man was punched, slipped and fell, was kicked twice in the head, and then passed out - and then, despite his having no recollection of anything else, seems to have had some sort of psychic recall about iron bars being swung. Quite a bit different from the headlines, eh? And the video was quite different from what the headlines said too.

Now, I don't condone any sort of violence. Being spat at, punched, and kicked in the head whilst on the ground is still dreadful and the people who do this sort of thing do no favours to the true sabs - but it is a long way from being beaten with iron bars.

With headlines that are so blatantly untrue, is it any wonder that any person capable of rational thinking finds it hard to believe that this rag is factual?



MoggyBaby said:


> When you watch the unedited video, and watch the area round the hunt master, there are no sabs anywhere near him when he 'falls over' - no one close enough to knock him unconcious except his own people.
> 
> So how can the sabs be blamed for it?
> 
> ...


I can understand why the Daily Wail has tried to make the sabs seem worse than they are - they want to grab readers and sell newspapers (I use the term loosely  ) with their shock horror headlines.

I can understand why those on here who suppport fox hunting want to make the sabs seem worse that they are - they want to divert attention from the horror of fox hunting so that they can enjoy their cruel pasttime without people pointing the cruelty out to them. They want to be able to say, "Ok, so I hunt foxes - but these people are just as cruel so ner ner ner."

I could understand (and agree) if people were condemning the violence that actually happened - ie the pushes and the kicks to the head.

But what I can't understand is why normally rational people have believed the headlines and ignored what actually happened - even though what actually happened is quoted ad verbatim from the person it happened to in the article itself.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> *But what I can't understand is why normally rational people have believed the headlines and ignored what actually happened *- even though what actually happened is quoted ad verbatim from the person it happened to in the article itself.


Because doing so would totally f**k up their preconceived ideas and then they would have to do some thinking! It is so much easier to be fed 'the truth' than to actually go looking for it and making your own mind up on a subject.

.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> Just for a bit of balance, I know there are good and bad everywhere.
> 
> Joint Master of Tedworth Hunt is beaten unconscious by protesters with iron bars | Daily Mail Online


Totally agree to put the other side up!! But it won't be listened to
 to many people are blinkered to one side of the story!!! Iron bars on ropes!!! That's out of flipping order!


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

piggybaker said:


> Totally agree to put the other side up!! But it won't be listened to
> * to many people are blinkered to one side of the story!!!* Iron bars on ropes!!! That's out of flipping order!


And ain't THAT the truth!!!

.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

The thing is this nobody should be attacked!! It doesn't matter whether they are hunters or sabs .... I do however believe that there are those who do not go along because they have the subject matter at heart, but go along to create a situation leading to the belief that all sabs are a complete pain in the arse! 

I see both sides of the story as I have stated before. I do however find that the behaviour from both sides is absolutely appalling, using a heavy animal to run down a human is just dangerous to both human and animal , and at the same time the sabs need to not get in the way or do things that will cause harm to the animals ! 

This debate never stops amazing me how it goes around and around in circles and nothing new is ever brought to the table!!


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Actually the clip looks like your average Saturday night punch up outside the pub ... lots of name calling ....plenty of Testosterone fuelled postulating ....with one or two sober souls trying to calm it down. 

J


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2015)

Seems Tedworth have a bit of history for attacking sabs in the past, what goes around comes around...


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> No, but it usually means that the facts have been twisted and presented in such a way that their meaning becomes changed.
> 
> .


actually, what you quoted had been taken out of context of my post. my entire post had an entire meaning, and each part was carefully written, and each part's meaning was dependent upon another parts meaning, for an express purpose.
so, yes, I am aware how things can be given a different context and thus narrative, including an example I gave of how this can and is done to all sorts of people and in all sorts of cases, such as the nigel farage 'breast feeding' comments, and how, therefore, even the point of complaining about 'tabloidism' isnt even without its own agenda, at times


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> actually, what you quoted had been taken out of context of my post. my entire post had an entire meaning, and each part was carefully written, and each part's meaning was dependent upon another parts meaning, for an express purpose.


Now please understand that I would not normally do what I am about to do, because on a pet forum I'm happy to accept any standard of grammar/ spelling/ narrative - I think it's far more important to hear the opinion being expressed rather than worry about the way it was expressed. However, you have often taken it upon yourself to show other people what they _should_ have written rather than what they_ did_ write, so I am hoping that you take this advice in the same spirit that you give it to others - ie not as a personal attack but as a gesture of help and advice which will hopefully help you to make your points more clearly.

You have said that I have taken something out of context and then said that this sentence was an integral part of a perfectly constructed post with an entire meaning. I disagree. There is obvious disparity between what you say you have constructed and what you have actually constructed; and this bad construction of your post directly influenced the way I replied to your post.

The easiest way to show you what I mean is to put comment in red in your original post.



Tails and Trails said:


> conversely, just because its in the daily fail, doesnt mean it isnt factual You begin by contradicting someone who has said that the Mail never prints facts - in other words, *your stated argument at the beginning of your post is that the Mail does print facts*.
> 
> you could say the same about the BBC Here you point out that another media source does the same - ie *you support your original stated argument* by saying that another media source behaves in the same way.
> 
> ...


Now I can see that your idea that "_my entire post had an entire meaning, and each part was carefully written, and each part's meaning was dependent upon another parts meaning, for an express purpose_" existed in your head, but unless you write it out properly, and connect your ideas so that your narrative forms a whole rather than a hotchpotch of disjointed pieces, then you are going to run the risk of being misunderstood. And, indeed, you *were* misunderstood.

For you _believe_ you said



Tails and Trails said:


> so, yes, I am aware how things can be given a different context and thus narrative, including an example I gave of how this can and is done to all sorts of people and in all sorts of cases, such as the nigel farage 'breast feeding' comments, and how, therefore, even the point of complaining about 'tabloidism' isnt even without its own agenda, at times


When you _actually_ said (in your first two sentences) that the Mail is factual and then added two seemingly unconnnected paragraphs.

I replied to the part of the post that was not disjointed - ie the first part. Had you constructed the post you thought you had constructed - ie what you said in the last quote above - my reply to you would have been totally different.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Now please understand that I would not normally do what I am about to do, because on a pet forum I'm happy to accept any standard of grammar/ spelling/ narrative - I think it's far more important to hear the opinion being expressed rather than worry about the way it was expressed. However, you have often taken it upon yourself to show other people what they _should_ have written rather than what they_ did_ write, so I am hoping that you take this advice in the same spirit that you give it to others - ie not as a personal attack but as a gesture of help and advice which will hopefully help you to make your points more clearly.
> 
> You have said that I have taken something out of context and then said that this sentence was an integral part of a perfectly constructed post with an entire meaning. I disagree. .


no offence intended.
but all things balanced in my hectic time schedule, i have not taken the time out to read your post beyond the last sentence above, simply because, you cant disagree, as im the one wot wrote it, so i know wot i waz meanin when i wrot it .

and you _did_ only quote one sentence of my post. a narrative was then constructed around that, which was a different topic to the one i was writing about, if you take my entire post as it was written.
Also, it was unnecessary for you to explain when and how the daily mail does this, i just said it does myself in my own post that the mail does this.
will wont get me disagreeing. i dont read tabloids. i dont watch the news on TV, for the same reason. That is just as lame
i said everyone presents info for their own agenda narrative - the mail does this, people that read the mail do this, people that reject something out f hand just because its in the mail do this, and people that knee jerk reject anything in the mail just because its the mail without ALSO taking each story on its own merits, yet will then also quote the mail in regards to other stories than suit their agenda narrative, eg, the farage breast feeding thing, also do this.

thats my only point, there wasnt another, there isnt another one.
i will just respectfully answer if you think i meant different, or you think my wish not to make a discussion out of this also means this or that, i just say fair play to you.
Im always busy, never have time to post on forums. but do so anyway, which is stupid really, but thats my problem.
thus it would be moot for me to find time i dont have starting another long discussion with lots of to and from detailed semantic point by point multi quoting posts.

plus, i never pick up people on grammar and spelling. 
thats why i dont use capital letters, i just a chat forum, i couldnt give a monkeys, as long as the post is comprehensible, im just interested in content, ideas, perceptions, narrative, and viewpoints. im one of those people that uses the phrase 'grammar nazi' 

spoken in good spirits, kind regards


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> no offence intended.
> but all things balanced in my hectic time schedule, i have not taken the time out to read your post beyond the last sentence above, simply because, you cant disagree, as im the one wot wrote it, so i know wot i waz meanin when i wrot it .


Oh but it is perfectly valid for someone to disagree with your statement that you constructed a perfectly integrated argument - because you plainly didn't! Just because you _say_ you did does no mean you _actually_ did. If you manage to take the time to read what I took the time to write, then you will see and understand. If you don't, then that makes the rest of your latest post redundant as all the points you bring up yet again I have already addressed in the post you haven't read.

Unless you are prepared to read and answer what I write, there's not much point in my wasting time trying to help you, is there?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Oh but it is perfectly valid for someone to disagree with your statement that you constructed a perfectly integrated argument - because you plainly didn't! Just because you _say_ you did does no mean you _actually_ did. If you manage to take the time to read what I took the time to write, then you will see and understand.
> 
> Unless you are prepared to do that, there's not much point in my wasting time trying to help you, is there?


My last post respectfully explained why your last sentence above would indeed be so


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Thought I'd add a bit of music to the thread & I haven't heard this catchy little tune for ages. Tally ho

[youtube_browser]/IBdynKIJdRg[/youtube_browser]


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

piggybaker said:


> This debate never stops amazing me how it goes around and around in circles and nothing new is ever brought to the table!!


Possibly the most pertinent comment I have ever read on here.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Laurac said:


> Possibly the most pertinent comment I have ever read on here.


Of course the debate will always go round in circles. While ever people seek to justify abject cruelty you will always find strong opposition.

The real countryside violence > The Real Countryside Violence - Hunt Saboteurs Association

On Tuesday 27th of January the Blackmore and Sparkford Vale Hunt illegally killed a fox. The incident was caught on film by Dorset Hunt saboteurs. Sabs briefly heard the hounds in cry before seeing them ripping a fox apart at Densham Farm, Bishops Down near Sherborne, Dorset. The dead fox is then taken away by a masked hunt supporter, believed to be Ben Doggrell, the huntsman's son. He was filmed covered in blood and later changed his jacket and replaced the mask he was wearing with a flat cap, but didn't change his trousers.

Lee Moon, Spokesperson for the Hunt Saboteurs Association, stated:

_Because the Countryside Alliance and the pro-hunt community know they will never win the moral argument over hunting they are constantly trying to confuse the issue. We will not engage in their game or comment on their dubious videos and spurious accusations but instead ask the public to focus on the violence perpetrated against British wildlife by illegal hunts. This carnage takes place daily the length of the country and is largely ignored by the police and the media. It is only hunt saboteurs who bravely place themselves between the hunts and their quarry, often facing violence from the notoriously violent hunting community and persecution from biased police forces._

Video of the incident can be viewed here:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jtimcqqhmy18tut/AADJ6_vaBdtOEfu_Nes6HRE1a/S1000022.MP4?dl=0


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

An excellent piece from the Accidental Activist on hunt violence, Countryside Alliance & biased media coverage.

Hearts and Minds | More than just Badgers

The lack of an update last week was largely due to once again getting clearance to use footage which is likely to be used in legal proceedings. Releasing this footage prior to the outcome will ruin any potential case against the offenders but needless to say all is in hand and were hopeful of a successful prosecution. For a full update of the day visit the Beds & Bucks Hunt Sabs Facebook page.

Another issue which came to light were the claims that a Huntsman from the Tedworth Hunt was kicked unconscious by sabs wielding metal bars on chains. Heavily edited and totally biased footage was aired on BBC Points West, complete with a Countryside Alliance spokesperson spouting their usual vitriol. However if you look at the complete footage compiled by Berkshire Hunt Sabs with additional comments a completely different story is clear to see.

Whats also evident by the CA releasing the footage is that they expect no action from the police on the issue otherwise they wouldnt have released the video. The fact it was filmed by a hunt supporter and then picked up by the Daily Mail who are known to support hunting and love nothing more than printing sensationalist clap trap based on hearsay just proves this is nothing more than pro-hunt propaganda designed to fill in the cracks of their crumbling argument ahead of a general election. The simple fact is sabs face violence every week from hunts and their support. You are allowed to defend yourself and its pretty clear to me after watching the video the violence was instigated by the hunt or their support and they then came off second best. The so called metal bars on chains were nothing more than home made, lightweight whips sabs use for rating the hounds, hardly the pinnacle of personal defence armament.

The comments from the CA spokesperson were quite frankly laughable. Once again he tries to paint the picture of sabs being terrorists, covering their faces and leaving the towns for the countryside for a bit of a ruck and knowing nothing of countryside ways and wildlife control.

*Lets break these issues down.*

*Face coverings*. Ive covered this before but its an issue which keeps arising so Ill go over it again. Hunts and hunt support try very hard to find out who you are. They will go after you at your home or place of work. They will do all they can to discredit you, intimidate you and make you unemployable. Maintaining secrecy regarding your identity isnt being a coward its sound operational security. Hunt support, especially the terrier men or the hired thungs used to protect the hunts regularly cover their faces, this is of course so it makes them difficult to identify in case they find themselves under investigation but we hear no mention of that from the CA.

Another article in the Torygraph sorry I mean Telegraph once again claims sabs are all animal rights extremists, hard liners that are politically motivated thugs terrorising those involved in a lawful pursuit that need to be unmasked. Obviously the writer of the article, Clive Aslet is completely impartial in this but oh wait, he seems to be editor at large for Country Life, hardly a publication with nothing to gain and no doubt spurred on to write the piece by the CA as theyre obviously cosey bedfellows in this. The double standards and hypocrisy in the piece is rife to say the least. A bunch of pissed up thugs from the Royal Agricultural College trying to overturn a sab vehicle and smash their way in is nothing more than, and I quote rosy-cheeked, well-spoken students in tweed caps behaving in a yahooish manner. And lets not forget, despite their claims to the contrary, all were breaking the law by hunting illegally in the first place.

*Were all townies*. Most sabs I know come from all walks of life, come from hugely varying backgrounds and live in both rural and urban locations. CA claims to the contrary are nothing more than ignorant bluff and bluster.

*Wildlife control.* Oops, the hunt in question were supposed to be drag hunting (arent they all) so then why is wildlife control mentioned? If youre following a trail nothing will be hunted and killed. Seems like an admittance of illegal hunting to me and wildlife control is just a phrase designed to soften the image of killing. I also wonder if the hunt in question had any terrier men with them as they nearly always do? Those pesky trail layers, its amazing how they manage to go under ground in holes and badger setts. If youre following a trail then terrier men are completely unnecessary.

*Countryside ways.* Once upon a time it was OK to flog your slaves, bait bears and burn witches if your crops failed. Things have thankfully moved on. Theyre so called countryside ways are nothing more than an excuse for bloodthirsty sociopaths to get their jollies by watching a sentient mammal tormented and then killed in a most barbaric manner. Ive spent my entire life in the countryside, living with and working for our native wildlife. Id be hugely surprised if any of the hunt staff or support knew anything beyond the basics of the environment around them and the ecosystems they support.

Obviously the CA have money to burn in an attempt to win over the general population to their cause however with over 80% still in favour of a ban on hunting with hounds many of their arguments will fall on deaf ears. You only have to view the disturbing footage from last week filmed by Dorset Hunt Sabs to know that the hunts are continually breaking the law and no amount of PR and propaganda will cover up this fact. This time the hunt in question was the Blackmore and Sparkford Vale, the same hunt who almost killed a sab some months ago. Full press release from the HSA can be found here.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Plutarch said :

_Boys kill frogs in sport, but frogs do not die in sport, they die in earnest._

same goes for any canine being ripped to pieces by another canines just to please the crowd....

dog fight or fox hunt...

The only difference is that fox hunters will speak posher English ..and dress better?..which does not possibly make any difference to the fox...

If dog fight organisers and supports get beaten up...will you truly feel so very sorry for them?
Fox suffers just as much as a dog!


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

No cause is ever served or graced by violence.

We will all reap what we have sown, and all cruel people will get their comeuppance in the fullness of time. But when it comes to retribution, leave it to Karma. 
She gets them all. And She doesn't need any help.

---

As for the video: Pallywood comes to Wiltshire. So obviously distorted, orchestrated propaganda designed to portray the 'dignified country sportsman, peacefully going about his business' and getting attacked without any provocation by 'hooded, menacing thugs'.
'Oh and lets re-legalize hunting, just to show them'.
No doubt the truth will out, it always does eventually.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

cheekyscrip said:


> Plutarch said :
> 
> _Boys kill frogs in sport, but frogs do not die in sport, they die in earnest._
> 
> ...


Very well put. Fox-hunting is no different from dog fighting or badger-baiting or bear-baiting. 
It doesn't become 'dignified', or 'civilized', or 'morally justified', by wearing a red jacket and a riding hat.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> No cause is ever served or graced by violence.
> 
> We will all reap what we have sown, and all cruel people will get their comeuppance in the fullness of time. But when it comes to retribution, leave it to Karma.
> She gets them all. And She doesn't need any help.


No, i wont leave it to some mystical and completely unproven force to enact justice, no matter who nice a concept it may be. I mean, if "just leaving it to karma" is the way things should be done why do we have police and courts and prisons? Do you think we should get rid of em? Shall we let murderers walk free and just let karma sort em out? Great job karma did with jimmy saville.

Karma would be lovely if it were in fact real. But since it isnt, it falls to us to do something here, in actual reality, when we see atrocities carried out. And fox hunting is an atrocity, and retribution needs to happen.


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

Apollo2012 said:


> If you watch that video the huntsman has already been attacked and is on the floor, so that video does not show people from the hunt attacking the sabs first.
> 
> Do you know how hard horses are to control??, especially out hunting. at every yard I've worked at most of the horses have hunted and just playing a recording of a hunt horn will get them excited and sometimes hard to handle.
> 
> ...


Oh what a wonderful thing to be stampeding around the countryside... many times being on other people's property or public land...


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> Unfortunately, a lot of saboteurs are trouble makers rather than animal lovers. How can anyone object to a drag hunt? Despicable and shows sabs in their true colours - thugs.


Sorry, but I object to drag hunts... there are many accounts of drag hunts being a cover for illegal hunts and also genuine drag hunts where the hounds get the scent of a real fox... the margin for error is too large IMO.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

lozzibear said:


> Sorry, but I object to drag hunts... there are many accounts of drag hunts being a cover for illegal hunts and also genuine drag hunts where the hounds get the scent of a real fox... the margin for error is too large IMO.


True drag hunts (not hunts that converted) don't use hounds that have ever been trained to follow a fox smell. They use a mixture of aniseed oils and possibly animal meats..Trail hunting is a different matter and yes they have been known to follow the scent of a real fox over the scent laid.

I would find it extremely hard to believe that a true drag hunt has followed or caught a fox.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

porps said:


> No, i wont leave it to some mystical and completely unproven force to enact justice, no matter who nice a concept it may be. I mean, if "just leaving it to karma" is the way things should be done why do we have police and courts and prisons? Do you think we should get rid of em? Shall we let murderers walk free and just let karma sort em out? Great job karma did with jimmy saville.
> 
> Karma would be lovely if it were in fact real. But since it isnt, it falls to us to do something here, in actual reality, when we see atrocities carried out. And fox hunting is an atrocity, and retribution needs to happen.


I was talking about vigilantism. Which is what you seem to be talking about ... 
Be careful in your choice of words.

Mr Saville, or the soul that incarnated as Jimmy Saville, hasn't 'got away with it'. No-one 'gets away with it'.


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> True drag hunts (not hunts that converted) don't use hounds that have ever been trained to follow a fox smell. They use a mixture of aniseed oils and possibly animal meats..Trail hunting is a different matter and yes they have been known to follow the scent of a real fox over the scent laid.
> 
> I would find it extremely hard to believe that a true drag hunt has followed or caught a fox.


I would imagine that is more common now, given the age of the ban and therefore the age of the hounds - any hounds used legally before the ban would obviously be used to following a foxes scent. So dogs coming up now are more likely to have never been involved in a 'real' hunt. I have, however, seen plenty of videos of hounds supposedly taking part in a 'drag' hunt where they have come across a fox and the chase, and sometimes kill, has been caught on camera. It is a truly awful sight so how anyone can condone such a thing disgusts me... however, maybe these people use the term 'drag hunt' too loosely... or maybe, like I also said, they use the term drag hunt to cover up the illegal hunting they are doing... knowing full well the impression drag hunt to people.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

lozzibear said:


> I would imagine that is more common now, given the age of the ban and therefore the age of the hounds - any hounds used legally before the ban would obviously be used to following a foxes scent. So dogs coming up now are more likely to have never been involved in a 'real' hunt. I have, however, seen plenty of videos of hounds supposedly taking part in a 'drag' hunt where they have come across a fox and the chase, and sometimes kill, has been caught on camera. It is a truly awful sight so how anyone can condone such a thing disgusts me... however, maybe these people use the term 'drag hunt' too loosely... or maybe, like I also said, they use the term drag hunt to cover up the illegal hunting they are doing... knowing full well the impression drag hunt to people.


You are confusing Trail hunts with drag hunts.
Trail hunts are the ex (?) fox hunters whereas drag hunts have never hunted a fox so the hounds are trained to follow the scent that is put down.

I do not condone hunting for fun, never have and never will..but I do not like seeing true drag hunts lumped in with the sick and twisted individuals that think killing any animal can be "fun"


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> I was talking about vigilantism. Which is what you seem to be talking about ...
> Be careful in your choice of words.
> 
> Mr Saville, or the soul that incarnated as Jimmy Saville, hasn't 'got away with it'. No-one 'gets away with it'.


/sigh

no, i wont be careful about what i say- not ever. Scumbags need dealing with, not ignoring.

i'm talkin about actual reality, not your delusions.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

lozzibear said:


> I would imagine that is more common now, given the age of the ban and therefore the age of the hounds - any hounds used legally before the ban would obviously be used to following a foxes scent. So dogs coming up now are more likely to have never been involved in a 'real' hunt. I have, however, seen plenty of videos of hounds supposedly taking part in a 'drag' hunt where they have come across a fox and the chase, and sometimes kill, has been caught on camera. It is a truly awful sight so how anyone can condone such a thing disgusts me... however, maybe these people use the term 'drag hunt' too loosely... or maybe, like I also said, they use the term drag hunt to cover up the illegal hunting they are doing... knowing full well the impression drag hunt to people.


As they were a fox pack rather than a drag pack pre ban it's highly likely that they'll be following a fox urine trail and keeping the hunt as close as possible to pre ban (whether this means testing the limits of legality I don't know). Fox packs are still holding out for a repeal of the hunting act so they want to keep their hounds as functional as possible for that. StormyThai is correct that a true drag hunt is different in that the hounds follow a non-fox scent and it's often faster paced etc


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

lozzibear said:


> I would imagine that is more common now, given the age of the ban and therefore the age of the hounds - any hounds used legally before the ban would obviously be used to following a foxes scent. So dogs coming up now are more likely to have never been involved in a 'real' hunt. I have, however, seen plenty of videos of hounds supposedly taking part in a 'drag' hunt where they have come across a fox and the chase, and sometimes kill, has been caught on camera. It is a truly awful sight so how anyone can condone such a thing disgusts me... however, maybe these people use the term 'drag hunt' too loosely... or maybe, like I also said, they use the term drag hunt to cover up the illegal hunting they are doing... knowing full well the impression drag hunt to people.


Before the hunting ban, there were harrier hunts and drag hunts....neither of which went after a fox.
The harriers hunted hares and killed them when they caught them.

Drag was just that...a drag. Squirt a smelly mixture on a horses hooves, ride it round and then do the drag hunt. or drag some stinky oily stuff round in a bag and leave the scent that way.

Plenty people enjoy the white knuckle ride of the hunt, the countryside, fresh air and hounds...plus a beer and a good meal in the pub ...and nothing been killed but a couple of gates and a bit of fencing perhaps.

People often assume that all hunting is only done by well off upper class people...its not true and plenty who went drag hunting when I was there came from your average house in the town too.

I never saw anything killed or even chased really but I did hear that once or twice a hare was flushed...always several pheasant would be flushed and the odd duck.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Round here hare coursers seem to be a bit more of an issue - we are being asked not to blog/tweet sightings to make it harder for them to know where to go.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

lozzibear said:


> Oh what a wonderful thing to be stampeding around the countryside... many times being on other people's property or public land...


I have only ever been drag hunting. Permission from the land owner was always given before there was any stampeding round the countryside.

I have refused permission to the fox hunt to come hunting on my land and they respected my wishes and stayed off.

There is nothing more freeing and exhilarating than riding with several others across open fields and land and testing your skill as rider and being completely dependent and trusting your horse.

Nothing needs to be killed to experience this.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Jonescat said:


> Round here hare coursers seem to be a bit more of an issue - we are being asked not to blog/tweet sightings to make it harder for them to know where to go.


hare coursing is a big thing here and there are plenty hares about aswell.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> /sigh
> 
> no, i wont be careful about what i say- not ever. Scumbags need dealing with, not ignoring.
> 
> i'm talkin about actual reality, not your delusions.


Why can you never debate any subject without being controversial and rude?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Why can you never debate any subject without being controversial and rude?


because i'm rude and controversial


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> True drag hunts (not hunts that converted) don't use hounds that have ever been trained to follow a fox smell. They use a mixture of aniseed oils and possibly animal meats..Trail hunting is a different matter and yes they have been known to follow the scent of a real fox over the scent laid.
> 
> I would find it extremely hard to believe that a true drag hunt has followed or caught a fox.


The Tedworth hunt is a trail hunt. I think a lot of the confusion is probably due to the articles labelling it as a drag hunt. Imo there should be an outright ban on trail hunts, they are just a cover for illegal fox hunting.

Tedworth Hunt | Just another WordPress site

_Since the imposition of the confusing 2004 Hunting Act we aim to confine our activities to within the law until the repeal of this unfair and unjustified law. However, there is still fun to be had so we look forward to welcoming you during the year. Click here For Trail Hunting information: TEDWORTH TRAIL HUNTING _


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cheekyscrip said:


> Plutarch said :
> 
> _Boys kill frogs in sport, but frogs do not die in sport, they die in earnest._
> 
> ...


I don't believe the hunts side of this story for one moment. But I've also been wondering how many people would cheer if a this had been a vigilante attack on someone who inflicted horrific cruelty on dogs?? 

.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I don't believe the hunts side of this story for one moment. But I've also been wondering how many people would cheer if a this had been a vigilante attack on someone who inflicted horrific cruelty on dogs??
> 
> .


I wouldn't cheer *anyone* who inflicted a vigilante attack. Two wrongs don't make a right, and it simply drags the attacker(s) down to the moral level of the original abuser(s). Now, if the abused _dogs_ had turned on that someone, that would be another matter...

And I suppose I should clarify that I'd not include intervening to end a there-and-then occuring act of abuse, such as decking someone who was actually beating a dog, under the heading of vigilante-ism, as that would be reactive action in order to protect, not a deliberate hunt-and-beat vigilante action.

For what it's worth, I don't believe *either* side of this story as they stand claimed, as both sides have too much emotional involvement for any account to be accurate. If _either_ side provoked the other, shame on them. If _either_ side hit someone unawares, or whilst they were down, shame on them.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> I wouldn't cheer *anyone* who inflicted a vigilante attack. Two wrongs don't make a right, and it simply drags the attacker(s) down to the moral level of the original abuser(s). Now, if the abused _dogs_ had turned on that someone, that would be another matter...
> 
> And I suppose I should clarify that I'd not include intervening to end a there-and-then occuring act of abuse, such as decking someone who was actually beating a dog, under the heading of vigilante-ism, as that would be reactive action in order to protect, not a deliberate hunt-and-beat vigilante action.
> 
> For what it's worth, I don't believe *either* side of this story as they stand claimed, as both sides have too much emotional involvement for any account to be accurate. If _either_ side provoked the other, shame on them. If _either_ side hit someone unawares, or whilst they were down, shame on them.


So if a group of people made it their entertainment to go around coursing cats with a pack of dogs on a regular basis you wouldn't be a little bit pleased if one of them got decked? Oh, ok.

.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> So if a group of people made it their entertainment to go around coursing cats with a pack of dogs on a regular basis you wouldn't be a little bit pleased if one of them got decked? Oh, ok.
> 
> .


Read what I wrote. If people caught them in the actual act and decked them, fair enough - that's not vigilantism, that's reactive protection.

But, if people form a posse with the deliberate intent of going out and beating them up no matter where they are and what they are doing, that makes them just as immoral as the cat coursers, and shame on them.

After all, surely we can look back at the history of mankind and realise that reacting to violence with greater violence as a first resort, not a last recourse, simply creates an ever-worsening cycle of tit-for-tat violence?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Jesthar said:


> Read what I wrote. If people caught them in the actual act and decked them, fair enough - that's not vigilantism, that's reactive protection.
> 
> *But, if people form a posse with the deliberate intent of going out and beating them up no matter where they are and what they are doing, that makes them just as immoral as the cat coursers, and shame on them.*
> 
> After all, surely we can look back at the history of mankind and realise that reacting to violence with greater violence as a first resort, not a last recourse, simply creates an ever-worsening cycle of tit-for-tat violence?


I wish more people would think like this..all this eye for an eye rubbish will just leave us all blind 

Someone needs to step up and say "enough with the violence" 
causing serious injury to another (no matter what they have done) does not make anyone better, it just continues the violence :nonod:


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

Jesthar said:


> Read what I wrote. If people caught them in the actual act and decked them, fair enough - that's not vigilantism, that's reactive protection.
> 
> But, if people form a posse with the deliberate intent of going out and beating them up no matter where they are and what they are doing, that makes them just as immoral as the cat coursers, and shame on them.
> 
> After all, surely we can look back at the history of mankind and realise that reacting to violence with greater violence as a first resort, not a last recourse, simply creates an ever-worsening cycle of tit-for-tat violence?


I agree that there is a subtle but significant difference between intervening in the moment - by whatever means necessary, and after the fact retaliation.

I am impulsive enough when it comes to children and animals that if I see one in need Im going to jump in and do something, anything, to protect that child or animal. 
I am under no delusions though, that I am having any effect on the abuser when I impulsively intervene. It is simply a means to protect the abused.

Where you make a difference is through patient conversation, education, passing laws that protect the innocent, etc., etc. And if you want to be heard as far as enacting change, you cant resort to violent tactics just to make a point. Thats the quickest way to have the majority who are on the fence tune you out, and like Jesthar says, it just turns in to an endless tit-for-tat ego fest.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Read what I wrote. If people caught them in the actual act and decked them, fair enough - that's not vigilantism, that's reactive protection.
> 
> But, if people form a posse with the deliberate intent of going out and beating them up no matter where they are and what they are doing, that makes them just as immoral as the cat coursers, and shame on them.
> 
> After all, surely we can look back at the history of mankind and realise that reacting to violence with greater violence as a first resort, not a last recourse, simply creates an ever-worsening cycle of tit-for-tat violence?


That wasn't really the point I was making. I don't dispute for a moment that if hunt sabs went around attacking hunt members they would only serve to damage their cause. The point I was trying to make was how many members on here would be as disgusted of a 'vigilante' smacking the member of a gang that went around hunting down cats with a pack of dogs for 'sport'? 
My guess is not that many.

And again, I don't believe the hunt scums/fails version of this story for a second. Have a look half way down Berkshire Sabs fb page at the video.
https://m.facebook.com/huntsabs


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

Again, I think that line between protection and retaliation gets blurred far too easily, which does no one any good. Trying to add in more emotion to excuse violent behavior, is just more blurring.

Let me use a different analogy.
If a rancher sees a coyote eating a lamb and shoots the coyote dead, is that rancher protecting his flock or retaliating with needless violence?
I hugely empathize with the rancher's feelings of horror and upset at seeing an innocent animal shredded in to a meal, but how effective is the act of shooting that one predator as far as protecting the whole flock?

If the rancher wants to protect his flock, there are livestock management plans such as brining sheep inside to lamb, and using LGDs etc., that are non lethal to the coyotes and work far better to keep the livestock from being predated. 

Use tactics that actually work. And violence for the sake of retaliation - basically venting all that anger, that rarely ever works well.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> That wasn't really the point I was making. I don't dispute for a moment that if hunt sabs went around attacking hunt members they would only serve to damage their cause. The point I was trying to make was how many members on here would be as disgusted of a 'vigilante' smacking the member of a gang that went around hunting down cats with a pack of dogs for 'sport'?
> My guess is not that many.


Did I mention hunt sabs?  And you are still missing the point that I am making.

Smacking a member of a gang that went around hunting down cats with a pack of dogs for 'sport' *IF* you catch them in the act of attacking a cat in order to rescue the cat = OK.

Smacking a member of a gang that went around hunting down cats with a pack of dogs for 'sport' when they are NOT in the act of attacking a cat = NOT OK.

And, incidentally, I will also add that provoking the member of a gang that went around hunting down cats with a pack of dogs for 'sport' until they react just so you have an 'excuse' for smacking them = NOT OK, too.

Naturally, the same applies the other way around, and substitute whatever activity you prefer in place of cat coursing. And I have already told you that I don't believe *either* sides version of the event that prompted this thread.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> That wasn't really the point I was making. I don't dispute for a moment that if hunt sabs went around attacking hunt members they would only serve to damage their cause. *The point I was trying to make was how many members on here would be as disgusted of a 'vigilante' smacking the member of a gang that went around hunting down cats with a pack of dogs for 'sport'? *
> My guess is not that many.
> 
> And again, I don't believe the hunt scums/fails version of this story for a second. Have a look half way down Berkshire Sabs fb page at the video.
> https://m.facebook.com/huntsabs


I would be just as disgusted in all honesty.

Recently (a few months ago) there was a bloke that beat up a dog which is revolting...but the blokes that then hunted this man down and beat him to "Show him a lesson" were equally revolting in my eyes.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Again, I think that line between protection and retaliation gets blurred far too easily, which does no one any good. Trying to add in more emotion to excuse violent behavior, is just more blurring.
> 
> Let me use a different analogy.
> If a rancher sees a coyote eating a lamb and shoots the coyote dead, is that rancher protecting his flock or retaliating with needless violence?
> ...


Perhaps i'm still not being very clear lol Let me try from a different angle. If terrorising & killing domestic pets for fun were a 'sport' to a group of people, I suspect nobody on here would seek to defend/justify, sympathise in any way the perpetrators. I don't think anyone would care if a member of that set got a smack. So my point is the lives of foxes just don't matter as much to some people as say dogs or cats do.

.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Perhaps i'm still not being very clear lol Let me try from a different angle. If terrorising & killing domestic pets for fun were a 'sport' to a group of people, I suspect nobody on here would seek to defend/justify, sympathise in any way the perpetrators. I don't think anyone would care if a member of that set got a smack. So my point is the lives of foxes just don't matter as much to some people as say dogs or cats do.
> 
> .


Okay, that point I see. Yes, people in general do tend to care more about what is familiar to them than that which is unfamiliar or foreign.

But, and maybe I'm just being naive here, is anyone actually defending fox hunting? I've just skimmed the thread, but I didn't see that. I saw people explaining what they enjoy about a hunt (drag hunts and trail hunts), but just because you enjoy running through the woods on horseback with your buddies doesn't mean you condone foxes being killed for sport does it? IDK, maybe I'm missing something...


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I understand what you are saying Noushka but I do think we have to be very careful about appearing to condone violence as it just gives the mass public the excuse to write us all off as a bunch of thugs and avoid thinking about the actual issues involved. That is not to say that if a group of people were going around stealing and terrorising/killing domestic pets I would not be out there trying to find them and collate evidence and who can say hand on heart if it were one of their pets that they would not give said thug a slap whether they caught them in the act or not. I know I probably would, in fact if it were one of my dogs I would willing go to prison for the pleasure of sticking something sharp where the sun don't shine but as that is a highly unlikely thing to happen its hypothetical.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> I would be just as disgusted in all honesty.
> 
> Recently (a few months ago) there was a bloke that beat up a dog which is revolting...but the blokes that then hunted this man down and beat him to "Show him a lesson" were equally revolting in my eyes.


Thanks for your opinion, my assumption was wrong on that count then lol Though I know im right about some people on here not having any compassion for foxes.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Thanks for your opinion, my assumption was wrong on that count then lol Though I know im right about some people on here not having any compassion for foxes.


Maybe that's one area to focus efforts then? Show foxes as the sentient creatures they are and help people develop compassion for them.

I'm not gonna lie, there are some animals I have much more afinity towards than others. And some animals, it's going to take a lot of convincing for me to like them at all. That doesn't mean I don't respect them and the role they play in the whole beauty that is our natural world, it's just that it is hard for me to feel any kind of connection or kinship with them.

Take for example constrictor snakes. For some reason the idea of killing prey with teeth is not that bothersome to me, but killing prey by squishing just seems, well, kind of evil. But, my neighbor has snakes, and I got to know them, then our barn had a big giant blacksnake in it who was gorgeous and kept our mice population down, and now I like constrictor snakes a lot more than I used to. 
Maybe there needs to be a fox education program where people can get to know foxes and learn about them, and maybe get to like them more?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

i'm not really a violent person but i can make exceptions. If the only way to stop these people is to meet their barbarism with "thuggery" then so be it. Laws wont stop em, not that i would ever consider going to the police anyway, i'm not _that_ naive.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Okay, that point I see. Yes, people in general do tend to care more about what is familiar to them than that which is unfamiliar or foreign.
> 
> But, and maybe I'm just being naive here, is anyone actually defending fox hunting? I've just skimmed the thread, but I didn't see that. I saw people explaining what they enjoy about a hunt (drag hunts and trail hunts), but just because you enjoy running through the woods on horseback with your buddies doesn't mean you condone foxes being killed for sport does it? IDK, maybe I'm missing something...


I think having been on this forum for a number of years we all pretty much know those of us who are sympathetic towards fox hunting & those of us who aren't lol Theres certainly been more than enough debates on the subject

The Tedworth hunt is a trail hunt - they still hunt down foxes.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> I understand what you are saying Noushka but I do think we have to be very careful about appearing to condone violence as it just gives the mass public the excuse to write us all off as a bunch of thugs and avoid thinking about the actual issues involved. That is not to say that if a group of people were going around stealing and terrorising/killing domestic pets I would not be out there trying to find them and collate evidence and who can say hand on heart if it were one of their pets that they would not give said thug a slap whether they caught them in the act or not. I know I probably would, in fact if it were one of my dogs I would willing go to prison for the pleasure of sticking something sharp where the sun don't shine but as that is a highly unlikely thing to happen its hypothetical.


Thank you RPH, you are so right - you only have to look at the comments on here regarding this 'attack' on a huntsman to see that. And that's even after providing evidence to the contrary.

lol same here I would defend my animals - or indeed any animal by whatever means I could. Cruelty to animals literally makes me feel sick to my stomach.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> The point I was trying to make was how many members on here would be as disgusted of a 'vigilante' smacking the member of a gang that went around hunting down cats with a pack of dogs for 'sport'?
> My guess is not that many.


It's true. i was reading an article in the manchester evening news today about some gang who tied a cat up to shoot at it... was incensed obviously, even more so than i am when i read about fox hunting... and i love foxes. im very anti fox hunting, so can only assume the difference would be even more pronounced for someone who doesnt hold them in high regard.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Though I know im right about some people on here not having any compassion for foxes.


On the other hand, may I suggest it would be unfair to assume that disagreeing with violence against another person = not caring about foxes or wildlife?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Jesthar said:


> On the other hand, may I suggest it would be unfair to assume that disagreeing with violence against another person = not caring about foxes or wildlife?


Exactly.



> I think having been on this forum for a number of years we all pretty much know those of us who are sympathetic towards fox hunting & those of us who aren't lol Theres certainly been more than enough debates on the subject


Are you sure about that?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> On the other hand, may I suggest it would be unfair to assume that disagreeing with violence against another person = not caring about foxes or wildlife?


In some instances that may be the case, in others I don't think so.



rocco33 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Are you sure about that?


Having been involved in most of the debates - yes I am lol


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> In some instances that may be the case, in others I don't think so.
> 
> Having been involved in most of the debates - yes I am lol


I don't think you can be so sure. As Jesthar says, some people may just be against the attitude of hunt sabs and violence that goes on.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Maybe that's one area to focus efforts then? Show foxes as the sentient creatures they are and help people develop compassion for them.
> 
> I'm not gonna lie, there are some animals I have much more afinity towards than others. And some animals, it's going to take a lot of convincing for me to like them at all. That doesn't mean I don't respect them and the role they play in the whole beauty that is our natural world, it's just that it is hard for me to feel any kind of connection or kinship with them.
> 
> ...


Honestly Ouesi I have tried to reason with people on the net & in real life - but its just made me cynical, particularly of those who claim they love wildlife. If people don't feel empathy towards an animal how can you instil it? When people have been desensitized to cruelty & cruelty becomes the norm, how do you begin to change that mindset? I dunno :/

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> I don't think you can be so sure. As Jesthar says, some people may just be against the attitude of hunt sabs and violence that goes on.


But the majority of the violence comes from the hunt members not the sabs. Look at all the convictions, look at all the video evidence. Yet some people on here are very much sympathetic to the hunts.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> But the majority of the violence comes from the hunt members not the sabs. Look at all the convictions, look at all the video evidence. Yet some people on here are very much sympathetic to the hunts.


It doesn't matter where the majority comes from...violence is violence and there is no justification for kicking someone when they are down.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> It doesn't matter where the majority comes from...violence is violence and there is no justification for kicking someone when they are down.


Fair enough, but where is the proof anyone WAS kicked when they were down? Certainly NOT on that edited video


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> It doesn't matter where the majority comes from...violence is violence and there is no justification for kicking someone when they are down.


*Exactly.* Nor does it matter who starts an incident like that, it doesn't make the ending any less reprehensible.

And I'm way to cynical to suppose that all of the assaults by huntsmen on sabs have come utterly unprovoked. Just being out on horseback on a hunt day can be enough to attract some incredibly unsavoury behaviour...


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Honestly Ouesi I have tried to reason with people on the net & in real life - but its just made me cynical, particularly of those who claim they love wildlife. If people don't feel empathy towards an animal how can you instil it? When people have been desensitized to cruelty & cruelty becomes the norm, how do you begin to change that mindset? I dunno :/
> 
> .


Patiently, respectfully, and with empathy for the human animal too.

Noushka, I grew up going to bullfights. I must have attended 100s of bullfights starting as a pretty young child. I was taught to shrug off the horribleness, not to question, and to accept and respect the culture. 
I don't for a minute think I am some anomaly of nature that I can grow up in a tradition and then grow to reject it entirely. I think I'm pretty normal. If I can have my eyes opened, anyone can. But it doesn't happen overnight, change is a process.

Humans are just like any other animal, we are territorial, and we defend what we percieve as ours, and we aggress when we feel threatened. 
Down at it's essence, there is not much difference between the resource guarding springer who has decided that box of tissues is his, and the corrida aficionado who refuses to give up his traditions.

Neither is going to change by being forced to. Sure, to prevent harm you have to enact management solutions (for humans that would be laws and restrictions), but what creates long term change starts by meeting the animal at whatever point they are at, and building trust from there, starting a conversation, building a relationship, and teaching better ways.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> *Exactly.* Nor does it matter who starts an incident like that, it doesn't make the ending any less reprehensible.
> 
> And I'm way to cynical to suppose that all of the assaults by huntsmen on sabs have come utterly unprovoked. Just being out on horseback on a hunt day can be enough to attract some incredibly unsavoury behaviour...


Its not only sabs who are regularly on the receiving end of hunt abuse, monitors are also frequently abused. Even filming hunts takes guts!

[youtube_browser]/_ui_jNFlz14[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_browser]/snPP2-kPZSM[/youtube_browser]

Hunt monitor shot in the head [youtube_browser]/fNywQlmXfUk[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_browser]/hAmjkY9SIpQ[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_browser]/mXlrPFfyRDc[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_browser]/uzfv5XUaHqk[/youtube_browser]



ouesi said:


> Patiently, respectfully, and with empathy for the human animal too.
> 
> Noushka, I grew up going to bullfights. I must have attended 100s of bullfights starting as a pretty young child. I was taught to shrug off the horribleness, not to question, and to accept and respect the culture.
> I don't for a minute think I am some anomaly of nature that I can grow up in a tradition and then grow to reject it entirely. I think I'm pretty normal. If I can have my eyes opened, anyone can. But it doesn't happen overnight, change is a process.
> ...


Fox hunting shouldn't even be happening - it is illegal. But these people are so arrogant they believe they are above the law & most of the time they are. Even with video evidence, time & time again they get away with it, the judicial system is by & large bias - all part of the establishment.

Its impossible to reason with Countryside Alliance mentality.

Please take a look at some of the above videos & see if you think these sort of people can be reasoned with.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Humans are just like any other animal, we are territorial, and we defend what we percieve as ours, and we aggress when we feel threatened.


Nah we are much worse than any other animal.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

See, now you're getting aggressive with me Noushka, and all I did was answer your question about how you begin to change mindsets. 

I know what I think works, you know what you think works, you do you're work and I'll do mine and we'll just have to agree to disagree on the rest eh?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> See, now you're getting aggressive with me Noushka, and all I did was answer your question about how you begin to change mindsets.
> 
> I know what I think works, you know what you think works, you do you're work and I'll do mine and we'll just have to agree to disagree on the rest eh?


Ehh? I'm really not getting aggressive with you Ouesi. Does my post come across that way? I apologise if it does, it wasn't my intention at all.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Its not only sabs who are regularly on the receiving end of hunt abuse, monitors are also frequently abused. Even filming hunts takes guts!
> 
> Fox hunting shouldn't even be happening - it is illegal. But these people are so arrogant they believe they are above the law & most of the time they are. Even with video evidence, time & time again they get away with it, the judicial system is by & large bias - all part of the establishment.
> 
> ...


You are right, *fox* hunting shouldn't be happening as it is illegal. And it is wrong that it does. Drag hunting and trail hunting, though, are still legal. Now, I can see a good case for banning the use of any scents that smell like fox, and maybe trail hunting itself by extrapolation.

But you could quite legitimately accuse me of leaving my IQ at the door if I said that all those who choose to ride to hounds are pro-blood hunting. Likewise, I would be equally silly to believe that all hunt sabs and monitors are squeaky clean.

I do have to wonder how many people go to watch a meet out of curiosity and either become a sab because of the bad behaviour of some hunt members, or become anti-sab because of the behaviour of the sabs. Likewise, I have to wonder how many riders who fancy the challenge of riding to hounds on a legal hunt either never do it again because of an illegal hunt, or end up despising the sabs (whilst remaining anti-bloodsport) because of the way *they* behave?

And, certainly, videos like the above are emotional. But I would be foolish to accept them as unbiased evidence. Much as people pour scorn on the video that launched this thread for being edited, so you can do the same with the above - we don't know what happened in the lead up to the few brief minutes caught on camera, do we? Nor do we know about previous encounters or other history. We only know what the person wielding the camera has chosen to show us, which may be the equivalent of showing a video of a dog snapping at child - but leaving on the cutting room floor the previous minutes where that child and a group of his friends were poking and hitting the dog with sticks.

Or, to borrow from humour columnist Dave Barry's observations on shark documentaries:

"_Generally, their procedure is to scatter bleeding fish pieces around their boat so as to infest the waters. I would estimate that the primary food source of sharks today is bleeding fish pieces scattered by people making documentaries. Once the sharks arrive, they are generally fairly listless. The general shark attitude seems to be: `Oh, God, another documentary.` So the divers have to somehow goad them into attacking, under the guise of Scientific Research. `We know very little about the effect of electricity on sharks,` the narrator will say, in a deeply scientific voice. `That is why Todd is going to jab this Great White in the testicles with a cattle prod.` *The divers keep this kind of thing up until the shark finally gets irritated and snaps at them, and then they act as though this was a totally unexpected and very dangerous development, although clearly it is what they wanted all along.*_"

Cynical, moi? Yup! Student of human nature? Definitely....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> You are right, *fox* hunting shouldn't be happening as it is illegal. And it is wrong that it does. Drag hunting and trail hunting, though, are still legal. Now, I can see a good case for banning the use of any scents that smell like fox, and maybe trail hunting itself by extrapolation.
> 
> But you could quite legitimately accuse me of leaving my IQ at the door if I said that all those who choose to ride to hounds are pro-blood hunting. Likewise, I would be equally silly to believe that all hunt sabs and monitors are squeaky clean.
> 
> ...


Well the lady 'wielding the camera' in video two did at least get her day in court.

_A WHIPPER-IN could be sent to jail following an incident in which he repeatedly used his horse to barge a woman hunt monitor.

*It was the second time Christopher Marles had assaulted a hunt monitor.*

The first incident happened in October 2005 when he assaulted Kevin Hill at a meet of the Devon and Somerset Stag Hounds on Exmoor.

Marles was later sentenced to nine months imprisonment suspended for two years.

Magistrates at Exeter decided to refer the second assault to Crown Court for a Judge to decide whether the breach of sentence warranted a jail term.

Magistrates heard that Marles, 47, of Farringdon, near Exeter, repeatedly barged Helen Weeks with his horse when she was filming the activities of the East Devon hunt last March.

He knocked her to the ground three times.

At an earlier hearing Marles had pleaded guilty to the assault charge on the basis he had acted recklessly in riding his horse too close to the victim.

Although he apologised to Ms Weeks during the hearing the magistrates ruled the apology was no indication the attack was not intentional.

_

Hunting¦Christopher Marles¦East Devon hunt | North Devon Journal


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Well the lady 'wielding the camera' in video two did at least get her day in court.
> 
> _A WHIPPER-IN could be sent to jail following an incident in which he repeatedly used his horse to barge a woman hunt monitor.
> 
> ...


Wasn't it Tedworth a few years back where someone got trampled by a horse and an Air Ambulance had to be called?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

jon bda said:


> Wasn't it Tedworth a few years back where someone got trampled by a horse and an Air Ambulance had to be called?


Not sure Jon, theres been SO many. There was this recent incident of Blackmore hunt trampling a Sab Hunt member arrested for 'deliberately trampling protester with his horse' | Daily Mail Online


----------

