Judge slaps down CPS and animal rights fascists

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

It seems that there’s at least one judge in England with enough backbone to uphold the constitution and protect our fundamental rights.

A High Court judge has ruled that Liebour’s flagship class war weapon, the ban on hunting with dogs, does not include a ban on using dogs to search for and flush out animals and that the burden is on prosecutors to prove that someone didn’t have an exemption from the hunting ban, not on the accused to prove that they did.

The animal rights fascists have been getting a bit big for their boots lately.  They think the hunting ban was for their benefit when really it was part of the jealous class war being waged by the remaining socialists in the Liebour Party.  They have been getting away with a lot of criminality lately when “monitoring” hunts and the internment of Otis Ferry for hunting-related charges has made them think they’re above the law.  This judgement will hopefully slap them down and show them that the law applies equally to all men (and women) and that they cannot reasonably expect the fundamental concept of English law – that someone is innocent until proven guilty – to be set aside just because they don’t like to watch rich people hunting.

The fact that the CPS even tried to get the High Court to rule that someone can be guilty until they prove their innocence should serve as a warning to us all.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,


  1. axel (1214 comments) says:

    I always thought this was a civil service stitch up, Nu Labour pissed off the civil service, so the civil service drafted a crappy law and the new mps being inexperienced passed it. It did not take too long for the high powered bigwigs to find the holes in it and with relatively minimal extra aggro you can continue to hunt as normal.

    I’m not pro or anti hunting I’m pro ‘not give a fuck’

  2. PaganPride (2 comments) says:

    The green and pleasant land that we laud so much is a product of centuries of such pursuits as hunting, and game protection laws.

    What happens when you turn that upside down is that birds of prey become too numerous for their natural prey and start on their not-so-natural prey.

    The last time I was back in England in my home county I was struck by the silence – where the county had previously rang with the sound of the song birds, all now seemed silent. When I queried the reason my old game keeper friend told me that the peregrines had taken most of the young from nests over more than a decade and the results were complete loss of these birds from their usual habitats.

    PS I have nothing but contempt for so called ‘animal rights’ thugs who attacked horses with razor blades in an attempt to stop hunting. My horse carried the scars for the rest of his life and limped from a slashed tendon.

  3. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    “part of the jealous class war being waged by the remaining socialists in the Liebour Party.”

    Erm, no. The hunting ban was a way of New Labour deflecting attention and parliamentary time from other more pressing matters – such as the loss of our manufacturing base, etc.

    So rather than being a real “class war” – which would surely involve land reform rather than an issue like hunting – this was rather a culture war.

  4. William Gruff (138 comments) says:

    This issue is almost one of the very few things that I might agree with Charlie on. The other commenters are talking bollox.

    The landscape looks as it does not because it has been managed for hunting (thank you very, very much sir)but because millions of poor sods have laboured, over more than a thousand years, in unpleasant conditions, at the whim of whomever doles out the pennies, to make it that way, and what he who doles out the pennies wants is not hunting land but profit, mainly to pay the rent on the quarter day (as a number of my ancestors had to – and, I’m told, some of my ancestors were those to whom the rent was paid) but also to ensure that he and his wife did not die in the workhouse nor his children end up labouring for one such as himself for their daily bread, and little more, as I do now.

    To suggest that without human intervention natural predators can invert the natural order is the argument of an idiot, or a hunter, which is much the same thing. I’m sure that similar arguments were offered when bears and wolves were wiped out in England, and similar arguments were offered to obstruct legislation preventing children from being sent up chimneys with lighted brands on their backsides or down the pits with stubs of candles to light the first hour of their first day at six years old.

    I despise those Br*tish people who dress up in silly clothes to preserve some long obsolete ritual intended to demonstrate their continued mastery of the land we all call England and anyone who calls himself an Englishman despises those people too.

  5. Stan (222 comments) says:

    Interesting that this page is about law and order – wasn’t it David Cameron who said of the hunting ban “We’ve passed a law that everyone is openly flouting”

    Have the police interviewed him to find out what he knows about these law-breakers?

    If you want an example of people who think they are above the law then Otis Ferry seems perfect.

  6. jerry (78 comments) says:

    I have to say that I generally disagree of an animal being chased for hours and then killed but I don’t see that much of a problem when it is just “flushed out” since it dies quickly.
    We kill thousands of animals a day so we can eat them ,so why should this more humane kind of hunting be probihibited?
    And by the way PaganPride,it is pretty idiotic to suggest that human interference in nature is actually better for it than when it remains in it’s natural state.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.