15 Comments

A pack of dogs out of control?

Where are the armed response units of local police?

Anyone else with a dog dangerously out of control would be in a lot of trouble, and at least two of these cretins had plenty of 'history'.

Expand full comment

I couldn't agree more Ray which just goes to prove, if any further proof were needed, that there is one law for these ass hats, and another for everyone else! This is not only very disturbing but also disgusting in the strongest possible terms!

Expand full comment

I do completely agree Ray W but with the exception that the dogs shouldn't ever be harmed as a result. The dogs are ALWAYS innocent, whether they are "dangerously out of control" or not. It is always those who are "meant to be in charge of the dog/s" who is/are always responsible for what happens (in this case, being the hunt scum), never the dog/s!! Armed response units of local police should be used for murderers and serial killers like the hunt scum, NEVER for dogs/animals!!

Expand full comment

There aren't bad dogs, just bad dog owners.

Expand full comment

100% correct!!

Expand full comment

We need a law that cuts out the complexities leading to excuses and lack of intent etc,etc,. One law to cover it all, one law and one big guilty charge! Shame prisons are so full!

Expand full comment

Rosemary, it's not the fact that prisons are full, but no-one has the balls to actually do what's necessary, I don't know if this is because of parliamentary legislation, (or rather, lack of it), which prevents district judges from handing down tougher sentences to these prats, or what, but something needs to be done, NOW!!

Expand full comment

Well it's a start but it didn't go nearly far enough. This should've amounted to a custodial sentence in my view, of at least 5 years for everyone concerned. While the monetary fines issued by Judge Bone are fairly heavy, (should've been much more), I'm wondering if the lenient sentence handed out by Judge Bone was because of parliamentary hindrances, (some might say interfering), preventing him from issuing much harsher sentences including but not limited to, custodial sentences of 5+ years in addition to heavier fines. While these twats have a month to find the money, this is unlikely to deter or prevent them from resuming their hunting "careers"! The sentence is not nearly hard enough to stop them and they will continue unabated as before. Protect The Wild are doing everything they can to get the laws changed and tightened up but it's not quick enough and these prats will just find other ways to hunt without being seen by the sabs, they are doing all THEY can do to disrupt every hunt they attend but they can't be at every single meeting that occurs so these shitbags will just time their meetings when they are reasonably certain that the sabs won't be there to hinder their progress! All this has to stop, AND STOP NOW!!!!

Expand full comment

On the subject of sentencing, there is one reason that tougher sentences aren't handed down that perhaps some haven't considered.

These crimes are committed locally by largely local people.

They are local business people, the employees of local companies, publicans, police officers, doctors, TV and film personalities, (and we all know who they are), farmers and their employees.

They are people who socialise with each other and perhaps members of certain organisations that keep their membership secret, and there is the problem.

If Joe Blogs plays golf with Mr. Smith and Mr Smith is a magistrate, AND Mr Blogs employer, and by coincidence a member of the same funny handshake club it becomes a social problem when Mr Smith is given the case of illegal hunting and cruelty against Mr Blogs.

The day before the court hearing the two of them are drinking in the same bar.

Now I'm not using this as an excuse for not banging up Mr Blogs, just as an example of why it becomes a socially 'uncomfortable'.

Expand full comment

I think Ray W that happens virtually all the time. It is commonly called "Backhanders" and "friends in high places". Virtually everyone knows that there are so many judges and police that are "screwy" and are actually involved deeply with the criminals. Have you ever seen the comedy series "Porridge" at all with Ronnie Barker? If you haven't, I recommend watching the 3 episodes where the judge who locked Fletcher (Ronnie Barker) up for stealing was convicted of fraud himself. Those 3 episodes says it all about the way the so called "justice system" works. It has not changed.

Expand full comment

Oh yes, love them. It's the reason why it's so popular. People know how accurate the portrayal really is.

But it really needs a deep examination of these individuals by a good psychiatrist to determine why they do what they do.

It's obviously not because they truly believe that these animals need controlling for farming reasons, but purely evil. A base instinct to control and kill for sadistic reasons.

Expand full comment

All very true!

Expand full comment

While thankfully , this is a win for us, sadly it is a very small one. That fine will not put the tiniest dent in these prats pockets. Hopefully this is the start for change.

Expand full comment

WHEN THE HOUNDS GET THE SENT OF BLOOD, THEY ARE OUT OF CONTROL AND GO INTO THEIR HUNT AND KILL MODE. THE JUDGE IS INCOMPETENT OR A SUPPORTER OF THE HUNTS AND WILL ONLY GIVE A SOFT SENTANCE TO THESE PEOPLE.

Expand full comment

WE LIVE IN A LAWLESS SOCIETY, THINGS HAVE TO CHANGE. THE POLICE HAVE TO DO MORE AND MAKE MORE ARRESTS .THESE INNOCENT ANIMALS DONT NEED TO DIE FOR FUN.

Expand full comment