Figures released today by the Ministry of Justice show mounting prosecutions under the Hunting Act 2004.
Thirty-six people were convicted of Hunting Act offences in 2010*, bringing the total number of successful prosecutions to over 180. The high conviction rate of 73% shows that the ban is effective in tackling people who want to set dogs on animals for sport.
Recent polls show that 75% of the British public do not want to see a return to hunting with dogs**. There is continued strong public support for the Hunting Act across all political parties.
The figures were welcomed by grassroots campaigners including Conservatives Against Fox Hunting who claim to represent the two thirds of Conservative supporters who oppose repeal of the Hunting Act 2004 and do not want to see repeal of the Hunting Act 2004**. There are now 23 Conservative MPs who support the ban on hunting wild animals with dogs.
Lorraine Platt, the Co-Founder of Conservatives Against Fox Hunting, said: “The latest prosecution figures are very encouraging and show that the legislation introduced over six years ago needs to remain in place to protect wild animals. The latest hunting convictions demonstrate the success of the Hunting Act. Nobody is above the law and people who flout the law will be prosecuted. It is extraordinary that a few people claim the legislation is unenforceable – we still have burglars flouting the Theft Act but nobody would dream of repealing that law because some people continue to break it. Let’s use common sense here.”
Conservatives Against Fox Hunting encourage Conservative MPs to support the Hunting Act 2004 on their website www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com and their Facebook site.
* http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110607/text/110607w0006.htm#11060826003939
**These figures are from an Ipsos MORI poll.
Fieldwork was conducted between 4-10 September 2009.
The following article on hunting was written by James of The League Against Cruel Sports on 11 June, 2011 : 11:21
Despite how temporarily annoying it is when having to rebutt and refute the Countryside Alliance’s attempts at masquerading as animal welfare evangelists – we shouldn’t lose sight that this is because they have to.
They have to pretend to love foxes, badgers and deers, because the truth that they love to chase them and set dogs on them and watch as one animal rips apart another is so fundamentally unpalatable to most people that they know they can never win an argument on those terms.
This week we’ve seen two different lines of attack from the hunting lobby, mixed in with the usual grumbles about the Hunting Act criminalising hunting (that was the point really).
When the Ministry of Justice revealed that there had been 36 Hunting Act convictions in 2010, they tried the line “it wasn’t us guv”. Well the Government also said this week it was impossible to tell who was and who wasn’t connected to a hunt.
Crispin Blunt, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice said in a written answer;
“It is not possible to separately identify those specific cases proceeded against under the Hunting Act 2004 related to hunts recognised and regulated by the Council of Hunting Associations.”
Yet they themselves tellingly refer to the “solidarity” within the Hunting community when it comes to prosecutions. Whatever could that mean I wonder?
Also, at their AGM this week, the Masters of Foxhounds reported continued “difficulties associated with the Hunting Act”.
The second line of attack has been the Hunting Act prosecutions are not about hunting at all. Apparently, the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service are in cahoots with the League to make the numbers look better.
Errrrr, OK. If you say so.
Why the CPS would choose to prosecute under the Hunting Act when they could use all the other wildlife legislation that the Countryside Alliance rightly pointed out still exists?
Could it be because people were hunting?
No… no… no… it must be that the Police, the CPS and the judiciary are all part of some anti-hunters conspiracy.
So to summarise their position:
a) It’s not us doing the hunting
b) The Hunting Act doesn’t work
c) We absolutely must get this act repealed because we continue to have difficulties when hunting
What a totally inconsistent and incompatible set of statements.
