BBC News Online have a major story (second story on their UK edition homepage this morning) headlined Police ‘can cope’ with hunt ban, complete with a picture of a ‘toff’ drinking, rather than a more relevant picture, such as a fox or hunting dogs (the use of which is to become illegal). BBC News Online informs us that:
Senior police officers say they have enough resources to deal with the ban on hunting with hounds.
The BBC story is supported with a quote from Suffolk’s Chief Constable, Alastair McWhirter:
Suffolk Chief Constable Alastair McWhirter promised a “proportionate response” to any illegal hunting, adding: “We have been policing hunting for 30 years.”
The Times covers the same story, headlined Hunt ban impossible to enforce, Police say – which informs us that:
THE ban on hunting will be almost impossible to enforce, police chiefs said yesterday, hours after it became law.
Senior lawyers also predicted that the level of proof required for a successful prosecution would be difficult to obtain.
Photographs or a video of riders chasing a fox or deer would be needed to prove that unlawful hunting had taken place.
The Times quotes the same Chief Constable, Alastair McWhirter, but at greater length:
Alastair McWhirter, the Association of Chief Police Officers spokesman on hunting with dogs, said last night that prosecutions would go ahead only if people admitted that they were hunting or if an animal were seen during a chase.
In a statement which will come as blow to supporters of the ban, Mr McWhirter said: “It is not an offence to wear red or pink coats or jackets, it is not an offence to exercise hounds or keep up traditions of using horns or meeting for a ride on horseback on private land.
“Unless someone owns up, you need a wild mammal in the picture to show that someone has committed an offence.”
However, Mr McWhirter later added: “We would enforce it to the best of our ability.”
The Times also quotes some other eminent people, including:
Peter Neyroud, the Chief Constable of Thames Valley, said: “Enforcement is not going to be easy.”
Chief Superintendent Rick Naylor, president of the Superintendents’ Association, said that there would be problems with forces having to deal with mass disobedience.
David Spens, QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said that the hardest matter would be proving that people intended to go hunting and to break the law.
Courtenay Griffiths, QC, public affairs spokesman for the Bar Council, said: “If there is no proof that people were chasing a fox or a deer, then that will be difficult for the police.
“Without some sort of independent evidence whether that is an affidavit from a witness, electronic, video or photographic evidence, I don’t see how they could bring a prosecution.”
Meanwhile, The Guardian, usually required reading at the BBC, reports that Police fear hunting ban strain:
Police could be stretched to the limit dealing with widespread public disorder following the hunting ban, the leading representative for rank and file officers warned yesterday.
Jan Berry, who chairs the Police Federation in England and Wales, admitted that vociferous opposition to the new law would put huge strain on the resources of small rural forces and create problems for officers on the ground.
At the same time, Alistair McWhirter, the chief constable of Suffolk, said he expected the new laws would be “tried to distraction” in the courts.
“I foresee it being the most tested piece of legislation since the drink driving laws were introduced in 1967,” he said.
There’s that Alastair McWhirter chap again. The Grauniad then goes on to discuss at some length law enforcement contingency planning for dealing with possible widespread civil disobedience and the government/police priority for dealing with this (presumably compared to things like murder, rape, robbery, theft etc.).
It seems clear that, unless The Times and The Guardian have been foolishly making up quotes from a lot of eminent and well connected people, the BBC version of the story is complete spin, selectively taking one quote from Alastair McWhirter that supports their story, whilst omitting entirely any mention of the anticipated difficulties in enforcing the new Hunting with Dogs Act (also known as the Class War Against Toffs/Troops Out of Iraq Now (Alternative) Act).
If you want the news on this subject then do read the articles in The Times and The Guardian (and doubtless in The Telegraph too). If you’re a leftie looking for solace in the face of a possibly pyrrhic parliamentary victory just stick with the BBC.
BBC News Online’s article concludes with these assertions:
Fox-hunting, the main focus of the debate, has been practiced for about 300 years in Britain.
Hunt enthusiasts say the ban infringes their human rights and that it will be a bitter blow to the rural economy.
Opponents have been campaigning for a ban for decades and say the practice is appallingly cruel and unnecessary.
Just for good measure, in contrast to these BBC assertions, we should note here that, according to The Guardian at least, the Act brings “to an end almost 700 years of foxhunting in England and Wales”, that there is more than a little debate (outside of the BBC at least) about the relative cruelty of hunting with dogs vis-a-vis the alternatives, and furthermore, again according to The Guardian, that the ban in Scotland, enacted in 2002, has almost doubled fox kills from 500 to 900 per year and that hunting dogs have fallen from 1,100 to 550, 400 of which were put down.
It almost goes without saying, of course, that the resources of The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph etc. are available free of charge to UK online readers – in complete contrast to the pathetic and biased BBC News Online coverage that we are dragooned into paying for via the BBC’s Telly Tax.
The article is called ‘Police ‘can cope’ with hunt ban’ yet if you look for the source of ‘can cope’ quote it’s not there.
On banning –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4026537.stm
“Church air was found to be considerably higher in carcinogenic polycyclic hydrocarbons than air beside roads travelled by 45,000 vehicles daily.”
“with candles buring all day, and frequent use of incense”
So nanny has an argument for closing down the Catholics, but they will have to try other measures to hit those dangerous Christian fundamentalists.
rob – I’m devastated by this news. My grandmother, who attended Mass daily for most of her life, apparently had her time here cut tragically short at the tender age of 93 due to her stubborn belief in the existence of God. Just think, she might have lived another 10-20 years if only…
Andrew
Your influence spreads far. There’s no picture of a ‘toff’ to be seen now. By clicking on the lower pic (‘The public give their verdict on the hunting ban’ – don’t you just love the way the ‘STOP HUNTING’ sign is nice and clear?) a series of photos is brought up. The comments deserve a fisking. I would but its not my bandwidth.
And I’m lazy.
OT
see the Beeb are taking a snipe at Bush and his speech-making gaffes on this coming monday night at 11.05pm.
Is there no start to their impartiality?
“Is there no start to their impartiality?”
How could you say that? The BBC are completly impartial between the “reasonable” “center-left” and “center-right”. It only the “extremists” like those nasty eurosceptics, those nasty free-traders & globalists and those evil people who believe the government should be limited in size & scope that are left out in the cold. But they only comprise a small majority of the population, so there is no reason the BBC should pay attention to those points of view.
You’ll find the WcWhirter quotes in the BBC piece are from the Today programme this morning, transmitted long after the papers went to press. You’d probably also find that, having seen the stories in those papers in which he was being quoted, McWhirter (or his superiors) decided some damage limitation was in order so he went on Today, giving the quotes then used as the basis of the BBC piece.
On the right hand side of that piece is a prominent link to this story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4026019.stm which not only covers the “anticipated difficulties in enforcing the new Hunting with Dogs Act” you complain are missing from the main story, but also covers many other issues surrounding the ban. Another prominent link will take you to this page where there is even more coverage of the all the issues: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2003/hunting_debate_/
So, ‘Someone Who Knows’, are you saying that News Online’s only source for this story was the Today programme, bits of which were regurgitated unattributed online?
Didn’t the author of the News Online article (timestamped 10.00am) have access to (or bother to read) the newspapers that you point out were available much earlier?
If so, why not cover that angle? Why not mention the alleged shift of position? What about the relevance of other prominent people’s opinions to the debate?
If not, why are we paying these people as journalists? We could just as easily use ‘listen again’ rather than read someone else’s third hand interpretation of it on News Online.
This also ignores the unsupported assertions and factual discrepancies I mentioned. What about the use of the ‘toff’ picture on the headline link?
Andrew
But that is the point. You don’t have to be a good journalist to be employed by the BBC. Polemics are the story, not facts, not research – not even simple fact-checking and a few minutes’ scan of how other media are covering the story.
This from the Sunday Times seems relevant here:
What was the foxhunting debate about: was it really a meaningful victory for morality and the ethical treatment of animals or was it based on a wilful and collective ignorance of the real threats to animal welfare — intensive farming, animal transport and vivisection? Perhaps it was more part of the so-called class struggle. Peter Bradley, parliamentary private secretary to Alun Michael, the rural affairs minister, admitted as much last night: “We ought at last to own up to it. The struggle over the bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom; it was class war.”
It’s not really class war though is it? It was Labour election promise which in a very small way helped them get elected. I was pleasantly surprised it wasn’t locked away in Whitehall corridor along with the relaxing of licensing laws and all the other manifesto promises.
Ah well TGORK, if that’s what Peter Bradley, PPS to Alun Michael (the Minister for Rural Affairs, who piloted the ‘class war’ bill through the Commons) said it was, who are we spectators to disagree with him!
Maybe he just wanted to wind up some ‘bloggers’, perhaps his dad is leader of the Dartmoor hunt…perhaps he’s bitter about still being a lowly PPS to a joker like Alun Michael. Who knows…?
redken
First, you can read a bit more of what Bradley said here:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/cat_civil_libertyregulation.html
Second, the manifesto did not promise a ban on hunting. It promised Parliamentary time for a free vote.
However, as you and other opponents of hunting are (currently) all in favour of Majority Rule I assume all are also in favour of a return of the death penalty. That’s democracy, innit?
Pete: Thanks for the link, will read it in a mo. I will say that couldn’t care less about fox hunting so I’m hardly an opponent. However I would like to drink in the pub until after 11 so I do take some small comfort from the ban.
Well, hope really…
Personally I think it’s all a cunning ploy to make absolutely damn sure of getting the vote out at the next election. For the sake of possibly sacrificing the 30 or so Labour rural seats Blair has ensured that the election run up will consist of interestingly attired country folk clogging up the streets of cities getting on people’s tits.
Thus reminded of the amount of subsidy which they provide to their ruddy cheeked cousins, urbanites and suburbanites everywhere will fock to the polls to punish them.
Rich
‘Punish’ them? ‘Punish’ them for what?
Pete,
It’s about people’s prejudices – countryside marchers have funny clothes, silly haircuts and wierd accents. They’re ‘not like us’ and people don’t like big organised groupings of people ‘not like us’ in their back yard.
It’s also the ‘what the f*ck have they got to moan about’ tendency – i.e. we’re trying to get to work to subsidise them yet they’re clogging up the transport system, waving placards and braying at us. Is Otis Ferry really more hard done by that 99% of (say) Barnsley?
Personally I agree that the ban was at the very least a total waste of Parliament’s time but I’ll still be very p*ssed off if I end up paying for civil disobedience by these people.
You’re from London – can you honestly say that outside your Conservatively minded friends any of your fellow Londoners have much sympathy for the countryside movement? It’ll be a vote winner for Labour and I reckon it’s deliberate.
Rich
Yep, I am from London, though happily removed now to a lovely village outside. Your words are truly astonishing. So, country people are ‘not like us’? Because they wear different clothes and have a different accent? Here we have the liberal left excusing prejudice and bias, in its full glory, because some are ‘not like us’. What happened to tolerance? What happened to live and let live? What happened to minority rights? What happened to respecting others cultures, eh?! Binned pal, binned because some are ‘not like us’ and want to preserve their way of life.
cont’d …
So you want NO subsidies? You can have it. There goes welfarism, there goes millions on the social security role. I work and claim nothing. The only flow of money occuring is from me to the treasury. I’ll gladly take it back and deprive the underclass of their drugs, pal. Like you said, no subsidies. People ‘like me’ don’t want subsidies, we don’t even want to be understood, we just want intolerant, interfering people like you to mind your own damned business and leave us alone. If the left hadn’t started its campaign against the country there wouldn’t be anyone to clog up ‘your’ transport. This is no vote winner at all for those bastards you love. They can kiss goodbye to rural seats and can kiss goodbye to any co-operation.
cont’d …
What about muslims, Rich? They’re ‘not like us’. They dress differently, speak with accents and have different cultures. Tell me you’re not a hypocrite and then tell me you support predujice against them. What about the Turks and Greeks in north London? Asians in east London? Fuck them too? Open your eyes long enough and you’ll realise no-one ‘is like you’. As we can say ‘fuck you’ to those who are a drain on us though I’ll say it to you; my taxes subsidies your transport, it subsidises your policing, it subsidises the vast economic costs of London’s ever increasing crime. There’s a simple solution to all of this you know. Its called ‘minding your own damn business’. Those odd people who occasionally ride on ‘your’ train? Guess what, its their train too. Suck it up.
I’m not defending anti countryside prejudice (and even if I was I’m certainly not liberal and not particularly left either), but I think it’s a fair summary of the views of most urbanan and suburbanites – sad though that may be.
I was merely opposing the view that a hunting ban inspired furore in the run up to the election is some sort of ‘nightmare’ for the government. I suspect the opposite might be the case, especially if it hides issues of genuine mass concern such as immigration, the war and Eurocrapness. Personally I believe that party strategists may be sly enough to have provoked it deliberately.
Sorry – missed the last couple of bits of angriness. I agree entirely..
Hey? Who? What? Ahhhh you were talking of how others see it and not you? If so …. Doh!
I may not have made that clear. I was pretty convinced by the argument that hunting is amongst the better means of culling foxes and certainly agree that the ban is utterly pointless.
Most of my politically disinterested urbanite friends (even those who normally vote Conservative for tax reasons) are however in favour of shooting on sight anyone who comes within 5 miles of London whilst wearing a red jacket.
Does England really have so many foxes that they need to be regularly culled? I was under the impression that wildlife was in v. short supply in the more crowded parts of Europe.
I’m in conflict over fox hunting as it would normally fall under the category of things I’d want the government to keep out of but I don’t consider fox hunting hunting at all.
Hunting is one of mans oldest skills, guile, tracking, preparing and using a weapon to kill the prey. With fox hunting the people don’t do anything at all, the hounds do all the work! Therefore in my eyes it’s a sport no different from cock fighting and therefore perhaps elligble to be banned.
Susan
There’s no problem with a lack of wildlife here at all. Foxes do have to be culled and as hunts will no longer be able to do it from February onwards they’ll be shot (by farmers with shotguns, not necessarily marksmen with rifles) gassed (all mammals in range will be gassed) and trapped (i.e. only put out of their misery after much pain).
Andrew
Even if hunting ‘wasn’t hunting’ it would still not be the government’s business. The issue is simply one of power; the left proscribing a freedom simply to demonstrate that it can. Perry de Havilland puts it well here (‘A moment of utter clarity’):
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/cat_civil_libertyregulation.html