The Support Hunting Association is one of the UK's most prominent pro-hunting organisations, now incorporating issues related to Game Shooting, Fox Hunting and Angling.
About Us
|
Full Contents
 |
The menus below contain the full contents of the site.
| News Centre |
|
| Background Information |
|
| Information on Hunting |
|
| The Hunting Bill |
|
| Other Links |
|
 |
 Latest News RSS Feed |
|
|
Search our site
|
| Search our site using Google. |
|
WWW Supportfoxhunting.co.uk
|
|
Have you seen these pages?
|
|
Police View of a hunting ban - Two chief constables voice their concern on a ban on hunting.
Timelines -On the current Hunting Bill, the attempts to ban hunting, and on the ban in Scotland.
Hunting vs. Human Rights - Parliament has advised that the Hunting Bill is incompatible with the Human Rights Act.
|
Quotes
|
The ban has guaranteed that the time and money invested by the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA has increased animal suffering. We told them this would happen. This rise in suffering since the ban is the cost of ignoring that warning!
Daily Telegraph
3 May 2005.
Numerous police officers accompanied the more than 250 hunts which took place yesterday, the first day that the sport became illegal. Despite the friendly exchanges between officers and huntsmen and women, the presence of the police posed a question: what public good were they trying to uphold?
Daily Telegraph
20 February 2005.
|
|
|
| Further legal defeat for hunt supporters - 30 July 2005 |
Pro-hunt campaigners yesterday lost their second high court challenge to the ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales.
Two senior judges ruled that the ban does not breach either the European convention on human rights, or EU employment and trading laws.
 |
| John Jackson vowed to continue the fight |
Dismissing the case, Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Moses ruled that the 2004 Hunting Act, which brought in the ban, had "a legitimate aim", was "necessary in a democratic society" and "satisfies the test of proportionality".
The Countryside Alliance is awaiting a final ruling on its first challenge, which argues that the 2004 act is unlawful because the Parliament Act 1947, under which it was forced on to the statute books despite the opposition of the Lords, is not itself a lawful statute.
That claim was thrown out by the high court and the court of appeal, and is awaiting judgment from the House of Lords in the autumn. The ban prohibits deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs, as well as foxhunting.
At a hearing, the alliance argued the ban was ruining the livelihoods of thousands who earned their living from hunting, both in the UK and Europe, and infringed EU trading and employment laws.
Welcoming the court's ruling, the League Against Cruel Sports said: "Foxhunting in Britain is now dead. It is time that its supporters accepted that." John Rolls, the RSPCA's director of animal welfare promotion, said: "The high court has given a very clear and authoritative judgment upholding the hunting ban."
| " |
The judges have accepted there is interference with some of the claimants' rights, and that the Hunting Act will have a substantial general adverse effect on the lives of many in the rural community.
|
" |
John Jackson
Chairman, Countryside Alliance |
|
|
In their ruling yesterday, the judges said: "We consider that there was sufficient material available to the House of Commons for them to conclude that hunting with dogs is cruel."
In any event there was "a reasonable basis" for concluding that "taken as a whole, hunting foxes with dogs causes more suffering than shooting them".
It was "reasonably open to the majority of the democratically elected House of Commons to conclude that this measure was necessary in the democratic society which had elected them".
John Jackson, the chairman of the Countryside Alliance, indicated that the legal battle would continue. "The judges have accepted there is interference with some of the claimants' rights, and that the Hunting Act will have a substantial general adverse effect on the lives of many in the rural community.
"However, the court appears to have proceeded on the assumption that parliament had a legitimate aim and has itself speculated on what that may have been.
"Whether the court is right to have proceeded in this way is plainly a controversial question. We intend to appeal against this decision."
PLEASE NOTE - © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005.
The text above is directly from The Guardian article "Further legal defeat for hunt supporters" - access it below.
|
Related links
|
|
The Guardian | 30 July 2005
Daily Telegraph | 30 July 2005
Countryside Alliance Press Release | 30 July 2005
|
|
|
