Why do the tax paying public have to go through this pathetic ritual every so often to satisfy a handful of deranged obsessed feeble minded idiots? We all pay for charities if we like it or not and their campaigns involve labelling us cruel, barbaric, animal abusing law breaking criminals. They know they can appeal to the handful of deranged feeble minded idiots with this cleverly thought out campaign. Naturally what they portray us as then we must be. So whatever we do we are breaking the law, only we are not. What they are doing is fitting their own preconceived idea on to our actions, hence we are breaking the law because that’s what they want to see. Totally madness a waste of time and public money and already known about in 1951. So why in a civilised society are we letting these morons and thier equally filthy disgusting charities dictate to us after all these years?
Preconceived Ideas
“One outstanding example, however, which received considerable publicity at the time, and which we therefore think it fair to mention, occurred in 1948 and resulted in an action for libel brought by a Master of Foxhounds against a clergyman of the Church of England This gentleman wrote a letter to the local newspaper alleging that he had seen a live fox thrown to the hounds after it had been dug out, and that “four times one of the huntsmen pulled out the fox from the pack”, and although it was still alive and screaming he deliberately shook it teasingly at the hounds. When the case was heard the evidence showed that a fox had been marked to ground in a drain, and that a local farmer had asked for it to be killed. A terrier (which, it was subsequently found, succeeded in killing the fox) was put into the drain and when it emerged, it was tied to an adjacent gatepost while the fox’s dead body was dug out and given to the hounds in the usual way. While this was going on the terrier yelped continuously, and its cries were apparently interpreted by the defendant for screams from the fox. The gentleman in question no doubt had strong feelings on the issue of cruelty to animals and we are quite sure that he also genuinely believed that he saw what he claimed to have seen. The jury found against him, however, and awarded £1,500 damages to the plaintiff. We think this case illustrates clearly that in field sports people who hold strong views one other or the other can generally find something which they think bears out their preconceived ideas……” – Scott Henderson report 1951
thealdenham 