The Case in question has been taken from the Independent.
Two of the most politically motivated stories pushed by the left wing press before the general election was Boris is going to sell off the NHS and trail hunting because it can be sold as only cruel Tories take part.
The left wing press were pretty successful with the Boris NHS fabrication, but looked ridiculous liars once he took office and pledged Billions to its upkeep. But not so the trail hunting they struggled with the clamp down on political campaigning on social media, or so it appeared a week before the election. Then as if by magic, two days before the election the Independent carries the headline:
“Fox ripped apart by hounds after activist lies on animal in effort to protect“
We will discover the only truth in that headline and story is “Activist lies”
The article written by Jane Dalton of the Independent but for the purpose of this article we will call her Hanoi Jane after her namesake Jane Fonda made radio broadcasts in an attempt to shame the American troops during the Vietnam War.
Firstly let’s be clear about a few things, the Independent are trying to hard sell a left wing narrative to its readers, they also know the vast majority reading that article will not make it passed 60% of that article. In fact a large percentage will only read the headline and first few paragraphs before sharing.
“A fox was savaged and ripped apart by a pack of hounds from Prince Charles’s former hunt, despite an activist’s efforts to protect it against the illegal killing”
“Footage shows a hunt saboteur lying over the wounded fox in effort to save the animal as the dogs are set on it”
“When the demonstrator asks a rider whether he has any shame over the kill, he shrugs and replies: “Accidents happen.”
It’s not pretty reading and any preconceived ideas you might have held against trail hunting have just been qualified or reinforced.
For those willing to go further evidence from the League Against Cruel Sports explaining there were multiple incidents of foxes being chased by hounds and also badger sett interference. The hunt saboteurs get to give their account on what happened:
“We had a group close by who ran down to try and stop it. They saw the hounds chase and get the fox and they tried to get down there to help it”
And then we have the all-important comment from a face book user:
Louise Martin, commented: “What a dreadful thing to do to an animal, it must have suffered such terror in its last moments”
“How anyone can think this is a ‘sport’ is beyond my comprehension.”
Have you noticed anything strange yet?
We’ve had the comment from the random face book user but no comment from the hunt involved in the incident. That doesn’t come until they know the vast majority would have given up reading the article, it can be found right at the very bottom.
But the hunt give out the most significant statement of all:
“Hunt saboteurs were present throughout the course of the day, purposefully distracting the hounds by blowing a hunting horn and playing recordings of hounds in action which only serves to confuse the hounds and take them out of the control of their huntsman. We urge the saboteurs to refrain from this behaviour.”
So what’s so significant about it? – If the saboteurs had taken control of the hounds as suggested then it is they who are in charge of them when the fox was killed making them liable for illegal hunting and ultimately responsible for killing the fox, not a good look if your sponging off gullible folk claiming to save foxes. Nowhere is that fact mentioned in the article by Hanoi Jane.
The Saboteurs know that and so do the police waiting for their evidence and they will ask the sabs to give an account on what happened before the fox was killed, awkward!
So this piece of fake news ended with the police investigation ending due to lack of co-operation from the saboteurs, they instead opted for claiming they don’t deal with the Leicestershire police because they are biased towards the hunt.
This manipulation of the public has been going on for decades, my favourite is the Guardian in 2002.
“Hunt Lobby holds personal files on thousands” screams the headline, now scroll to the very bottom.
The following correction was printed in the Guardian’s Corrections and Clarifications column, Monday November 4, 2002
In this report, we said: “The Countryside Alliance has declared that it holds financial, sexual, religious and other personal intelligence on its opponents.” We accept that while it does hold files on a small number of individuals for security reasons, it holds no systematised personal information on its opponents.
thealdenham 