5 hrs ago
By Daniel AngeliniSenior Reporter
Share
LIVE: Emergency services rush to
serious A-road crash
Fox hunting remains a divisive issue (Image: PA)
An investigation into reports of saboteurs interrupting a hunt near Swindon being dropped has led to renewed debate about fox hunting.
In January, members of the Severn Vale Hunt Saboteurs had the police called on them while they were attempting to stop what they believed was an illegal hunt in Radcot, near Faringdon.
During this incident, beagles were allegedly seen running in an open field.
However, the investigation has now been shelved unless new evidence is brought to light.
Amazon’s Worst Nightmare: Washington Shoppers Canceling Prime For This Clever HackOnline Shopping Tools | Sponsored
How Long Does $2.5 Million Last in Retirement?It may seem like a large sum to retire with, but there are many variables to consider.SmartAsset | Sponsored
If You’re Collecting Under $3950 in SS a Month: You’re Eligible for These 10 Discountssilverpenny.co | Sponsored
This decision has reignited discussions on fox hunting and the role of the saboteurs.
Many are divided on the ethics of hunting and the actions of those who seek to disrupt hunts.
Roy Mcghie said: “They shoot loads more than all the hunts put together.”
His comment reflects a common argument that hunting practices may not be as harmful as some critics suggest.
On the opposite side of the debate, David Sterratt replied: “Difference, pest control is not sickos casing a poor animal to exhaustion.”
Woodturner Cahill replied: “Hunts are cruel actions led by cruel and inhumane people who enjoy seeing animals suffer for their entertainment.”
Recommended reading
- Woman admits role in distraction burglary at Old Bank Antiques
- Swindon developer tries again after ‘unsafe’ housing plan declared ‘madness’
- ‘I wouldn’t ever go out in the dark on my own’ – Swindon women’s fears
Martin Newman replied: “The hunt sabs are gathering evidence that’s led to successful prosecutions because the police aren’t actively enforcing the law.
“The hunt sabs are a brave bunch and I’m full of admiration for them. Keep upholding the law you are on the right side of history.
“The League Against Cruel Sport will shift the main focus of its activity to getting game bird shooting banned. Another barbaric ‘sport’ that has no place in a modern civilised society.”
This highlights the strong emotions on both sides regarding the treatment of animals in hunting scenarios.
Woodturner Cahill added: “Hunts are cruel actions led by cruel and inhumane people who enjoy seeing animals suffer for their entertainment.
“They should all be locked up.”
Cahill’s viewpoint expresses a belief that hunting should not be tolerated in modern society, as it promotes suffering for the sake of entertainment.
Others have pointed out the complexities of the situation.
Martin Newman stated: “The hunt sabs are gathering evidence that’s led to successful prosecutions because the police aren’t actively enforcing the law.”
He expressed admiration for the saboteurs and suggested they are fulfilling an important role in protecting wildlife.
Amanda Jane remarked: “The hunts around me always catch foxes,” reaffirming the belief that hunting continues to pose a threat to wildlife.
In contrast, Neil Fox claimed: “Hunting is a natural thing for the human race,” indicating a more traditional view on the practice.
Yoel Dovid took a different stance, stating: “Hunt sabs are ideological thugs terrorising others in some perverse form of class warfare.”
Ella Hardin expressed similar concerns, noting: “As someone who disagrees with hunts, hunt sabs are just as bad the way they will treat the horses.”
She argued that while she does not support hunting, the treatment of horses by saboteurs can sometimes lead to harm, adding: “I don’t agree with the hunt or even the hounds but no one can deny their horses are kept very well most of the time, especially considering they’re usually well off and unless you’re actually running the show like the secretary or field master they’re just regular people who paid to be there.
“Hunt sabs on the other hand, while their morals can be in the right place, their actions can actually be very dangerous for the horses.
“There’s evidence of them even harming horses and frightening them so much riders are thrown off which makes them just as bad as the people they’re protesting.”
Critics of the hunts have also raised questions about the legality of their actions.
Elaine Dargan asked: “Aren’t the ‘participants’ of the hunt breaking the law?”
In response, Paul Mycock stated: “No they are not. They are ordinary people trying to have fun on their horses.”
Richard Johnson added: “The huge majority of hunts’ members are average working class folk that graft to live.”
Peter Addison argued: “The only foxes that were ever killed by hunts (pre-ban) were the sick and lame.”
Meanwhile, Chris Noon pointed out: “It would be a waste of police time” to intervene in these scenarios, suggesting that the legal issues surrounding hunting are complex and not easily resolved.
Olivia Wolfson-Green emphasized the need for hunts to demonstrate compliance with the law.
She said: “Hunting can either wait for the inevitable Parliamentary move or it can decide to demonstrate, convincingly, that trail hunting is indeed being properly conducted.
“That means going further and faster than the steps that have been taken so far.”
Her comments imply that the future of hunting may depend on how well hunts can adapt to changing societal views and legal expectations.
Phil Rushden said: “Well done hunt saboteurs! You are good people.”
Matt Wichall said: “The Sabs continuing to do great work for our wildlife and countryside!”
Exposing the Big Game 