Early Day Motions are a way of raising an issue in Parliament. MPs write a few words about an issue and then other concerned MPs can add their names to demonstrate support. If an EDM gets a lot of support, particularly cross-party support, then the issue tends to be taken a little more seriously than if no-one signs up.
EDMs are the playground for backbench MPs – Ministers and Shadow Ministers usually don’t sign them (although they are able to – it’s a loose convention not a hard rule).
And so, checking whether your MP (for they do work for you!) has signed any EDMs, which ones and whether their apparent interests represent your own, is a good thing for you to do to get a little involved in the democratic process. You will find that the personalities of MPs come to the fore here – some are notoriously grumpy about EDMs and never sign any, whereas others throw their favours around rather indiscriminately. Which category is your MP in, or do they pick and choose?
If you would like your MP to sign a particular EDM then ask them! That’s what I did on Friday evening and my MP, Andy Sawford, replied very quickly to say that he would add his name to EDM 603 so I expect that his name will appear on the list in a few days time. Well done Andy and thank you!
EDM603 refers to the future funding of the National Wildlife Crime Unit and already has 108 MPs signed up. That makes it the equal-9th most-supported EDM in this session of Parliament.
Interestingly there is a very noticeable party split of support. The Green Party’s whole parliamentary membership (ie Caroline Lucas) is signed up, as are the whole of the Respect Party (George Galloway) and Alliance Party (Naomi Long). In addition there are Plaid Cymru (3), Scots Nats (4), SDLP (3), Independent (1), Liberal Democrats (23) and DUP (5) MPs too. 62 Labour MPs are already signed up (and Andy Sawford will be adding his name) but a small and insignificant party called the Conservative Party has only managed 4 signatories; Andrew Rosindell (the sponsor of the EDM), Peter Bottomley (who signs many EDMs – 421 out of 870 in this session of Parliament), Zac Goldsmith (who is the greenest Tory in Parliament and a member of the Environmental Audit Committee whose recent report supported the work of, and need for, the NWCU) and Sheryll Murray (for whom this is the only EDM she has signed).
But just four out of 303 Conservative MPs supporting this EDM? Very poor. Totally inexplicable of course.
Ask your MP to sign EDM 603 (or any others – why not?) and ask them also to explain why they won’t if they are not prepared to do so. Tell them that you care about this issue and that wildlife issues may influence your vote in the next general election.
And if your MP has signed already then why not thank them by sending them an email, or on Twitter or Facebook?
I will keep you updated on the signatures to EDM 603 over the coming weeks.
[registration_form]
Done that. Patrick McLoughlin. Will let you know any reply. He does respond. He went and looked at our local children’s library when I remarked on the lack of books. (Decided it was perfectly adequate. And perhaps it is. For a non reader with no curiosity or potential to change. Oh dear. But still, he went.)
Hilary – thank you! MPs will respond to the views of the people who elect them.
Perhaps, but I didn’t. I just got landed.
Mark
E-mailed my Labour MP (Rachel Reeves) who is in the Shadow Cabinet to ask her to sign the EDM and also about hen harriers and VL. An in the process of writing to my POlice Crime Commissioner (West Yorkshire) to raise his awareness too and put him in touch with your Blog, assuming he isn’t already.
Will keep you informed of any developments.
Richard
Sadly, Rachel Reeves won’t sign EDMs – I’ve asked her before, and I got a nice email to say whilst she agreed with the motion, she couldn’t sign it!
The problem is that we have a very specific wildlife law – the Hunting Act which rather than targeting cruelty is specifically designed the target the activities of one specific minority whether they are or are not cruel.
Meanwhile those that pushed this law through specifically opposed another piece of legislation which would have made all deliberate cruelty against wild mammals illegal however it is caused – the Donoughue Bill.
In truth no one could argue that deliberate animal cruelty is ok and this was precisely the problem with the Donoughue legislation – no one could reasonably disagree with its central tennet. So it’s not confrontational enough. Moreover everyone who manages and deals with wildlife would be effected by it rather than just a clearly differentiated minority.
People need minorities to hate so they can carry on trashing the planet with a guilt free conscience.
The current situation is that we have wildlife legislation which does not enjoy the consent of a significant proportion of the rural population. This is great for people on blogs and in parliament who can lambast them for being ‘toffs on horseback torturing the nations wildlife for their sick deviant sexual pleasure’. But maybe in some ways not so great for wildlife.
Giles – we have laws concerning child abuse, drug trafficking, theft, arson, murder etc. which do not enjoy the consent of a significant minority of the population. Should we throw in the towel or try to see the law in these areas upheld more effectively? Did anyone suggest legalising arson after the Reeves furniture store in Croydon was burnt down during the summer 2011 riots because the law wasn’t supported by the arsonist?
Whatever we may think of the Hunting Act (you and I probably differently) we have a perfectly good piece of legislation called the Wildlife and Countryside Act – it’s about time we enforced it. There could be few greater things for wildlife than if we did.
You’re suggesting that we actually enforce existing legislation? Why enforce existing legislation when we can pay our representatives dubious expenses to sit round for hundreds of hours wittering on and producing a mountain of new legislation? That way they all get to feel important and nothing ever really changes.
Re child abuse/ arson &c I think that is a little different. Certainly where I live a very large percentage of people are vigorously pro hunt. I am not sure that there are many communities where such a proportion of people are arsonists. Moreover sensible laws against murder ban killing people (except in certain circumstances). A sensible law against cruelty would ban just that. What exactly is the Hunting Act a law against? I’m really not sure. If it is a law against cruelty why doesn’t it make cruelty illegal? That seems to make sense to me. But we know it’s proponents opposed a law which would have done just that.
Giles – I think we may be talking (or posting) at cross purposes! I was thinking about people prepared to (for example) illegally kill birds of prey in defiance of the W&C Act rather than those opposed to the hunting ban, as I think that was the main point of Mark’s blog. Though perhaps you are right that most of those who oppose the hunting ban think they have the right to kill wildlife in defiance of whatever laws exist.
I take your point about our elected representatives not always doing or talking about the right things. But in the case of supporting the NWCU (and for those that sign EDMs signing this one) this seems to be a case of many of them doing the right thing. You may think differently, but I don’t quite subscribe to your dim view of our representatives, well not all of them anyway, which is why I recently wrote to mine.
I think you are saying you feel you have a moral duty to defy the law on hunting. Your choice I suppose, though you also say you never practice lethal control of wildlife yourself. Do you support other measures which protect wildlife such as the W&C Act – a sensible law it seems to me banning the killing of wildlife (except in certain circumstances)? What would the Donoughue Bill have done that the W&C Act currently doesn’t – would this have better protected birds of prey from illegal persecution? Would it have compensated for a dedicated but under-resourced and overstretched police force fighting wildlife crime with one hand tied behind it’s back?
“most of those who oppose the hunting ban think they have the right to kill wildlife in defiance of whatever laws exist.”
I can’t speak for others but my view is that I have the right to NOT kill wildlife in defiance of the Hunting Act.
What I do is only illegal by the fact that I refuse to kill.
The Donoughue Bill would have specifically prohibited any deliberate cruelty to any wild mammal howsoever caused. Basically it would have made cruelty (to a wild mammal) illegal.
Giles – thanks, I think I understand your point of view better now I’ve read the comments on Mark’s blog today, and your guest blog from May 2012, of which I wasn’t previously aware. I’d still be interested to know your views on the W&C Act though…
Hi Mark – belated greeting to all
EDMs ?? If you’re really serious use bottom-up Social Media – not the top-down MPs who will follow along shortly! Or go to your MEP – after all it’s where 80% of our Law comes from.
Wildlife Crime?
Just imagine a popular wildlife species – population – say 300,000 20 years ago – but diseased with a pathogen / zoonose – and being allowed to very seriously infect children
And with the popular species now in excess of 1 Million and say 30% of them with the disease – and the leading charity – which invites membership and donations to ‘care’ for the species – continuously ‘misleading’ the public in its Press Releases
Isn’t that a Wildlife Crime?
Just thinking like …….
PS 1 – Radio 4 – 1.45 – Mon – Fri “Mountain & Moorland Birds”
PS 2 – and as for Giles’ ‘toffs on horseback torturing the nations wildlife for their sick deviant sexual pleasure’ – I can honestly say that I have never experienced the ‘sick deviant sexual pleasure’ that Giles refers to whilst out following hounds – “fear?” – many times!
But it makes one wonder who did the ‘hacking’
Trimbush – Happy New Year. I’ve seen EDMs make a bit of a difference. And this is a spending policy by the Home Office nothing really to do with the EU except it could trigger a complaint to the EU if wildlife crime is not tackled.
That might depend on what’s in the jodhpurs on the horse in front of you 😛
John Stevenson (Carlisle). Zero.
It’s surely worth considering the idea that the Hunting Act may be seen by some people as another small step of the path of civilisation – in the same way that earlier bans on Bear Baiting and Cock Fighting are now accepted as the civilised norm. It may also be worth considering that, whilst there is no doubt that much of the hottest argument over hunting was between opposing ideologies that sometimes had little to do with foxes let alone the countryside, the majority of public opinion necessary for such a law to pass was actually concerned with what seemed to be the barbaric treatment of a species which may have been acceptable in 1900 but was not in 2000. They may well be the same people who find it inexplicable that crime closely associated with a group in society that far from being a persecuted minority sees itself as an untouchable elite seems to be allowed to pass almost unchallenged. As I’ve suggested before, it would be in the best interests of field sports for the many responsible, law abiding, practitioners to put a stop to wildlife crime before the public reaction puts a stop to both legitimate and illegal activity around shooting & field sports.
Well there you go Roderick. Personally I have to say I am on the side of wildlife crime. Not all wildlife crime – I abhor cruelty &c but nevertheless I am a wildlife criminal and proud of it. In fact I would go so far as to say that breaking the Hunting Act is for me a moral and civic duty. I don’t regard myself as an untouchable elite, if the police RSPCA &c wanted to prosecute me they could but they choose not to.
As far as the NWCU is concerned good luck to them as long as they don’t stand in the way of my criminal activities.
Throughout history we have had absurd and unjust laws and this is just another one of them and I could not give a hoot whether ‘most’ people according to dubiously worded polls think that what I do should be criminal. If ‘most’ people think that then ‘most’ people can go hang because I’m not going to stop. I belong to a long line of people from the tolpuddle martyrs through Gandhi and Martin Luther King who have openly and proudly flouted bigoted legislation.
I hope that has wrapped that one up.
Giles the typed word can be hard to decipher what is meant as sarcasm and what isn’t? Your first paragraph abhors me. Do you think it really is ok to break the law,as much as you may feel about the Hunting Act, it is a law! You mock the the RSPCA, yet when they did go after a hunt they were critiscised by (again) politicians from one side of the spectrum and a judge over the money spent, so much so I understand the Charities commision is having a look. Amazing when the ban came in all the hunts and their dogs tried emotional blackmail and said all their dogs would have to be destroyed, yet this weekend I had a Tweet from one pro-hunter bemoaning the RSPCA’s spend on the Oxfordshire hunt and the sad fact that his local RSPCA shelter faced closure, yet the hunts were threatning to detroy their dogs! HYPOCRITS
There’s one thing protesting, lobbying against a law or an act but to break a law is just criminal, you kid yourself if you compare yourself to Gandhi, Gandhi wouldn’t be seen chasing a fox to it’s death..
Douglas I have never chased a fox to its death. That’s got nothing to do with my criminal acts. Your post assumes that crime is a bad thing. Again this is quite often the case I agree but not in my case.
I think more hunts should break the law. Where they have been going wrong is with the trail hunting thing. They should be far more up front about things. Explain to the police and the RSPCA that the law is absurd, openly flout it and invite prosecution.
So when the ALF and other similar like minded individuals decide to break into an animal lab’ because they think animal testing is absurd with no real scientific purpose, that makes it ok then?, or dig up the remains of an old lady whose family are involved, that makes it ok then? Or the individuals who in accordance with current EU laws think Badgers shouldn’t be culled and go out to disturb the cull “by any means neccesary” that’s ok too? That’s what you’re subscribing to if you’re advocating breaking the law. Or how about a junkie comes into your house tonight in search for something to steal and ends up seriously hurting you,your kids or wife, that’s ok because the drug laws in this country are also absurd so according to your reasoning it’s justified. How odd, Pro hunts were all about promoting the fact of how many people are in favour of hunting, yet the moment a politican says there’s no chance of the law be overturned, pro hunters endorse breaking the law of the land! But then want laws protecting their land/property and way of life, sorry but you can’t have both! If there was ever an argument for keeping the WCU you’ve just made a pretty strong point in favour of keeping WCU, well done and thank you…I always wonder if when people said the BASC,CA etc were just paying lip service to conservation I was so hoping it wouldn’t be true, so sad.
Apologies but one more comment on this subject – this is what Labour MP Tom Harris had to say to justify the absurd Hunting Act : “If you’re pursuing any mammal for pest control purposes, you must kill it. They’re pests, you see. Quite simple.”
Well I am sorry but I refuse on principle to kill any of the wildlife on my property. The law is based on the ridiculous prejudice that it is better for me to shoot animals then chase them. This is simply not true. The reason wild animals run away is so they don’t get killed that is perfectly obvious to anybody who is not a complete idiot. Deer have evolved over millions of years to be chased and the idea that one can chase them with dogs as long as you shoot them in order to prevent them being chased is sheer lunacy. For one thing to shoot a deer you have to wait till it is standing still in which case it is no longer being chased. Only a complete cretin would support this.
I have never shot a deer on my land and I never will. I am proud to use entirely non lethal wildlife management.
Wildlife crime is not a bad thing when the law against which it is a crime is moronic.
How can any sane person say hunting is not cruel.
They come up with rubbish about culling the weak and yet if a fox strong enough to get to safety they dig it out.
Less foxes now without hunting than what there was previously does away with the excuse hunting needed to control numbers.
I have seen a fox that got away absolutely shattered and walking drunkedly in front of me,a really sad sight.
All hunting people should be put on foot and pack of Rottweilers let loose after them and see if they enjoy the chase and adrenalin rush that they say fox enjoys the chase.
If they are not bloodthirsty they would happily follow a scent.
Of course hunting can be cruel and where it is it should be illegal. Parliament obviously did not think all hunting is cruel which is why it allows some forms. How can any sane person say that all animal cruelty should not be illegal however it is caused? And yes maybe there are less foxes now without hunting, is that a good thing? They are probably being killed in ways that can be far more cruel. There will quite possibly end up being less red deer on Exmoor without stag hunting too and also more suffering.
Dennis yet again we agree totally must be something to do with a new year. I remember an old friend no longer with us describing a conversation he had whilst tree planting in the fifties with a man who had just described the delights of hare coursing at Altcar. He said a better sport would be to have a mile wide pen with no cover with a small box in the middle containing said hare coursing fan. At a given signal he would be forced out of the box to run for the fence where upon two very hungry Siberian Tigers would be released. Thats about how I fell about hunting folk. Sorry Giles not not even despite the PR from the Countryside Areliars a significant part of country folk, it wa sright to ban iot as they have in almost all civilised societies, the law is just so badly written its easy to flout( but all we need to do is get the intent clauses removed).
Get the intent clauses removed? In that case it would be illegal to flush out deer even if you didn’t intend to. Basically people would have to shoot everything that came out of cover when they took their dogs out.
All to prevent the possibility of the dogs chasing something.
Not entirely sensible.
It is entirely sensible because currently Hunts get away withit because intent is almost impossble to prove, that was why pro hunt MP’s got the intent clauses inserted. What you do is chase off, somewhat different Gilesand certainly currently within the law so stop playing the martyr. NWCU is vital if we are to stop the UK being used for international cites smuggling and to stop our national countryside disgrace, raptor persecution so get on board.
There aren’t actually any specific intent clauses Paul. What the law bans is hunting which is an intentional activity, this means you cant accidentally hunt without meaning to. You can;t hunt something without intending to. Another example of an intentional activity would be ‘searching’ you can’t search for something by mistake – as in accidentally search for your car keys when really you meant to eat a banana.
Also I am not against the NWCU nor am I against wildlife law I just think it is important for it to be sensible.
My advice from the polcie and the government is that what I do is illegal. But you MAY be right – maybe it is legal for people to still deliberately chase animals with dogs as long as it is ‘off’. I could see big problems with that too though.
Dear Mr Price
Thank you for your email about the future of the UK National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) and EDM 603.
The Government is committed to tackling wildlife crime and fully supports law enforcement agencies who are working through the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime. The Government also recognises the important contribution of the NWCU, which offers advice for law enforcers on wildlife crime matters and coordinates activity to tackle the current UK wildlife crime priorities. The NCWU produces every six months a tactical assessment of progress against each of its priority work areas. This assessment is then considered by the Home Office, Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs and others members of the UK Wildlife Crime Tasking and Co-ordinated Group.
As you may be aware, with the introduction of elected police and crime commissioners in November and the creation of a National Crime Agency, there are significant changes taking place in the broader policing landscape. The role played by the NWCU will evolve in accordance with these. Consequently, I understand from Ministers that decisions regarding Government funding for the NWCU beyond 2012-2013 will be taken later this year. It may be that it is better to let the new police and crime commissioners decide how best to allocate resources at a local level rather than providing specific central funding.
As a general rule I do not sign EDMs. Early Day Motion is a colloquial term for a notice of motion given by a Member for which no date has been fixed for debate. EDMs exist to allow Members to put on record their opinion on a subject and canvass support for it from fellow Members. In effect, the primary function of an EDM is to form a kind of petition that MPs can sign and there is very little prospect of these motions being debated on the floor of the House. As they have no legislative value and cost the taxpayer many hundreds of thousands of pounds each year, I regard them as a poor use of taxpayers’ money and instead seek to ensure that Ministers are aware of my views, and those of my constituents, on these matters.
With best wishes
Andrew
Andrew Bingham MP
Member of Parliament for the High Peak
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Tel: 020 7219 8479
Mark there is an e-petition around on this:-
https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43978
It is not very well supported as yet but there is a good while to go; perhaps the RSPB will get behind it.
Giles, as (my nearly namesake) Douglas has mentioned …but I thought I make sure….
Are you being serious when comparing yourself to Gandhi, Luther King and the Tolpuddle Martyrs?
I guess not but maybe you were?
What say you?
Whilst you consider a response (I hope) – back to the point…
Well done Tony. Was just going to put the link here to the e-petition myself.
Hi Doug Mack D. I am fatter and have more hair but in that I eschew the killing of animals I think there are similarities. Let us not forget the great man’s words:
“The greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats his animals.”
It is unfortunate that the reflex action to kill our wildlife is so deeply ingrained in our psyche that the MPs who drafted the Hunting Act had to include a requirement to kill in it. It is probably the only law which requires potential victims of a crime to be killed in order to prevent them becoming victims of a crime.
So yes insofar as I refuse in principle to kill wildlife in these circumstances there are similarities.
I came across a photo of a deer that had been shot in the head recently – it had survived for several days. I’m not saying that wildlife does not have to be culled however I am standing up for my right not to do so.
re MLK I think one of the best things he said was “One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. ” – and although obviously I cannot be imprisoned for refusing to kill wildlife (although the RSPCA want that penalty) nevertheless I think this does apply to me. I break the law out of respect for it. I have a higher respect for the law than both the MPs and activists who knowingly defend such an absurdity and the police who fail to enforce it.
As a criminal I have the moral high ground.
I hope that answers your question.
And my MP Michael Ellis, no response just an automated email saying “thank you” or “sod off”…
You got an automated reply? Count yourself lucky! Alistair Carmichael’s office so far haven’t so much as acknowledged my email to him. Presumably because he’s got everyone out there persuading his Liberal and Conservative companions to sign up to it.
“So when the ALF…” &c &c
Those are all completely different circumstances to mine because they are breaking sensible laws which would quite rightly be enforced and they are doing things that are morally wrong. In my case the law is not enforced because what I am dong is morally right.
IF anyone takes exception to my not killing wildlife then they can prosecute me. They choose not to do so. If they do then I might well decide to start complying with the law and gunning down wildlife fleeing from my dogs.
Up until that point I will not do so. I think that is perfectly reasonable. If you don’t like it Douglas complain to the police or maybe get your MP to sign an EDM or other such nonsense.
Let me ask you a question Douglas – would you be against what I do if it was people I was refusing to kill rather than just deer?
“let me ask you a question Douglas etc-” Obviously Giles that’s a yes but maybe when people who are liscensed to carry guns have the sort of mentality maybe it’s time to take the guns away! As for calling the police Giles , gives me your adress and I’ll be to happy to call the police and let them deal with it then!
If they took the guns away how on eart could people obey the law?
My address is
Giles Bradshaw
Whippenscott
Rose Ash
Devon EX36 4PP
Not sure why you’d call them they most definitely will do nothing
I have just reported you to the police and they have told me they will be taking action. I suggest others do so to increase the pressure on them to enforce the law.
The police can be reached on 01392 420320
Why waste police time Chris? I’ve been thorough it with them – they let me break the law.
If Exeter police waste any time and money investigating someone who refuses to kill things they should be locked up, but not before a cavity search.
Probably not Giles given the experience I’ve had with the police, but you asked me too in your previous question/comment and I shall contact them and let them deal with it as they see fit.
You are a copper’s nark Douglas. I’d imagine you’d have been shopping people to the stasi in East Germany too. If the police get in touch and try and make me obey the law I may well end up shooting the deer to comply with it.
I hope that will make you feel happy.
” But then want laws protecting their land/property and way of life, sorry but you can’t have both!” – yes I can – and I do. In fact if any ‘hunt sab’ tries to prevent my illegal actions I will turf him off my property.
“BASC,CA etc were just paying lip service to conservation I” – firstly I’m not BASC or CA and please explain what has having to gun down herds of deer as they flee my dogs got to do with conservation? It would be appalling wildlife management as well as very cruel.
What has BASC/CA got to with conservation, well on their websites, through blogs and media statements both have been happy to say what they are doing are for the benefit of the countryside/conservation it’s all there in various form of print, I’m not making it up Giles, some conservationist have questioned their “PR approach” and wonder if there’s any substance to it, your opinion you’ve expressed on here isn’t “the lone” opinion so I was making a point that perhaps your attitude to breaking the law when it suits YOU and anyone else breaking the law is just a criminal sums up want some have suspected for a long time.
And who exactly does the law ‘suit’ Douglas? Not the deer surely? We should remember they cannot speak for themselves. I speak for and protect the wildlife and nature on my land. I am the voice of the voiceless and I defend them against the utter idiocy of an ignorant and partly criminal elite. Ask your self a simple question – if you were a deer and encountered a man and two dogs in some woodland which would you rather do. Run a way and live another day or run away only to have you and your fellow animals blasted to hell with guns purely to comply with an unthought stipulation from a stupid law?
Drawing a parallel between someone refusing to kill wildlife and common criminals who murder, rape and steal is utterly perverse.
Giles, ANYONE who breaks the law is a criminal wether the crime be rape,murder,theft. People campaigned for the Hunting act, it was debated in th HofC and passed by the HofL Now with every law including serious crimes like murder loopholes/circumstances can mean the charge can be downgraded to manslaughter on appeals, drunk drivers can exploit loopholes to get off d&d charges, the laws arent perfect and have oddities written into them, but are drawn up to cover as many “what-if” etc scenarios. If you’re not happy with the law campaign to change it but don’t break it. Think it along these lines Giles say I use your address, contact the police and say have a look at this (unlikely they will but…) say they catch you breaking the law and decide to take you to court, say you’re found guilty, what next? The law remains, what do you achieve? What happens if you get bird/jail time what happens to your family/farm etc?
Drawing parallels with murder and rape may seem perverse and it is, but the perverse thing really Giles if you break the law that you’re on about wether you think you’re in the right or not you’ll be in the same prison as those folks who murder and rape….
Hi Douglas from an ethical point of view I feel it is a big mistake to equate crime with evil. If I rape someone that is an evil act. It isn’t made evil by the fact its a crime it is a crime because it is evil. What I do is not evil, it’s good clean fun.
IF I was prosecuted I’d have to think very carefully about what I would do. I’d like to think I would just stick two fingers up at the law and carry on. It would probably depend on the size of the fine. (There is no prison sentence (yet) for refusing to kill wildlife.)
Another option would be to comply with the law and next time I have a herd of deer in my woods simply pay ten people to form a line of guns and blat them all as they emerge from the woods. I guess I could film this and get pictures and a story in the press &c.
I did think about doing this when the law came in and I discussed the matter in detail with Douglas Batchelor the chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports. I have to say he was dead set against the notion.
I am told by a hunt monitor that people are actually doing this – they use ten shotguns and two hounds to flush deer which are then mown down. To my mind this is potentially cruel and I would rather be a criminal than risk causing such huge suffering to animals. I can however also see their point, they are after all complying with the law.
What I also have to consider is that the police LACS RSPCA &c know exactly what I do. Do they actually agree with the law concerning my actions? I strongly suspect that they do not which is why they do nothing to prevent me carrying on.
I have never killed or harmed a wild deer in any way.
Think of it like being a conscientious objector.
Giles,
Coppers Nark? Nah. But funny how you and others on this blog have said one of the problems facing wildlife crime is peoples apathy and unwillingness to get involved, if I feel (rightly/wrongly) someone may be willing to break the law then yes I will call the police, what’s wrong with that? Wouldn’t you? As for being the stassi, not sure what they are maybe it’s an age thing and as for being a nark, I was accused of that when my face appeared in my local paper and had “grass” sprayed all over my walls because I forced the police to deal with a crack den in my block of flats, I got accused of being a nark when I grabbed some(well clothelined actually) smack head who snatched a womans handbag and got an assault charge too boot. Nark! F****n’ proud of it some should try it more often we might not face the problems we do today. In MY VAST experience of dealing with criminals on a daily basis the only people who hate people for informing the police of criminal behaviour are the CRIMINALS and for that I make no apology, you do what you do and I’ll do what I have to do.
I don’t hate you for phoning the police Douglas in fact I think it’s quite funny that you did, however as they wont do anything I’m thinking it was a bit of a waste of their time and your phone bill. The Stasi were the East German secret police, maybe before your time.
Just a little before my time, I was only 5 when the Berlin wall came down 🙂 I had to research what stassi was, and no I think I might not have helped, but looking at who did/forced to help them etc, who knows?
Single s! Just out of interest what dd the rozzers say when you ‘phoned them?
I don’t think people quite understand what Giles is saying. The law requires him to kill animals and he is refusing to do so. He has actually got a very good point. Maybe people should consider why he should have to kill in the first place?
Reading Douglas Mcfarlane’s comments about junkies and ALF people. Isn’t the difference here that all those crimes have victims whereas Giles’s crimes do not? The only thing that his deer are victims of is not being killed which does not sound too bad to me. Should we perhaps have a law requiring people kill raptors? Would people support that?
Judith did you ever read about the experiment performed where someone is told by an ‘authority figure’ to give an actor pretend electric shocks? Most of the subjects administered a shock so great as to kill the actor purely because they were told to. Isn’t this a similar situation here? That they would actually insist that I kill purely because of a law? It strikes me that sometimes people act like sheep. Time to lose the shackles and stop running with the flock. If only people would think for themselves and stop living in fear of the idiots that rule us and their idiotic laws.
Giles –
I actually hoped you weren’t too serious (with your comparisons) but you certainly have answered my question – thanks.
I agree with an awful lot of what you write (I visit Mark’s blog from time to time and remember reading something you wrote a while back and thought… “Yes (Giles), that makes a lot of sense”. I think it was about deer and dogs then too).
What I don’t agree with (this time) are your (somewhat) strained comparisons. Admittedly this is a tiny part of what you have written in your comments and I’m picking at bits really. But your very admirable (I think) point is in danger of being diluted completely with an unnecessary sentence on Gandhi, Luther King and the TMs, which strays slightly into delusion. A shame.
If you’ll permit me to make a few comparisons of my own…. (about myself).
I’m a bit like Moses, you know.
How’s that then?
Because I once parted the shallow-end of a swimming pool after a spectacular belly flop.
Waaaitttt. I can do better than that….
I’m actually a bit like Jesus.
How come?
Because I once made a salmon and a couple of bread sticks go really quite far at a dinner party.
Noooo…. Hold on. I’ve got it!
I’m really like God.
Yep. You heard me right.
I’m like The Lord God Almighty (himself).
Why?
Because after a hard six days at work… come(th) the seventh day I like to, sort of, well…. you know….. rest.
Apologies Giles – I’m in a facetious mood again, but by making even semi-serious comparisons between yourself (chasing deer) and someone like Gandhi, you do sort of give a green light to my mild irreverence.
By the way….do you chase the deer in a loin cloth and sandals?! (Ok I’ll stop it now!)
As for what you write in your comments to this blog post (poor comparisons aside), I pretty-well agree with what you say.
Good luck to you fella.
Judith (see above).
Doug Mack D I take your point. My comparison of myself with Gandhi was not meant to be a sartorial one nor to say I have or ever will have such a huge historical significance (or indeed any) in terms of anti colonial struggle &c.
I was merely pointing out the similarity as far as my treatment of animals goes with respect to wild deer – ie refusing to kill them and also a refusal to comply with unjust regulation.
In any case sandals are a no no in devonshire woodlands at this time of year.
ps I shall modify my position to one of ‘being inspired by and attempting to in my own small way to follow the example of’ previously mentioned historical figures.
Wud that in your view be more appropriate?
Thanks to democracy, my MP is a conservative. This was his response when I asked him about EDM603 in November:
Dear Mr. Thatcher
Thank you for contacting me about the future of the UK National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU).
The Government is committed to tackling wildlife crime and fully supports law enforcement agencies who are working through the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime. The Government also recognises the important contribution of the NWCU, which offers advice for law enforcers on wildlife crime matters and coordinates activity to tackle the current UK wildlife crime priorities. The NCWU produces every six months a tactical assessment of progress against each of its priority work areas. This assessment is then considered by the Home Office, Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs and others members of the UK Wildlife Crime Tasking and Co-ordinated Group.
As you may be aware, with the introduction of elected police and crime commissioners this month and the creation of a National Crime Agency, there are significant changes taking place in the broader policing landscape. The role played by the NWCU will evolve in accordance with these. Consequently, I understand from Ministers that decisions regarding Government funding for the NWCU beyond 2012-2013 will be taken later this year and I would like to wait to hear their decision in the light of these changes to the broader policing landscape rather than signing this EDM. It may be that it is better to let the new police and crime commissioners decide how best to allocate resources at a local level rather than providing specific central funding.
Thank you again for contacting me on this issue.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Djanogly
Standard namby pamby wishy washy lacklustre dreary anodyne chicken heart chicken lickin’ coward cry-baby fraidy-cat jellyfish lily liver milksop Mummy’s boy pantywaist quitter scaredy cat sissy weakling wimpish wussy yellow-belly on-message reply.
Not to put too fine a point on it!
John – I knew I’d seen this before … it’s basically the same reply that Mike Price received from Andrew Bingham (see comment above). The wording of the two main paras is near identical. This at least proves they’ve contacted the minister or someone in the dept. about the issue, if only for a line to trot out – and I can understand why MPs receiving a volume of correspondence will need to resort to standard replies. However, I don’t think this response is good enough. Perhaps if we receive it we should follow it up … (I’ve not had a reply, or even an acknowledgement from Alistair Burt yet, so will chase this today).
Acknowledgement today from Alistair Burt’s office that I’ll get a reply… I thought so.
Thanks Mark. Seeing our MP, Mr John Baron, on Friday about biodiversity considerations in local planning issues. His name is not on the list for 603 – will ask.