Sometimes I wonder what has happened to erstwhile frequent commenters on this blog who seem to have gone missing.
Giles Bradshaw has commented many times on this blog – usually under his own name but I’ve caught him trying to have conversations with himself under aliases too. Giles’s comments go back to August 2011 and number at least 470 but I haven’t heard from him for a while.
I wonder whether he has wifi in his cell?
[registration_form]
Wow!
That’s the thing with criminals. If they are happy to ignore one piece of legislation (and believe they can get away with it), why stop there. It’s one reason why turning a blind eye to organised crime of any kind is not a sensible thing to do.
Indeed! And that is precisely why the police’s failure to properly enforce the Hunting Act is so wrong.
Bradshaw appears to have persuaded them that he should have the right to march unarmed into his woods with his dog and disturb wildlife without then properly disposing of it in the manner required by the law. Imagine if everyone was permitted to do this!!
Do not be fooled by his pathetic excuse that he has no gun – he could easily ask one of his friends in the hunting community to deal with any flushed deer in the proper manner.
And do not fall for arguments that what he is doing is merely ‘flushing’ and therefore not really ‘hunting’ – the Hunting Act prohibits everything that falls under the ordinary English meaning of ‘hunting’ and that definitely includes driving deer out of woods and other cover.
We need full enforcement of the Hunting Act – without exception!
“Imagine if everybody was permitted to do this!”
I’m not sure it would be such a bad situation if people did not have to ‘dispose’ of wildlife that they disturbed when out with their dogs. I tend just to think “oh there’s a deer/rabbit/fox/etc.” I don’t think there is necessarily a need to “dispose” of it.
And is ‘flushing’ hunting under the Hunting Act? If so why? Which ‘ordinary meanings’ of the word ‘Hunting’ des the act include? I see no reason to believe any one has a clue.
I just take my dog out and kill nothing. I can’t see why that should offend anybody.
Using dogs to disperse wild deer is non lethal, cruelty free, 100% ethical and completely vegan. It is infinitely less cruel than chasing deer and then shooting them.
It’s 100% illegal – there is nothing wrong with the Hunting Act’s drafting – this was all considered – the non cruel alternative is shooting the deer as soon as possible once flushed .
I can well understand the argument that shooting as soon as possible is a less cruel alternative to chasing the deer for mies till it’s exhausted and then shooting it.
However that isn’t the only option – there is also the option just letting the poor animal be.
Surely that’s even less cruel.
I would maintain that shooting causes intense pain – this pain may be a momentary flash – when death is ‘instant’ – however in the real world the pain may well go on for a lot longer – and even if it is just a ‘flash’ it’s still not a particularly desirable result for the animal being shot. If someone were to suggest shooting me ‘humanely’ – say in the back of the head with a shotgun – I’d still object- even if my death were to be ‘humane’. I’d still rather not be shot.
and when get out of jail I’ll carry right on!
btw no wifi but we have mobile phones!
YOU posted thousands of messages on twitter promoting your concocted and invidious idea that it is somehow practicable and acceptable to take dogs out without killing wildlife and attacking the League and its President for covertly filming a three year old child playing with a ball in the aftermath of a hunt and using the video for its promotional purposes.
This was a deliberate attempt to undermine the work of the League.
“Non lethal flushing” like “trail hunting” and “hound exercise” does not exist – it is a pretense to try and cover up and excuse cruelty.
99% of the “thousands” of messages – had nothing to do with the unfortunate filming of a child by LACS – and were not directed especially at the QC – they concerned a campaign over flaws in the Hunting Act.
Why would that be a sensitive issue? It’s widely realised that the law is flawed. It’s right that different views should be heard about why it is flawed and what can be done to rectify it. It may cause offence in certain quarters to discuss such things but in a democratic society we should be allowed to cause such offence.
I first knew of Giles before I even discovered this blog. I had tuned into the (execrable) Field Sports channel where Charlie Jakoby was discussing the Hunting Ban and trying to dismiss it as a mistake. I was struck by this rather odd character that took Charlie for a walk in ‘his’ wood and complained that he would be breaking the law if he tried to protect it from damage by deer if he let his dogs chase them. I got the feeling the guy was trying to be a martyr rather bizarrely and this was all a bit of a contrived, convoluted point. Then, joy of joys, I eventually found this blog, but I noticed in the comments that there was a fellah called Giles banging on about chasing deer out of his wood with his dogs – same guy!! It just goes to show that we live in a remarkably small world…..although it has just got considerably smaller for Giles. Hopefully it also underlines the point that the Field Sports channel is actually a great advert for restricting certain dodgy ‘activities’ because it shows the kind of people that support them.
Does he have and will he lose a shotgun licence?
I’ve never had a shotgun – nor a shotgun license nor a gun of any kind – what I campaign for and practice is an alternative to killing – so no need for a gun
YOU stated on twitter that if the police prosecuted you for breaking the law then you would use guns!
I did – and fortunately they don’t.
Sweet.
What is it with people who work in IT (and accountancy etc) and bloodsports!?
Can you explain this comment? I don’t work in either accountancy or IT (I’ve no idea if I work in ‘etc’ or not) but I suspect that the majority of people in these professions have no involvement in blood sports of any kind.
FWIU he’s anti blood sports – he’s banged on for years about the exemptions in the Hunting Act under which blood sports are continuing. Unfortunately it’s such an intractable debate that anyone who criticises the law in any way is seen by some as ‘pro blood sport’.
Not pro blood sports – I’ve campaigned for and practice an alternative to blood sports which doesn’t involve killing animals – in many ways the opposite to bloodsports – discouraging animals that can cause damage by modifying their behaviour – much in the same way that a scarecrow is an alternative to shooting birds. The central difference between what I do with my dogs and a blood sport is that it involves no blood – no guns – no killing – and no cruelty.
Generally a lot of it was meant as humour and a bit of relief while I was working – I hope I haven’t pissed Mark off as well as said QC – I don’t think I have because Mark hasn’t kept sending me legal writs and phoning up the police!
And yes – for a long time any criticism of the Hunting Act was seen as being ‘pro blood sports’ – it was a rather sensitive issue when the law first came out – although slowly even organisations like LACS have started to recognise that the law is flawed. Meanwhile Hunting is continuing much as it ever did – at least around where I live.
So it goes.
Get real! The Hunting Act is not about whether or not we should kill wildlife – it’s about preventing the use of dogs to “manage” it.
Whether or not you are killing animals has nothing to do with the legality of your actions.
Trying to tug at people’s heart strings will get you nowhere. This was all looked into in great detail – using guns is kinder than using dogs – that is an irrefutable fact which has been proved beyond any doubt.
@J “Get real! The Hunting Act is not about ..”
well what is it about then?
My impression was it was about the prohibition of cruelty – I can understand the argument that shooting a deer is less cruel than chasing it for twenty miles and then shooting it – however I do not accept that it is less cruel than NOT chasing it for twenty miles and then NOT shooting it.
If I were a deer I’d prefer not being chased for a long distance followed by not being killed – to being killed.
I’m really not sure what there is about not being shot that’s not to like. Personally I think that not being shot dead is a positive thing. Everything else being equal it’s an option tat given the choice i tend to opt for.
Thanks Jeff. I work in IT and a member of LACS.
I also wondered about Bradshaw’s mental health, and whether he is being exploited by other members of the hunting community. To troll a QC for 3 years…. and then break a restraining order to continue the trolling. It does make you question his capacity for rational thought.
But I’ve also noticed that some of the more voluble and aggressive advocates for hunting have gone quiet recently. Jamie Foster no longer posts on twitter, aside from RTing the bizarre Country Squire magazine, where he is a regular contributor. And Countryside Alliance director Richard Hardy (@pip_tp) has deleted his twitter account and started a new locked one.
Perhaps they are running out of steam.
“mental health”
We know from a number of lengthy blog exchanges here that that GB has an obsessive tendency and feels compelled towards repetitive behaviour that may provide temporary relief from his anxiety but obsession and anxiety soon return – causing the cycle to begin again. This seems to align with a form of OCD – which raises questions about prosecuting and imprisoning someone who has a mental disorder. Alternatively, if he was entirely rational it was a great error of judgement to pester a QC, who by profession would know other QCs and could expect their support and agreement that making his wife cry and spoiling their holiday in North Wales equates to four and a half months in the Chokey. In cases of nuisance it is expected that the complainant should have taken all reasonable steps to shield themselves from the nuisance – in this case that would involve blocking GB on Twitter. A matter of seconds to achieve.
Meanwhile, the truth or otherwise of GB’s allegations, that have triggered him so much, has been buried.
“the truth or otherwise … has been buried” – indeed! And there is a certain amount of truth in what I was saying – although much of what I said has been (I believe wilfully misinterpreted) – although I confess I helped in that process by taking the piss to a considerable degree! 😛 😛
In at least some ways I’m an ‘anti’ [rest of para deleted by Mark]
******** is a ****** [para excised by Mark]
And what is the buried truth here? Who monitored the Quantock Staghounds alongside LACS and why? [Rest of comment deleted by Mark on grounds of irrelevance to this post].
He’s commented many times on my blog. I’m not surprised he’s ended up where he has and quite frankly it couldn’t have happened to a nicer bloke.
Hard to believe that Bradshaw has the temerity to comment here – rest assured that the police will be notified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51t1OsPSdBc
Notified of what?
Are people allowed to use aliases on here? Just asking for “J”, “filbert Cobb”, “Accidental Activist” and “Coop”
Given the presence of Accidental Activist it’s pretty clear you can put whatever name you like
LACS hate Giles Bradshaw because he campaigns for an alternative to stag hunting that doesn’t kill wildlife. He has always made it clear that he has no gun. 99% of the ‘thousands’ of messages he posts concern the ludicrous exemption in the law. LACS and John Cooper are well aware of this. The fact is that legal stag hunting as currently practiced is more cruel than it used to be with ten + guns used to kill flushed deer. Bradshaw’s alternative kills nothing – it simply involves taking out under control collie dogs at foot.
I think we can see that a key take out from the Bradshaw affair is that although there is a lot of conflict over the subjects of animal welfare and conservation – we can have a common enemy and that is this insidious idea that it is somehow acceptable to manage wildlife without killing it.
But surely it IS acceptable to manage wildlife without killing it – why should we have to kill if other options are available?
I see that Bradshaw has become silent after being released from his well deserved prison sentence. For years he peddled the same one track nonsense about hunting, all the while cheered on his way by the Countryside Alliance; his nonsense was peppered with foul attacks on others which no decent person would even consider.
That’s what a public school ‘education’ does, folks.