A series of quotes relevant to the environment and/or campaigning.
This week’s quote is from Peter Cook (died 1995).
Justice needs to be seen to be done, he argued, and without regular court reporting that no longer happens. (As the late Peter Cook once remarked, justice sometimes needs to be seen to be believed, but that’s another matter.)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/21/fred-rose-west-crime-reporting-collapsed
More on Peter Cook here.
[registration_form]
Some justice needs to be seen to be not done- it all depends on the law and how it’s broken. Stupid laws should be broken openly and the police should act in concert with the criminal to turn a blind eye to their flouting.
Giles – just to ay that you are coming to the point where you are saying the same thing on every post at every opportunity. It’s a bit dull really – give it a rest or you will be rested, thanks.
I think Giles is (1) predictably booring and in this case (2) Wrong.
It is against the oath a policeman takes to do as he suggests because it is showing favour. Also doing as you suggest Giles changes nothing and a bad law remains just that. However if you were taken to court at least you then have a chance to show, with publicity, what an ass the law is in a particular case. That MAY in the end get the stupidity corrected, if public and learned opinion is with you, it is part how the law works.
In actual fact two tests are applied when the police + CPS decide whether to enforce a particular law
1) Is there a realistic chance of prosecution?
2) Is a prosecution in the public interest?
I would suggest the answers to these questions are
1) There would presumably be a realistic chance of a prosecution IF the police or LACS or the RSPCA or IFAW or the Hubt Sabs or any other party which pretends to take it upon themselves to enforce nonsense legislation decided to investigate – however they don’t – that is their choice – they choose deliberately to turn a blind eye to the law being broken.
2) A prosecution would definitely NOT be in the public interest because the Hunting Act is clearly counter to his Human Rights to peacefully enjoy his property and to act in accordance with his own conscience – moreover forcing him to obey it would potentially put the public at risk. Moreover – and this is a very important point a key reason the law is enforced is to deter people from breaking it. The converse of this is by not enforcing the law when it is openly broken encourages people to break it – and that is quite obviously in this case a Good Thing.
I actually checked all this by phoning 101 and talking to a Wildlife Crime Officer – he informed me in no uncertain terms that the police had received ‘many’ complaints about Mr Bradshaw and that they will not take action against him because they did not think it appropriate that he should have to shoot the deer he hunts. He explained that he had ‘orders’ not to take any action and he agreed with them. They know EXACTLY what Giles does, why he does it and what he is on about.
If you don’t believe me I’d suggest you do the same give them a ring – rather than just pointing twaddle on the internet about people having to obey the law and the police having to enforce it – actually talk to them and you will understand the reality.
At the end of the day there is a point at which laws become so ridiculous that to enforce them would bring the law into disrepute.
I think actually there is a third reason why the police should take no action and that is that in actual fact what Giles is saying and doing is VERY funny.
Before you argue that it isn’t I’d gently suggest you don’t really get the humour.
The simple fact is that the LESS funny and more boring that you find it the funnier it gets.
Taking the comedic value of Giles openly flouting the Hunting Act by not killing wildlife as G and your level of amusement as P end up with the simple equation
G = 1/P
If you don’t get that equation and why it is SOOOOO funny I’d be happy to explain it further.
Maybe you could consider it by reflecting on the similarly inverse proportions between the humanity of the local hunts complying with the Hunting Act – thereby killing wildlife and causing suffering and Giles not complying with it and causing none.
The Police and the CPS HAVE to see the politics of this and by deciding on a course of complete inaction thereby allowing the aw to be broken they are adopting a political stance.
This is Anarchy in action – pure and simple. It’s actually Beautiful. It’s Pure Poetry.
By the way I hunt with the Tiverton Stag Hounds – he refuses to allow us to comply with the Hunting Act on his property – demanding instead that we don’t kill any deer we come across – you have no idea how funny people find all this!
“What we’re dealing with here is a total lack of respect for the law
I’m the law and you can’t beat the law (Note)
I’m the law and you can’t beat the law
I’m the law and you can’t beat the law
F*ck ’em and their law
Crack down at sundown
F*ck ’em and their law”
RIP Keith xxx
“F*ck ’em and their law”
a Sunday evening after a few wee tipples celebrating my son’s 18th seems like a perfect opportunity to crack that one open at 11 1/2 on the NAD
“I actually checked all this by phoning 101 and talking to a Wildlife Crime Officer”
which one? I’ve spoken to most of them – they’ve all been ‘cool’ about a spot of harmless wildlife crime LOLZ
Sorry to “godwin” you but the police are to be praised for refusing to enforce overbearing fascistic legislation – everything Hitler did was legal and while the current law does not measure up to his particular depravity – there are similarities. I am merely standing up against legally required or enabled killing.
If the law insisted flushed Grouse be shot – what would you do if you strolled round the uplands which would inevitably flush Grouse?
You murder foxes and enjoy it
merry – really?
I really really really DON’T kill wildlife!!
The police oath reads as follows:
There’s nothing in it about requiring everybody to obey every law no matter however absurd.
Provided the police allow everyone to flout the Hunting Act in the same manner, and I see nothing to suggest they don’t I see nothing that conflicts with their oath.
They are merely acting as the last bastion against the idiotic bilge that occasionally spews forth from parliament – this was after all the most scrutinised law of modern times.
I am unclear also Paul as to what you expect to happen – what if they prosecute me for refusing to kill wildlife – say i get a £5,000 fine which is the maximum – so what? What if I just carry on not killing wild animals every time I take my dog out? Am I to pay £5,000 every time? That’s just ridiculous! I really don’t think it makes sense to go down that road and if they finally got me to obey the law i find it really hard to understand in who’s interest that would be. It certainly wouldn’t be in the interest of the wild deer on my farm which would end up getting shot. The best option for the police is to co operate with me – and anyone else that chooses to break the Hunting Act.
This is perfectly logical and rational – I’ve been through it in great detail with Shaun Sawyer the chief constable – he understands the situation completely – as do the CPS.
Obey sensible laws – break stupid ones.
I wonder sometimes if justice is being wilfully prevented from being done. In Scotland we have a strange issue where many wildlife crime cases do not even manage to reach court because of a decision made by Crown Counsel. The police had charged some gamekeepers but after several appearances in court the decision was taken to discontinue the cases. It appeared at the time that it was necessary to change some laws and I decided to weigh in and submit a petition almost exactly a year ago to make what at the time were the necessary changes. Last April after I had submitted the petition the Guardian newspaper published an article about a contemporaneous similar long lasting case which had occurred but which had had remained unheard of by the public. As I had researched the law in the cases which were discontinued the resemblance and the possibilities as to how this may case related to the others struck me like a sledgehammer when Mark published a post about it. I redoubled my research which will result not only in my petition being heard by the public petitions committee for the second time later this month but I have also been allowed to make a submission to another Scottish parliament committee on Tuesday, where a representative of the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service is to appear at an evidence session. I’m reasonably hopeful but do not know that a member of the committee may ask relevant questions explained in my submission. Although the past few weeks has been so hectic that I have not yet updated all the latest events which have taken place in the blog posts in the website under my signature, it does give a flavour of what my investigations have revealed and the actions I have taken. Luckily this committee have been interested in matters of Law and admissibility in wildlife crime cases. I am keeping everything crossed for the next 2 days. I’m liking the idea that Crown Counsel may well be keeping everything crossed for the next 2 days as well, for exactly the opposite reasons to myself.
Of course it is sometimes prevented from being done!
The legal system is rotten from tip to tow and the higher you go the more it stinks.
Perspective: 9,635 sheep were stolen in 2018 in 381 incidents reported to the police. So – about 560 tonnes of sheep liveweight just disappear and nobody knows where it goes or who sells or eats it. Or where the hides and guts and bones go – apart from those left in fields or hanging from fences or trees. The number of resultant prosecutions was 1 (one).
indeed filbert other examples might be total numbers of spliffs smoked or adolescent 15 year olds fumbling each other at school discos
The authorities most definitely do sometimes choose not to prosecute people
Imagine if all the hunts followed Giles’s lead and completely stopped killing wildlife! This is why the law needs to be seen to enforced otherwise people lose respect for it and you can get a mass outbreak of criminality.