Obstructing Traffic?

[wymberley]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-42151802

[Lloyd90]

This is going to be the same as the horse crop thread. 

1) They should have moved. They really should have. 

2) just because they’re sabs doesn’t make it ok to hit them with your car. Looking at the video, he barely gave them seconds before giving it some welly. I can see he didn’t “hit them very hard”, but that hardly makes it ok. 

Driver will be very lucky if he’s not done for wreckless / dangerous driving.

Very silly actions once again. 

[wymberley]

Can't do other than but agree. However, as there is no difference in law between a rural lane with no pavement and a busy A road, again with no pavement, would they be guilty of obstructing traffic if they behaved similarly on that? I don't know the answer.

[loriusgarrulus]

I have a ragtop landrover. Being a woman often alone in the vehicle if someone tried to hold me up with the potential for getting into the back. I would keep going and sort it out at the nearest police station afterwards.

[Ultrastu]

I pretty sure if masked terrorists were.brandishing weapons at me in a narrow country lane while I was with my family .I would speed off as fast as poss too .

I not gonna wait around to find out if they want to kill me or not .

[panoma1]

If the driver/occupants of the car genuinely feared for their safety, I reckon their actions were proportionate and reasonable and therefore defenceable!

The idiots blocking the road should be made to account for their conduct and in the absence of an acceptable explanation, should face prosecution!

[sportsbob]

5 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

If the driver/occupants of the car genuinely feared for their safety, I reckon their actions were proportionate and reasonable and therefore defenceable!

The idiots blocking the road should be made to account for their conduct and in the absence of an acceptable explanation, should face prosecution!

+ 1

[12gauge82]

As much as I hate sabs, the drivers actions were idiotic at best, why give them ammo to shoot you with, they clearly didn't appear to be a threat at the point the car drove at them, I think the driver will be lucky to avoid prosecution unless something major has happened off camera that we haven't seen, which is obviously possible.

[Gordon R]

Quote

 

If the driver/occupants of the car genuinely feared for their safety, I reckon their actions were proportionate and reasonable and therefore defenceable!

The idiots blocking the road should be made to account for their conduct and in the absence of an acceptable explanation, should face prosecution!

 

Just what else was the driver supposed to do? Stop and ask them if they minded moving. If they did not want to stop the car, why block the road? Their intent is shown by the fact that they were videoing the incident.

Have these cretins no idea of the terror that they cause? They will be quite smug in the knowledge that they do intimidate, but whinge at the consequence of their actions. A bunch of cowards.

[Walker570]

Where were the police?    Oh, checking their Facebook page et al no doubt. 

The total lack of police action in these cases is causing people to take the law into their own hands and I can only see it getting worse having read responses by Chief Constables from various forces.

Recent spate of thieving in our area expensive machinery stolen. Police response ...NIL. Told they will not now investigate these rural crimes.

[butchdickason]

i reckon Gordon R has got it right.

[CharlieT]

3 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Just what else was the driver supposed to do? Stop and ask them if they minded moving. If they did not want to stop the car, why block the road? Their intent is shown by the fact that they were videoing the incident.

Have these cretins no idea of the terror that they cause? They will be quite smug in the knowledge that they do intimidate, but whinge at the consequence of their actions. A bunch of cowards.

Indeed, Gordon.

I was actually there.

Prior to the actual meet, the sabs had intimidated, been physically abusive and frightened the living daylights out of lone women in cars driving to the meet. They had their video recorders going for the duration, whilst trying their best to try and get a reaction from hunt supporters attending.

It was actually the hunt who, following the initial intimidation and abuse, called the police. Two police cars eventually attended. 

When I left the, the sabs tried to block the road and videoed me driving through them whilst they kept jumping in front of my Landrover. It's a very narrow road and wouldn't have taken much for them to stage and film the published shots.

As you say, they could have stepped aside and let the car pass, but they chose to step in front of the car in their stage managed production.

It really was quite frightening for those attending the meet who were, how should I put it, less able to deal with a bunch of threatening thugs. This sort of behavior, in any other setting would not be tolerated by the authorities. In my view it's rural terrorism and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

[wymberley]

I take it then, Charlie, just for clarification, that this was not as reported (or more accurately claimed to be by the sabs), "an illegal hare hunt".

[ShootingEgg]

8 minutes ago, CharlieT said:

Indeed, Gordon.

I was actually there.

Prior to the actual meet, the sabs had intimidated, been physically abusive and frightened the living daylights out of lone women in cars driving to the meet. They had their video recorders going for the duration, whilst trying their best to try and get a reaction from hunt supporters attending.

It was actually the hunt who, following the initial intimidation and abuse, called the police. Two police cars eventually attended. 

When I left the, the sabs tried to block the road and videoed me driving through them whilst they kept jumping in front of my Landrover. It's a very narrow road and wouldn't have taken much for them to stage and film the published shots.

As you say, they could have stepped aside and let the car pass, but they chose to step in front of the car in their stage managed production.

It really was quite frightening for those attending the meet who were, how should I put it, less able to deal with a bunch of threatening thugs. This sort of behavior, in any other setting would not be tolerated by the authorities. In my view it's rural terrorism and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

Not that it would make any difference, it would be good if your side of things were sent into the BBC so that they can have a balanced report, not just a very one sided bias that the sabs want. Do any of the hunt wear body cams? So that a video showing the sabs actions could be lut out in the open? 

 

Ive luckily never come across any sabs and I honestly dont know how I would react if they threatened me when doing something that is legal. 

[loriusgarrulus]

An aquaintance stopped for terrorists,( because thats what they are) and tried to reason with them. She got ammonia thrown in her face for her pains. I won't stop for them.

 

[CharlieT]

21 minutes ago, wymberley said:

I take it then, Charlie, just for clarification, that this was not as reported (or more accurately claimed to be by the sabs), "an illegal hare hunt".

It wasn't anything. 

The intimidation started long before hounds were unboxed. And although it would have been legal hunting that would have taken place, the hunt decided not to even  start, let alone move off from the meet.

[wymberley]

Obviously an utterly pointless and useless comment, but this really does need sorting before it's too late.

[ShootingEgg]

7 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Obviously an utterly pointless and useless comment, but this really does need sorting before it's too late.

+1 

 

Just how it does is the big question. One day a sab will get more than a horse whip if a car pushing them out the way.  And then it will all blow up. 

[JohnfromUK]

22 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

One day a sab will get more than a horse whip if a car pushing them out the way.  And then it will all blow up. 

Which is unfortunately just what their organisers want. 

This is very reminiscent of the secondary flying pickets that Mrs T eventually made illegal.  Those of us that are a little 'aged' can remember the major strikes, miners, British Leyland, British Steel, Grunwick etc that took place in the 1970s and 80s.  There were activists recruited to hard left organisations like Militant Tendency (the then version of the present Momentum) and basically 'paid' (albeit sometimes probably little more than a bacon sandwich) to go on a coach trip to support pickets often in other parts of the country.  Some got injured by vehicles trying to deliver workers, goods etc to the site being picketed.

The 'organisers' kept well out of it (and are thus hard to deal with) and for them the more publicity brought on by violence and injury, the better.  Make no mistake, there are ringleaders here who are not bothered by people (on either side) getting hurt as long as it forwards their cause.

[12gauge82]

13 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Which is unfortunately just what their organisers want. 

This is very reminiscent of the secondary flying pickets that Mrs T eventually made illegal.  Those of us that are a little 'aged' can remember the major strikes, miners, British Leyland, British Steel, Grunwick etc that took place in the 1970s and 80s.  There were activists recruited to hard left organisations like Militant Tendency (the then version of the present Momentum) and basically 'paid' (albeit sometimes probably little more than a bacon sandwich) to go on a coach trip to support pickets often in other parts of the country.  Some got injured by vehicles trying to deliver workers, goods etc to the site being picketed.

The 'organisers' kept well out of it (and are thus hard to deal with) and for them the more publicity brought on by violence and injury, the better.  Make no mistake, there are ringleaders here who are not bothered by people (on either side) getting hurt as long as it forwards their cause.

This is bang on, the problem though, is two wrongs in the eyes of the law does not make a right, driving a car at people blocking a road, no matter how gently is an offence, our sport hardly has the backing of the public as it is, we therefore need to be seen as whiter than white with our conduct, in the end, it reflects on all of us, driving a car at someone doesn't project a good image of shooters.

In the end, rightly or wrongly, if enough trouble is made, legislation will be bought in and if we as shooters are seen to be in any way part of the problem, they'll come down on us to and we'll find our sport dying, attacked from all sides.

I've spent many years involved in competitive fight sports, only stopping competing within the last few years, there's no way I'd let prevado get in the way of dealing with these people and would simply call the police, who will arrive and keep the peace, if we lower ourselves to their level the sabs win, you'll play right into their hands as it is their objective to prevoke a response.

All that said, that doesn't mean I wouldn't use the minimum, reasonable and proportionate level of force to defend myself or others if absaloutly nessercary and I accept it is possible that happened in this case, if something was happening off camera, I do however think in this case it highly unlikely.

[wymberley]

1 hour ago, ShootingEgg said:

+1 

 

Just how it does is the big question. One day a sab will get more than a horse whip if a car pushing them out the way.  And then it will all blow up. 

If a bona fide hunt felt there was no option but to call the police and also call off the meet due to the actions of members of an organisation - proof being, say, a video posted on their facebook pages, and it could be shown that the hunt incurred costs which were therefore wasted, then perhaps the option to sue might just concentrate a few minds

[ShootingEgg]

8 minutes ago, wymberley said:

If a bona fide hunt felt there was no option but to call the police and also call off the meet due to the actions of members of an organisation - proof being, say, a video posted on their facebook pages, and it could be shown that the hunt incurred costs which were therefore wasted, then perhaps the option to sue might just concentrate a few minds

As I have said in a previous post on this thread, do the hunt have cameras attached, so dash cams or body cams, so that the sabs antics are also caught on film.. Currently all that is happening is clips of film that the sabs want the media to show. Building up a portfolio against legal activities. If we do not have any opposition data be it images or film then its very hard to argue against putting your foot down and using the car to move the two sabs stood in the way. 

[12gauge82]

3 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

As I have said in a previous post on this thread, do the hunt have cameras attached, so dash cams or body cams, so that the sabs antics are also caught on film.. Currently all that is happening is clips of film that the sabs want the media to show. Building up a portfolio against legal activities. If we do not have any opposition data be it images or film then its very hard to argue against putting your foot down and using the car to move the two sabs stood in the way. 

Another very good post, the problem with using force is, even if you did so legally to defend yourself or others, you are defacto guilty of assault and in a nut shell, you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innoent i.e self defence, like I've said the burden of proof is on you, so while I would always say keep yourself safe first and worry about the law second, driving a car at someone when not absaloutly nessercary because they're also breaking the law is idiotic at best.

[Gordon R]

Quote

even if you did so legally to defend yourself or others, you are defacto guilty of assault and in a nut shell, you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innoent i.e self defence,

Quote

driving a car at people blocking a road, no matter how gently is an offence,

Neither statement is correct.

[12gauge82]

17 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Neither statement is correct.

I think you'll find in law they're both pretty much on the button.