Jump to content

Anti's and assault.


Recommended Posts

I did watch it back in February on fieldsports channel and I seem to remember it being discussed on here at the time but they done another video about the poor bloke controlling Canada's and being attacked by anti's with one shoving he's phone directly into he's face. 

The way he's been treated is disgusting, i know as firearm holders we have to be a cut above the rest and always keep your cool but how far would it have to have gone before he would have been deemed permitted to defend himself? 

No doubt if he'd been kicked to the ground and had he's gun taken that would have been he's fault to.

Is there any past or present members of the constabulary on here who's delt with this sort of thing in the past?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

The video in question, for those who haven't seen it.

He did well to maintain his demeanour 

I was in a violent relationship for a long time, so I can take a smack and not retaliate pretty well but where do you draw the line? 

If you thought you was going to loose control of your firearm because of it surely you'd be expect to do whatever you could to stop them falling into unauthorised hands?

21 minutes ago, sam triple said:

Been following this too ,absolutely disgraceful

I'd like to see BASC making more of a big deal over this.

Edited by Farmboy91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

looks like we need to be submissive to keep a licence and the antis  know it       shame we cant explain they should go home and stay there      as most of them are well  known to the police and walk away  no charge  for many different crimes   I know mi rights guv  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/03/2020 at 10:46, manthing said:

If you read the reports basc are involved and supporting him in all areas of the case where they can. 

Rather than being 'supportive' perhaps they could use the 'political route' to push for legislation to further protect? Isn't that the point of spending members money on entertaining MPs with free shoot days etc, if not to gain political influence and 'get things done'?

Edited by mick miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mick miller said:

Rather than being 'supportive' perhaps they could use the 'political route' to push for legislation to further protect? Isn't that the point of spending members money on entertaining MPs with free shoot days etc, if not to gain political influence and 'get things done'?

So you think they should have hung this poor sod out in the rain and concentrated on the political side?

It takes years to change laws etc, this bloke is receiving help now, legal and anything else they can help with. At the same time they are schmoozing the "movers and shakers" to get the best for us, or are trying to. 

I know basc have dropped themselves in it lately, but some folk will knock them for no reason. 

He pays his subs and is getting the benefits. Simples. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are doing both. 

They were involved in the licensing consultation and them the Dr's and police went back on the agreed terms. 

Your getting a bit tricksy mucka. Complained they don't schmooze enough and should do more, being less supportive, then want them to schmooze and support, which they do. Your not a big fan I'd guess.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The laws on trespass and aggravated trespass are clear and enforceable, one under civil law the other under criminal law. So Mick, tell me exactly what laws should be changed?

In the UK people have the right to demonstrate, ask and copper and they will tell you, but sadly, as we have often seen, some who oppose shooting will turn to all sorts of dirty ticks to try and get their way, and it is down to the police to keep the peace and arrest if they see fit and then charge if possible and then run to prosecution if the CPS will let it go through...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apply pressure, through those same political connections the organisation likes to boast about, to ensure that prosecutions happen. Then publicise those successes when they occur. Be the voice of shooting. Wow me. If we can get legislation through to specifically protect services animals or get legislation passed that allows those with strange ideas about food to have those beliefs enshrined as religious beliefs then, it can not be beyond the wit of man, to push for stricter laws when it comes to intimidation, threats to property and life directed at people going about a lawful activity. This isn't about lawful protest. Generic laws regarding trespass are just that. A bit woolly, open to interpretation. Specific laws are precise and make things clear in the public's mind.

Crikey, those at the CA would likely be supportive of that too, so it wouldn't even be a solo exercise. 

 

Edited by mick miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 No changes needed. The laws are already there. They just need enforcing.

A police officer turns up at a job and has both sides trying to put a point across. He/she can only go with what they feel right at the time and best evidence of an offence. Sometimes they get it wrong. But no charges were brought in this case.

Most bobbies do not deal with aggravated trespass regularly... or poaching... or anything under the ecclesiastical act... (ok im being flippant)... but i would not criticise the police in this incident. But if it carried on in the same way it is cause for a complaint.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly again, just an illustration of how things have gone south to further unbalance society?

It seems now ok for the anti mob to parade around with faces covered intimidating others at will, knowing that as they have little to loose the victim usually has more besides a busted face? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mick miller said:

I need to move away from these threads... maybe spend some time in craft & diy, it's lovely in there. My parting shot would be simply to say, I don't think its an exaggeration to think that these type of events are hate crimes.

👍 Spot on.

But as the vast majority who shoot/hunt/fish are white middle aged men, that will never happen. We are fair game.

A few weeks ago back during the season, my dad was acting as a stop alongside a road when cyclist went passed and called him a Nazi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/03/2020 at 01:22, Saltings said:

looks like we need to be submissive to keep a licence and the antis  know it       shame we cant explain they should go home and stay there      as most of them are well  known to the police and walk away  no charge  for many different crimes   I know mi rights guv  


I saw a video recently, a bunch of Hunt sabs refusing to leave land, spooking horses, getting in the face of women and a hunter pushing and shoving them. 
 

All of a sudden 3 hunt supporters also with their faces covered come over and shove the anti’s, and push them repeatedly towards the gate way. 
 

The anti’s are screaming that they’ll leave and how they have been assaulted and how awful it is. They don’t like it when their own tactics are used against them. 
 

The police have been absolutely awful at dealing with this issue. The more they fail to act the more people will resort to actions as above. I do not condone it, I would prefer the Police did it. 
 

Intentionally sabotaging perfectly legal activities should be a crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that many officers actually sympathise with those wishing to sabotage hunt events or disrupt shooting. It's a social malaise, which needs specific, explicit laws to be prevented. I would not rely on generic laws on trespass to be sufficient, or precise enough not to allow an officer to get away with inaction on the issue.

Edited by mick miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mick miller said:

I believe that many officers actually sympathise with those wishing to sabotage hunt events or disrupt shooting. It's a social malaise, which needs specific, explicit laws to be prevented. I would not rely on generic laws on trespass to be sufficient, or precise enough not to allow an officer to get away with inaction on the issue.

Probably a big part of it, along side with even if a copper is neutral to what's going on, he/she is to scared of any repercussions they might face by being seen to side with a hunt/shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...