Jump to content

Mate just sent me this


hodge911
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Shotkam said:

Even if they can easily afford to cover the fine, hopefully it will begin to cast doubt in some politician's minds, as to actually how credible some of this bloke's claims are. 

That bit of news was good to see.

Politicians minds, best of luck with that one! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wild Justice are reputed to be very well funded - and have access to a number of very wealthy people on which to draw (such as Brian May etc.) and it seems can easily get support (including presumably funds) from popular mass 'social media' sites and crowd funding. 

Packam's hundreds of hours of TV coverage time per year on the (still respected in many circles) BBC television almost guarantees he can get support from the multitudes of 'small furry animal' lovers and that people inherently believe what he says.

That is why it is SO IMPORTANT that people with air time on the BBC (as our "National Broadcaster" funded from what is in effect the public purse) should be - and be seen to be - balanced, unbiased and never ever have vested interests or personal agendas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NatureBoy said:

would be donated to the gamekeepers welfare fund.

In law, what BASC do with their recovered costs would have no bearing on whether it was right to award them or not.  WJ are not short of funds.  They may be attempting to bleed BASC of funds.  As always, the lawyers will always be the real winners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a tin rattling post about it on WJ blog if anyone is interested. Some of it strange talk for an org that say they are not anti shooting! Gona be some changes i think. A few new regular posters on their social media and other shooting sites having a go. WJ 3 are experts at passive aggressive hate speech.

Interesting how anti's/viewers have turned on and trolling Monty Don hard for supporting his fellow presenters right to go to follow a hunt.    NB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

It's not a fine, it's an order to pay capped legal costs. The court can only award up to £10,000 of the winner's costs in cases like these. The costs to DEFRA of defending the claim are likely to be far higher.

The rule's there to limit the deterrent effect which the risk of having to pay a government department's legal costs can have on smaller organisations or individuals challenging actions of the state in the courts.  So WJ can carry on bringing judicial reviews knowing their maximum risk is paying their own legal fees and £10k towards the other side's. 

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...