THE HUNTING OFFICE SPIN HITS THE FAN.
Now that the ‘zoom’ meeting has made MSM, and a police and CPS inquiry into it is about to take place, The Hunting Office has been a hive-of-activity since the webinar was leaked. No doubt they have got their heads together and decided to brazen-it-out with a tissue-of-lies. Already, Lord Mancroft Of The Realm has put his ‘damage-limitation’ lies into effect. On Radio 4 he says he was ”joking” when he referred to killing foxes. Some joke that was, especially when he was in the company of like-minded killers who didn’t know their secret webinar was going to be made public.
Lord Mancroft is a qualified barrister and he will have looked at the 3-hour-long webinar and instructed those involved to ‘say-nothing’. He will know that anyone making an inappropriate sound-bite would form part of any evidence should a prosecution ensue. He will also be finding get-out-clauses for the more damning conversations within the webinar. Already we hear such excuses given by THO: “Viewed objectively, the purpose of the webinars is very clear and the allegation that they were organised to discuss covering up unlawful activities is incorrect and can only be made by taking a few individual, short comments completely out of context.”
”Individual, short comments taken out of context”! But were they? The comments were made by those involved in fox hunting and taken within the context of the webinar, they clearly refer to acts of deception. There is no distortion involved, the salient points raised are factually correct. It’s important to note that this webinar was not aware that it was going to be leaked and were quite comfortable having a frank and unguarded conversation. Had they known, there would be no need for this post.
No-one can prejudge a police and CPS inquiry, however, experience and historical incidences show the lethargy shown towards fox hunting. Since the Hunting Act came into force in 2005, only 500 people have been prosecuted. Not all of those were fox hunters, and those that were, received derisory sentences. More foxes have been killed by the hunts in the 15 years of the ban. And the figure will inevitably rise. Nothing will happen over the webinar and I say that based on evidence.
As with the difficulty of proving ‘intent’ so the CPS will shout ‘not enough evidence’ over the webinar. This is based on the many hours of images collected by ‘sabs’ showing kills and assaults on them and their vehicles and yet the ‘sabs’ are victimised by the police, with favouritism being shown to the elitist hunters. That is how the law works in the UK, and it was said by Gerald Nabarro in the 70s, most memorably ”If a man can afford to pay for justice, he will secure it. A man who can’t afford to pay will rarely secure it”.
I see a complete and utter ‘whitewash’ on the horizon, for no other reason other than that is the power and influence those of certain social-standing have. There are many reference-points through history where great injustices have occurred and apart from ‘dissent-in-the-ranks,’ it all goes away. To live in hope is not logical, facing facts is, no matter how doom-laden they may be.
LORD MANCROFT’S CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.
This is the film doing-the-rounds on social media, but alas, not on MSM. Why is that? I hear that the hunt lobby has threatened ‘legal-action’ against those that publish. It is virtually impossible to control social media, as has been seen in the past concerning ‘super-injunctions’. Social media has more impact and is far-more-reaching than newspapers. However, it is easier to threaten a newspaper with litigation and it is why newspapers run-scared.
Why are the hunt lobby so incensed at the ‘leaking’ of their clandestine ‘zoom’? Why do they think they have the right to silence the press? No doubt they will claim ‘intellectual property’ and ‘copyright’ of their meeting. They will also no doubt claim that the showing of the film will jeopardise any potential to a fair and unbiased future trial. Sometimes that is the case, on balance though, many individuals face trial even though their exploits have been well-publicised.
Whoever ‘leaked’ the film (possibly one of the clique) would not be bound by the Official Secrets Act and therefore not infringing its components. Once the film hit the public sector, it becomes in the public interest. Using ‘copyright’ is a feeble defence. That there were a 100 interested parties involved in this webinar, it is difficult to see who has ‘intellectual property’ and if one chose to ‘leak’ the film, they have every right to do so.
This ‘zoom’ meeting is in fact a criminal conspiracy. It takes two people or more to enter into a conspiracy. The subject matter is irrelevant. Those that discuss committing a crime with the intention of carrying it out are guilty of conspiracy. They do not have to carry out the crime. This discussion was not a hypothesis, a focus-group, a think-tank or blue-sky-thinking, it was a deliberate attempt at committing fraud, a deception. Within that deception is the intent to injure wildlife.
By now, the conspirators should be in the cells. That they are not is because the culprits are privileged: Lord Mancroft, a Tory peer, two ex-policemen and who knows the status of the rest. They will have the establishment in a sweat. Had the conspirators been low-minded yobs hare coursing or badger baiting, or bike gangs, or robbers conspiring to commit an offence, they would have been rounded-up by now and a documentary showing the police investigation appearing in the future on how they caught the culprits.
We often hear the Crown Prosecution Service taking ‘no action’ against hunts because it is ‘difficult to prove ‘intent’. ‘Intent’ runs through the very fabric of criminal law. Without intent there is no crime. Regardless of what the allegation may be, murder or theft, if there is no intent to kill or steal, the charges are void. To simply push a knife into someone or take their property is not proof. It could be accident or mistake, no intent to harm or deprive.
This film shows intent. It gives advice on how to harm animals and the way in which to deceive those observers to the antics of those involved in harming. Any learned counsel would have no difficulty in prosecuting this allegation, in fact all they would have to do is offer the film as evidence and let the jury decide on whether the culprits had convicted themselves by their own words. By the way, this is not sub judice, there is no court proceedings at this time. It remains-to-be-seen whether the CPS acts on the information and hauls the conspirators before the courts. A precedent may well be set here, to the good or bad for the British judicial system.