Acceptable to hit someone with a whip when they're grabbing your horse?

wordy said:
You’d probably struggle to ride a child into a group of people you didn’t like though tbf.
Click to expand...

My mates lad is quite big for his age so I accept your challenge :D


Chris Wilson said:
I am talking about a proper education, private or public school stuff. Not Slopton-in-the-Slush comprehensive then the bent LSE ;)

But even a basic education from Slopton-in-the-Slush should be teaching simple spelling...

I smell class warfare in this thread, and the smell is potent <LOL>
Click to expand...

You didn't end your lol tag...

Have they fixed blocking on the new forum yet?
 
Is there not a distinction between protest and interference? If I stand with a placard in a public place citing my opposition to X I am protesting. If I go onto private land and actively try and disrupt X that is very different and I am probably guilty of several offences.

Caveat:

I am no fan of fox hunting on horseback, but a LOT of it goes on under various guises around here. I would have more respect if the riders admitted it was a grossly inefficient way of despatching vermin compared to a marksman with night sights who can bag many foxes in one night, at low cost and with interference by protesters highly unlikely, and came clean that they get a thrill from the chase and enjoy the social side of it. I have humanely despatched several foxes by shooting, and would never consider taking to horseback and to try and chase the things for miles with a pack of dogs, it's simply a ludicrous way to attempt to control vermin in this day and age!
 
I seen the full video and its more the same, the rider did NOT hit a woman it was the same smelly male peasant that harassed her twice.
 
h4rm0ny said:
If someone is committing an active crime with a victim, I am willing to trespass to stop that. If it's illegality that you care about then you're presumably bothered by the greater crime of fox hunting which is a criminal act.
Click to expand...

Quite. It's also arguable, as trespass is defined as "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another", that the protester's presence was justified by their belief that a crime was being committed and therefore no trespass was actually taking place.

I agree with both in the wrong, but the woman on the horse is several magnitudes more in the wrong. I'd be very surprised if she doesn't end up before the beak.

What she's done is the equivalent of some scrote on a scrambler, threatening to run people over on a footpath, then assaulting someone who grabbed them.
 
Last edited:
Can someone clarify the fox hunting restrictions?

I didn't think the ban on hunting is a blanket ban but rather a ban on areas and methods of hunting, eg. number of dogs used and stuff.
 
inogen said:
Quite. It's also arguable, as trespass is defined as "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another", that the protester's presence was justified by their belief that a crime was being committed and therefore no trespass was actually taking place.
Click to expand...

An excellent point.
 
h4rm0ny said:
If someone is committing an active crime with a victim, I am willing to trespass to stop that. If it's illegality that you care about then you're presumably bothered by the greater crime of fox hunting which is a criminal act.
Click to expand...
I don't care about fox hunting, but where's the evidence that there was an actual fox being hunted?
 
Correct it is said they were dragging a scented rag...

They should hunt the peasant, he is already pretty smelly so that is a start.
 
Can't blame her for wanting that fella away from the horse. A spooked/panicking horse is likely to throw you off and end up with the rider getting a nasty injury. Not to mention seriously damaging anyone else around if it decides to kick out.

What were the balaclavas about? Can't have felt that innocent if they were covering their faces.
 
Jono said:
I don't care about fox hunting, but where's the evidence that there was an actual fox being hunted?
Click to expand...

Surely there's enough there to warrant a suspicion, even without available evidence that a fox might be hunted.

Narj said:
Can't blame her for wanting that fella away from the horse. A spooked/panicking horse is likely to throw you off and end up with the rider getting a nasty injury. Not to mention seriously damaging anyone else around if it decides to kick out.
Click to expand...

If she wanted to keep the horse away she could have quite easily. The other riders don't seem to have the problem do they? Oh, that's because they're not using their horses as weapons.
 
So anytime joe public thinks someone may be doing something illegal they can trespass in to their home etc?

Try that tonight with a neighbour who is watching a Kodi box and see if you get let away with being in their home by the police if your not stabbed beforehand.
 
********....

Stealing from a peeps home, get caught says you were investigating them...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is that a statement of disbelief or that you disagree?

You have to justify that your actions are reasonable, so its not like its a legal technicality that lets you wonder wherever you want for any made up reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom