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

Caporegime
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
33,939
Location
Warwickshire
It's that age old problem...you're out on a hunt and some unwashed proletariat grabs the reins of your steed in protest at you contributing to the reduction in the ginger vermin population.

Obviously you begin hitting the scrote with your whip and subsequently have him lashed, but then the video gets posted online and police appeal for witnesses.

Cut and dry acceptable to defend your pet in this situation right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng...hows-hunt-saboteur-being-hit-with-riding-crop
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
The hunt protester is potentially compromising the safety of the horse and her so nope, no issue with that if it's as it seems.

EDIT: To me it doesn't really matter if it's the bridle or not. A stranger shouldn't be restraining your horse without any kind of consent. There's also no idea what that person is going to do next.
 

233

233

Soldato
Joined
21 Nov 2004
Posts
13,500
Location
Wishaw
ok put it another way,

if your driving a car and someone started pulling at the steering wheel would you be within your rights to hit them till they let go?

never mind JBod beat me to it
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Sep 2006
Posts
37,962
Location
On Ocuk
Yep fine in my books

There's a lot of cover ups in this, what actually happened was the horse was used to charge some of the protesters, and when a guy grabbed the reigns to stop this, the woman lashed out. One of my FB friends is a bit of a animal rights activist :p
 
Associate
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Posts
1,933
Going on hunts is asking for trouble these days. Grabbing the horse reigns is stupid though - a spooked horse can do a hell of a lot of damage.

Although maybe the bloke had been watching 50 shades, saw the whip and just went do lally.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
Well yanking on the reigns of a horse is dangerous to the rider, there's little question of that. Getting thrown from a horse can easily lead to permanent injury or death. But I have limited sympathy for fox hunters and Neil79's comment about her charging her horse at the sabber is perfectly within the realms of possibility.

Anyone got a copy where the BBC haven't removed the sound?

EDIT: Found a version. BBC, as I half-expected, have removed the sound not because of language (not that I would care) but because of another viewpoint. You can hear a protestor saying - quite calmly actually - "you cannot ride people down... don't ride me down... that's what just happened."

I'm inclined to go with Neil79's account tbh, in which case the sabber was grabbing the reigns in self-defence.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Sep 2006
Posts
37,962
Location
On Ocuk
I'm inclined to go with Neil79's account tbh, in which case the sabber was grabbing the reigns in self-defence.

A lot of people are saying that the BBC is trying to goad people into defending the rider, being that the BBC is heavily supportive of hunting and as you said it's the edited version, i'm not surprised
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
EDIT: Found a version. BBC, as I half-expected, have removed the sound not because of language (not that I would care) but because of another viewpoint. You can hear a protestor saying - quite calmly actually - "you cannot ride people down... don't ride me down... that's what just happened."

I'm inclined to go with Neil79's account tbh, in which case the sabber was grabbing the reigns in self-defence.

rather dodgy of the BBC to do that, they're supposed to be fair and balanced etc..
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
A lot of people are saying that the BBC is trying to goad people into defending the rider, being that the BBC is heavily supportive of hunting and as you said it's the edited version, i'm not surprised

Well they cut the sound out specifically where someone makes comments about her riding the sabber down so regardless of where anyone stands on this, I can see no reason for the removal other than to eliminate the counter point of view.

I've only had direct personal experiences with the BBC a couple of times in my life (there was a third but so minimal I discount it). In both cases, I was surprised to the degree they set out to show what they wanted to show rather than report on what was actually the case. It's very limited and anecdotal so I don't offer it as argument for anything but it did eliminate any preconception of "Oh, the BBC wouldn't lie" that a normal British person grows up with.
 
Back
Top Bottom