Tagged: animal rights

North East Hunt members convicted for illegal fox hunting

> Well, who’d believe it…  our social betters are bending the law again. Didn’t get away with it this time, though…

Three prominent members of the College Valley and North Northumberland Hunt have been found guilty of illegal fox hunting.

Joint Master Timothy Wyndham Basil Smalley, Huntsman Ian Robert McKie and Kennel Huntsman Andrew John Proe were found guilty of hunting a wild mammal with a dog following a two-day trial at Berwick Magistrates Court.

The trio were secretly filmed by investigators working for animal rights charity League Against Cruel Sports as they led a scheduled meet on Thursday, February 27, in and around West Kyloe Farm near Lowick.

McKie, 56, of Wooler, Proe, 52, of Cornhill-on-Tweed, and Smalley, 53, of Lowick, claimed they were following a legal scent trail of fox urine laid that morning.

Prosecuting, Jonathan Moore said:

“The defendants throughout the course of their interviews say they were trail hunting and not carrying out the pursuit of a fox.

“This matter is a question of fact. In relation to the actions of Mr McKie, Mr Smalley and Mr Proe, does it amount to hunting a wild animal with dogs? The crown says it does.”

He added:

“The defendants trail hunt by using fox urine so there was always the danger and risk that they would go after the real thing.

“Going after the real thing accidentally is not an offence but going after the real thing intentionally is.”

Defending, Steven Welford argued that there was no evidence that any of his clients intended to hunt a fox.

He said:

Accidents happen and wildlife is disturbed – that is what happened.”

The court heard that at 12.44 on February 27 Smalley, who is one of five joint masters responsible for the conduct and finances of the hunt, spotted a fox and indicated that it was there by raising his hat and pointing in its direction.

The crown argued that this was a signal for the hunt to follow it, and alleged that both McKie, who controls the hounds, and Proe, who looks after them in the kennels, then encouraged hounds in their illegal pursuit with shouts and blasts of the hunting horn.

Mr Moore added:

“They had every opportunity to gather the hounds together and stop them following a fox but they did not.”

Summing up, District Judge Bernard Begley said:

When Mr Smalley raised his hat the hunt was, so to speak, on.

“Neither he nor Mr Proe did anything to stop the hounds. If [Proe] was trying to control the hounds at that point he failed miserably.”

All three were found guilty of one count of illegal fox hunting.

Smalley was fined £2,075 with £120 victim surcharge;

McKie was fined £1,150 with a £115 victim surcharge;

Proe was fined £480 with a £48 victim surcharge.

Each defendant was ordered to pay costs of £385.

McKie, Smalley and Proe were all cleared of a further charge relating to an alleged incident of illegal hunting later that same day.

Speaking after the trial, Joe Duckworth, chief executive at the League Against Cruel Sports, said:

“We are extremely pleased with today’s verdict. We hope this successful case will make other hunt members think twice before breaking the law and causing harm to wildlife.

“We know that many hunts continue to regularly flout the law. Our team of professional investigators work hard in the field to capture illegal activity and work with the relevant statutory bodies to bring about prosecutions.”

Adrian Simpson of the Countryside Alliance commented:

Mr Smalley, Mr McKie and Mr Proe are obviously disappointed with that response and will have to consider their options.

“They were open and transparent on the day. Their activities were entirely legal and they did not breach the hunting legislation, which is acknowledged as being confusing.”

> But the Judge decided they weren’t and did… typical of the CA to think that they’re above the law. The only bit they find confusing is that other people don’t always do what they want.

Source –  Berwick Advertiser, 14 Oct 2014

State Corruption – The Biggest Threat to Our Liberties

Why It’s Now So Dangerous to Protest by Alison Banville (BSNews Editor)

In early 2011 I wrote a piece for the New Statesman about Mark Kennedy, the undercover policeman who had infiltrated an environmental group even forming a relationship with a female member. I addressed the question some had asked – why would so much time and effort be spent on a bunch of ‘tree-huggers’?:

‘All long-term campaigners on a range of issues – from the environment to the arms trade to animal rights – know, and have known since they began protesting, that the police are not the neutral body they pretend to be, but act on behalf of powerful vested interests: the corporations whose profits they defend and the government that is in bed with those corporations.’

This is the crux of the matter: profits. Nothing can be allowed to threaten them, not least peaceful people who simply want a just world and who are providing ordinary folk with the dangerous example of a life not ruled by the Holy Commandments of ‘consume, comply, conform’. That is why the gentle ‘tree-hugger’ is considered an enemy of the state, and will be treated as such. The state will also employ any and all measures to ensure that peaceful and LEGAL protest becomes a move too costly for any ethically minded person to contemplate.

Below I present the case that the UK government, in collusion with the criminal justice system and the police, has already embarked upon a deeply corrupt, systematic campaign to ensure that eco-activists (and animal rights/arms trade  activists etc) will be too fearful to claim even their most basic civil liberties for fear of the dire consequences others have already experienced:

The case of undercover cop Mark Kennedy’s infiltration of an environmental campaign group has led commentators, including myself, to highlight the worrying way in which the police appear to be defending corporate interests rather than the public’s.

As George Monbiot points out the role of ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, in running the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), which managed Kennedy, should be scrutinized, especially in light of the fact that the former operates as a private limited company so that it is not accountable in any meaningful, democratic way.

It is right that we should question the apparent use of our police as a private protection force for corporations, but there is one sinister development that has been missed in this debate, and that is the subversion of the law in order to specifically convict campaigners participating in activities which threaten corporate profits. What is this subversion? It is the use of the charge of ‘conspiracy’.

Monbiot unwittingly touched on this when he mentioned that twenty of the people Kennedy reported on to his superiors were ‘convicted on the desperate charge of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass.’ But George was mistaken in thinking that this was simply the result of the police and Crown scrabbling around for any old charge that would secure a guilty verdict – that would have been bad enough. No. This was, in fact, part of a very deliberate and traceable strategy that has been used in recent years to deal with ‘problem’ movements of which this was just the latest example. The ‘conspiracy’ tactic is a weapon, sharpened and wielded in order to weaken those groups most effective in challenging powerful corporations. And what’s more, it has been used successfully against perfectly peaceful campaigners:

Sean Kirtley was jailed for four and a half years in 2008 on a conspiracy charge. He was part of an anti-vivisection campaign against animal research company Sequani. Sean carried out no violent act; he used no intimidation; it was never suggested that he had conducted himself in anything other than a completely peaceful manner at all times and, as far as Sean was aware, he had kept scrupulously within the law. But because he had updated a website with perfectly legal information, and because he had attended wholly legal demonstrations he was convicted of ‘conspiracy to interfere with the contractual relations of an animal research facility’ under Section 145 of the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act (SOCPA). Is that clear? – it was possible in this country for someone who hadn’t actually behaved illegally to be imprisoned for years because his lawful behaviour amounted to a ‘conspiracy’. Ingenious!

There was no outcry about Sean’s sentence because a reporting ban was slapped on the trial – and even if publicity had been allowed well, he’s just one of those ‘extremists’ isn’t he? To hell with justice. During the trial ‘evidence’ was presented to show how Sean and his co-defendants (all of whom were acquitted) had planned (legal) protests – the very act of planning to demonstrate being portrayed as somehow illegal. In fact, a host of totally lawful behaviour was offered to the jury as evidence of conspiracy.

Thankfully, after a campaign to free him, Sean’s sentence was overturned on appeal but he had already lost a year and a half of his life. After release, he reflected on the conspiracy charge saying, ‘the final nail that was hammered into the prosecution’s ‘argument’ was when they could not name anybody that I was supposed to have conspired with, so my conviction was quashed there and then….I did often ponder in those small hours in my various cells in various prisons who I may have conspired with – Jesus? The Holy Ghost? Superman?’

We might also reflect for a moment on the mindset of those who were happy to see Sean rot in jail for four and a half long years.

Footage of people at various legal protests has also been used in other cases to accuse them of being ‘lead conspirators’. In this way, it becomes dangerous to engage in lawful protest for fear of being convicted – which is exactly the point. Because to stifle dissent is the overarching aim here while police and politicians pose as neutral supporters of the right to protest. This is why in the recently collapsed Ratcliffe Power Station case the authorities waited to arrest 114 people in a Nottingham school when they had Kennedy’s information (him being a major architect of the plan) much earlier. Far better to deter a large group from political action than just a few.

Danny Chivers, one of the defendants confirms this  also pointing out it was ‘the biggest pre-emptive environmental protest arrest in British history, and the starting point for a truly bizarre sequence of events involving a ‘conspiracy to commit trespass’’.

Here he nails the importance of the conspiracy aspect adding that ‘while Aggravated Trespass is a minor crime normally dealt with by a magistrate, anything involving Conspiracy has to go in front of a jury at the Crown Court’. This is the appeal of the charge for those employing it – it not only requires that no discernable offence actually be committed, it ensures a longer sentence which, in turn, acts as a deterrent. For the corrupt state fearful of the power of direct action – what’s not to like?

Chivers gives mention too to the draconian bail conditions given to those arrested preventing them from engaging in any LEGAL activities related to their cause. Again, this reflects the tactics tried and tested first on the animal rights movement, and this is significant because the thorough demonization of this latter group has meant there has been a fatal lack of scrutiny of its treatment at the hands of the police and justice system which has allowed individuals such as Kirtley to suffer serious miscarriages of justice. Crucially, it has also emboldened the police in their efforts to apply these same corrupt methods to the environmental movement because, in the eyes of the authorities, the two pose exactly the same threat. To misquote Martin Niemoller’s famous verse:

‘first they came for the animal activists…..’

The gullibility of the public on this issue must be replaced with a vigilance determined to protect the rights of every fellow citizen. Justice is for everyone or it ceases to exist and only an alert and watchful people can protect it, as John Adams knew when he said that ‘liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.’

Because the truth is, a covert game is being played with protest groups in this country which requires that the general population (and media) readily believe the propaganda of establishment voices. This game has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the public and everything to do with protecting corporate profits. It must be exposed because those who are happy to see our legal system subverted and fundamental liberties sacrificed are the real danger to any free and civilised society. And that’s no conspiracy theory.

Source – BS News  18 Feb 2014