On 19/2/05, Jim Hemenway, discombobulated, unleashed: >I like this bunch of photos... well done along with an interesting story.
Many thanks Jim. > >I'm unclear on the concept though. If using more than two dogs is now >illegal, why are there so many. And, why isn't the policeman doing >something about it other than what appears to be traffic control? It's (apparently) illegal of more than two of the dogs actually flush out a fox and then kill it. Quite how that is policed is not apparent. The policeman in the shot was on traffic duty. There was a police Land Rover parked up with 5 or 6 inside, but they are there to quell any confrontation between the pro-hunt lobby and the hunt saboteurs, of which I saw none where I was. I understand the police intention is that the law will be difficult to police, and more likely possible future prosecutions will result after evidence is provided by anti-hunt monitors (of which there are a number) or other sources. Theirs is a 'softly softly' approach where intelligence can be gathered and prolific offenders charged accordingly. The police do not have the resources or manpower to follow the hunt and monitor progress - aside from the ergonomic difficulties of such a task. It would literally need a helicopter at each hunt! Frankly, there are much better things the police force could be doing IMO, but we live in a democracy, and a law is a law. These things will be tested in the courts in due course and precedents will be set. There is inevitably a lot of politics involved - some would say that it's *all* about politics - but I make no comment.... regards, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
