BETWEEN THE  BAN AND THE REPEAL The  legal battle is continuing. The CA has obtained permission for the UK High Court to rule on the legality of The Ban within Human Rights legislation. This may result in our case going before The European Court Of Human Rights. We have no dates yet.    In at least two confrontations between the two Houses of Parliament ( the "Hunting  Saga" and The Prevention of Terrorism Bill) The House of Lords has attempted to give the rights of individuals more weight than the wishes of The House of Commons.Nevertheless, it is with deep foreboding that I must report that in October 2005 it was announced that our challenge to the Parliament Acts had been rejected by the highest court in the land “The Law Lords”.  The obvious legal problems of overturning an act extant for 55 yrs and having been used to bludgeon through several laws against the wisdom of the House of Lords were considered more important than ending the dictatorship of government by restoring the powers of the House of Lords. One Law Lord commented as follows:  ” I am deeply troubled about assenting to the validity of such an exorbitant assertion of government power” . To Foxman’s mind all fair minded people must be deeply concerned that the Law Lords’ decision has had the effect of continuing to allow the Blair Government and many MPs to reject the House of Lords’ judgements attempting to preserve the rights of individuals contrary to the wishes of the State and its Police. Thus the tendency towards Totalitarianism has not been curbed. In Foxman's view the continuing occurence of suchg confrontations should  be used to trigger  resolution of a vital Constitutional Issue: That the  UK has no adequate  safeguards against  totalitarianism, dictatorship or “bad law”. The Attorney General, for the Government,  has said that "in his view the 1911 Parliament Act gives the  House of Commons  the power to force  through extreme  constitutional  changes." By implication this could include  abolishing the  House of Lords  or even extending the life of Parliament indefinitely.  This is the view  that would allow  any political party with a majority  to over-ride any  written or unwritten constitution for its own ends.  We have seen this happen frequently  in creating E.G.  Fascist Dictatorships.  It seems to me  that the UK needs a written Constitution,  amended only by  a referendum approved by a true majority of the people  (not just of those who voted). That is to say, a general vote (say, minimum  70%), having a  large minimum allowable majority,  (say, 80%). Followed by repeal of both  Parliament Acts provided that  the Constitution has defined the  extent and depth  of the powers of The Lords vis-a-vis The Commons. Anything  else might allow  an unscrupulous  politician to bludgeon his way to virtual dictatorship as did a Liberal (sic) Prime Minister in the events  that lead up to  the 1911 Parliament Act. What Hunts should do. The Countryside  Alliance Website www.countryside-alliance.org has a download of The Hunting Handbook 2005  that gives excellent  guidance as to  how the infrastructure  of Fox Hunting  should be preserved  pending the repeal. In essence it  recommends “Trail  Hunting,” that is following  hounds working  a man-laid scent of a fox. It differs radically from drag-hunting,  which often does not use a fox  scent and follows one of several set “lines”  because the trail will be laid in  a naturalistic  way. Unfortunately, it will be difficult to ensure that hounds are “lifted” immediately off  the scent in the  undesired event of them picking  up the trail of a live fox. DEFRA www.defra.gov.uk  has advised  on such unfortunate occurrences as follows: “people,  including those  engaged in drag hunting, whose dogs chase and  kill a fox against  their wishes will not be guilty  of a crime. This is because people  will be hunting only when they themselves intend to pursue the quarry animal”. In Foxman’s  view any deliberate attempt to chase a live fox would  be bound to come  to the ears of  “The Authorities” or the Anti-Hunting Lobby. Careless  boasting must not happen. This and actual lawbreaking would be entirely  selfish and be  wholly contrary to the interests of the Fox Hunting Community in general. It would wreck our legal cases  and severely reduce the chances of an eventual repeal.  We need to collect  evidence of the  worsened condition  of the fox population.  Foxes dead of wounds, outbreaks  of mange, over  concentration,  gaps in previous populations, increased predation etc. This should be sent via your  hunt to the Countryside Alliance to aid  them in the research they are commissioning. THE FUTURE WHAT I PREDICT TO BE THE LONG TERM FUTURE OF FOXHUNTING IN THE UK I believe that the logic of the case for Foxhunting is so strong that we will win in the end. Bigoted elements in the House of Commons have achieved a ban. BUT IT WILL BE TEMPORARY. A reasonable Commons will be elected in due course. The infrastructure of Hunting will be maintained. Possibly, on a somewhat smaller scale. We will need to keep up the pressure in order to get the Public, MPs and their Lordships to listen properly to our case. It  is all too easy to be bowled over by the propaganda adverts of IFAW and the RSPCA, which play on emotions with scant regard for underlying facts. It takes some serious thought to appreciate our arguments. Unfortunately, most people react emotionally. Our aim is to get MPs, their Lordships, the Public and The Media out of this mode. I am delighted that there has been a Government Inquiry ("The  Burns Inquiry"). No doubt the Inquiry Team studied an earlier such inquiry Scott-Henderson in 1947. The Burns conclusions are broadly similar. This is not surprising because nothing really significant has changed since, except the media and the Antis inflaming the emotions of more of the public. Although very rushed and stating, in effect, that more research  is required before considering legislation; The Burns Report is cool and objective, but it admits that it was insufficiently thorough. The actual Inquiry was free of political  pressures, although there seem to have been thoughts that it was inevitable that the anti MPs would misinterpret anything they said as supporting a ban. For instance the nonsense that Hunting "Seriously compromises welfare". Of course it does, please go to this link for why Burns' argument is baseless. Such a high level of emotion  and prejudice against hunting  continued  in some MPs, that Parliament  was prevented from  taking a balanced and democratic  view. Unfortunately some MPs  interpreted Burns in  accordance with their prejudices and ignored  favourable (to hunting) aspects of the report. Those opposed to hunting continue to attempt to justify such deliberate ignoring by using a current popular misconstruing of the meaning of Democracy. Which I call "The Great Fallacy".  THE GREAT FALLACY  The justification used in attempts (some successful) to impose several  bans (e.g. on keeping so called "dangerous dogs") is that if, say, 71% of the British people think that something should be banned then  Parliament should ban it. In other words that the will of the majority  should prevail in all circumstances. This position is dangerously undemocratic. "Democracy is defined as  government vested in all of the people" . That is on  behalf of small minorities (such as people of "rural" culture) as much as of the majority "urban" culture.  In truth, Parliament is  elected to govern wisely. This requires it to balance the sensitivities and well-being of the majority against the sensitivities and interests of all minorities in the light of the well-being of the nation as a whole. E.g. is the distress of the  minority owners whose "dangerous dogs" have been put to death really  balanced by the number of woundings that might have been avoided?  May be. BUT IN THE CASE OF HUNTING THE SITUATION IS NOT EQUIVOCAL.  HOW MUCH WILL THE WELL-BEING OF THE UK BE IMPROVED BY THE HUNTING BAN? I CANNOT SEE ANY, BUT THE DAMAGE TO THE INTERESTS OF COUNTRY PEOPLE  AND THE COUNTRYSIDE  (INCLUDING THE FOX POPULATION) WILL BE  SIGNIFICANT.  WHAT I PREDICT TO BE THE FUTURE OF FOXES  NOW THAT HUNTING IS BANNED The Hunting Bill contains many loopholes that will be exploited to improve our ability to control the fox population as humanely as the inhumane banning bill allows. Also to preserve the infrastructure of hunting. Nevertheless in the longer run, humane control will be weakened and, to an extent replaced by the bill’s inhumane insistence upon indiscriminate shooting with its higher risk of wounding or by the use of birds of prey which also runs the risk of a slow death (while the fox is eaten by the bird). I predict that that thanks to the continuing efforts of hunts to keep going the situation will be a somewhat less severe version of that in the late 1940s. There had been very little Hunting during the War. The fox population  had increased to intolerable levels in many places. Many more Fox Destruction Societies (Gun Packs) were formed (encouraged by the government). They used dogs to flush out foxes which were then shot at. Not all members  of these Societies were accurate shots and many used shotguns. Many foxes were wounded rather than killed quickly. Not all wounded foxes  were found by the dogs. Those that escaped often died slowly from their wounds. This method of Fox Control and the use of birds of prey is far worse for foxes than Hunting.  When a pack of some tens of Hounds catches a fox it is normally killed within a very few seconds. No foxes are wounded and escape to die  slowly. People would say that far fewer foxes would suffer from wounds than those that now suffer from being chased by Foxhunts. But this ignores the degree and duration of suffering in each scenario. Scientific opinions explain that, except (possibly) in the last few seconds before being caught, foxes do not suffer mentally while being chased; although they can be highly stressed physically. Thus any period of  suffering from the chase is short compared with that caused by wounding. Conclusion on Fox Destruction Societies and Gun Packs After the Ban, replacement of some Fox Destruction by Hunting (with  properly controlled and licenced Packs of Hounds) with Fox Destruction  Societies and Gun Packs would have increased the mental suffering of  foxes. Marksmen In view of the defects of Fox Destruction Societies and Gun Packs ,  it might come about eventually that Fox Control would be made illegal except as now practised  by many Gamekeepers and some farmers. That is by night using lamps to "freeze" the fox in his tracks or night sights to see clearly  in the dark; using only rifles for accuracy and greater killing power.  This method probably involves less suffering for foxes because wounding by skilled marksmen is relatively rare. However, although acceptable  in the countryside around the "release pens of gamebirds" and out on the farm as an alternative to Hunting where the farmer is  a good shot or can obtain the services of a Marksman, it would create serious problems: Shooting would be widespread if acceptable levels of fox control  were being achieved. High powered rifles of long killing range would have proliferated,  thus increasing risks from the misuse of guns for terrorist and other  purposes. Serious risks and clamour against shooting would have arisen from  increased use of guns near footpaths, roads and built up areas. Police Authorities would be complaining vigorously. There would have been insufficient accurate Marksmen to provide a  widespread and frequent enough service. Fox control would have deteriorated. Farmers would be complaining vigorously. Overall Conclusion It will be found that Foxhunting had been the best method of controlling  foxes, where Marksmen were inappropriate or not available. Let us hope that before long logic will prevail over emotion and that the country and the fox population will not have to suffer all the ill  effects for very long.  After all, the experiment of a ban and the waste of Parliamentary time is unnecessary since this  conclusion was reached by The Scott Henderson Enquiry.  Apart from public emotions, what has changed since then?