Talk:Hunting Act 2004

Legal entirety?

Is the full text of the Act strictly necessary? To me, it seems like article-padding, and the full text of the act is already on the hmso.gov.uk website, which is linked to at the bottom of the article. --RDevz 22:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reversion of User:MikeHobday's edits

In this edit, User:Computerjoe reverted all of User:MikeHobday's edits to the article. It is far from obvious to me why they should be reverted - they seemed to me like useful edits that improved the article. I don't want to just re-revert without discussion, so I hope we can discuss how best to move the article forward here. — ciphergoth 13:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the reverted edits after this discussion with User:Computerjoe. I do not find stylistic problems in them so great that a revert is the only way forward; style issues are easily fixed, and I think this is the right path to the best article.

I don't want to kick off a revert war; if things get hairy I'll defer to other users on what the best way forward is. — ciphergoth 13:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

2004 Bill

I have removed the following text:

with many newspapers and broadcasters condemning Tony Blair's Labour administration for giving in to what they perceived as the prejudicial views of anti-hunting Labour backbenchers. MPs of all parties voting for the legislation asserted that hunting caused unnecessary suffering and said that they represented the majority of the public who favoured a ban on hunting with dogs. Their assertion of majority support for the thrust of the legislation seems to have some basis in evidence, a September 2002 survey commissioned by the Daily Telegraph [1] indicated that a narrow majority of people (57%) agreed with the statement that 'hunting with dogs is never acceptable'. However, a survey by MORI for the BBC [2] carried out in February 2005 found that there was no majority (47%) of support for the new legislation

because, legitimate information as it may be, it is relevant to fox hunting or fox hunting legislation rather than this article. MikeHobday 14:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Only Mike Hobday of the League Against Cruel Sports could argue that a poll showing that there is no majority of support for the Hunting Act is not relevant to Hunting Act 2004. Bit embarrassed about public attitudes towards your Act Mike? Tim Bonner, Countryside Alliance.

Are you going to add in the information that you removed from Parliament Act? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Have done. On first sight, I thought this article included the key material, but on reading your note, realise that there is some extra information to include. Well spotted. MikeHobday 07:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Great - thanks. I agree that it sits better here. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

loophole stuff

this seems to border on POV at times, and definitely needs sourcing. where are we getting the "intent" of Parliament from? Morwen - Talk 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope not, though I am very open to the suggestion that the wording can be improved. I think the specifics are justified by the fact that the legislation was written to achieve purposes as endlessly debated in Parliament (over 400 hours, so I am not keen to re-read it all!). What I was struggling with was how to explain in a reasonably analytical way a debate which says (on one hand) "the legislation is nonsense". MikeHobday 07:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike Hobday's interpretation of the Hunting Act is obviously skewed and as Morwen suggests based on his own views. I could add a list of things a mile long which the ban "does not stop" most of which involve killing things using methods no more humane than hunting with dogs. Mike would have been better off writing his Bill a bit better in the first place rather than trying to creatively rewrite it here. Tim Bonner

Status in Scotland

I'm confused about the status of fox hunting in Scotland. The intro paragraph seems to unambiguously state that it is illegal. But then later on, we have this line:

Traditionally, in some upland areas, foxes were flushed by packs of dogs to be shot. This activity is still permitted in Scotland under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002.

So you can hunt foxes in Scotland? We need clarification. 68.40.65.164 05:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have tried to amend article to answer this. MikeHobday 07:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm

Hmm... I going to expand this article.

My point of view is that 'towny' types should stop meddling in the dealings of the countryside, as any old country bumpkin knows when hunting with hounds, the fox is dead in a split second when the lead dog bites it's neck and severs it's spine... then a dead fox is ripped to pieces. Alas, other methods often inflict intolerable suffereing on the beast - try and shoot to kill a fox at night whilst it's running and your on the back of a truck!

POV aside, as my opning line states, I am going to expand this article, fairly. yes fairly - not with a pro-hunting slant and certainly not with an anti-hunting slant (but lets just see what vandalism occurs!).

FeZzYwEzZy [Birth.Life.Death] - Do It All Or Die Trying... 08:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists of convictions

Starting to become slightly concerned about this list. Wikipedia is not a fan of lists, with the specific statement of:

On the other hand, lists, when applied to controversial subjects or to living people, could be misused to assert a specific point of view. This essay has been drafted to provide some general best practices as it pertains to the creation and maintenance of lists in the article namespace.

We dont have a list of failed charges/convictions or dropped cases under this Act, and if we did the whole article would start to miss the point. Similarly on the page of the Theft Act 1968 we dont have a list of convictions, nor on possibly more contencious issues such as Terrorism Act 2006 do we.

I think this needs consideration.

See Wikipedia:Lists_in_Wikipedia for more.

--TFoxton 14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly contest the statement on the article that reads:

Despite the Countryside Alliance claiming that the Hunting Act is unworkable, at least twelve people have been convicted for breaking it:

It is irrelevant and POV as it is not proportionate to the number of those charged! For example there could be 5000 charges under the Act, if 12 are convicted then the CA's argument could be right and that statment would be wrong and POV.

--TFoxton 14:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that not a single person has had an information laid against them and had the case dropped, or been found not guilty. If so, this is highly relevant to the issue. Even had this happened, twelve convictions suggests that the statement of a key organisation on the issue, namely the Countryside Alliance that "The law itself continues to be bathed in confusion and difficult to follow, and the exemptions are extremely unclear"[3] might be a load of piffle. Surely the key question on the Hunting Act is whether it is enforceable or not. This list is relevant to that question. MikeHobday 15:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Glad to see the removal of the "Convictions list". However, I'm starting to feel that this has simply been transferred to the External Links section.

Possibly too many case judgements I think! Could the people responsible for adding please familiarise themselves with the Wikipedia:External links page - in particular:

Important points to remember

...
3.Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site.

Avoid undue weight on particular points of view

On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.

With this subject, informed opinion is divided, therefore using this section to make or emphasise a point of view is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Links here should only relate directly to the Act itself. Other more controversial issues should be saved for the Fox Hunting article.

Thoughts...

--TFoxton 20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, feel free to delete some. MikeHobday 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Had a go. Feel free to reinstate news articles I removed anyone, but these need to be placed into the article itself, they not suitable for the External Links section. --TFoxton 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement and Flushing

Tim Bonner (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've avoided editing this page because I work for the Countryside Alliance and obviously have a point of view. But it contains some unsupportable content.

In 'enforcement' I've added a reference. In 'flushing' I've deleted quotes from a judgment from Barnstaple Magistrates' Court which was succesfully appealed at Exeter Crown Court. That judgment was upheld in the High Court. The Barnstaple judgment sets no legal precedent and has been rejected. I have also deleted references to the 'flushing' exemption which are very misleading. The exemption should be referenced and read in full, not just presented in partial form to support an interpretation of the legislation. I have also corrected a reference to the R v Down and Pillivant judgment. There are several other sections of the page which are clearly POV and I'd rather someone else addressed them.

Personally, I welcome you editting the article, and I'm sure that collaboration could lead to a better one. I've amended your of your changes as I think it's misleading to refer to "all" two cases being dropped when CPS cases for fox hunting and hare coursing and two private cases are continuing. MikeHobday (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Those were the only two CPS prosecutions of hunts adjourned for the Wright appeal and both have been dropped. Your addition is incorrect as it stands because no prosecutions against hunts that were adjourned for the appeal are continuing. See my amend.Tim Bonner (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true, and I've added in an adjourned case against a hunt that was adjourned but hasn't been dropped. MikeHobday (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised to see that the actual Penalties are not reported in the Article. So I have supplied this information. In the Enforcement section of the Article there are a number of cases of prosecution and the plight of the people accused; however with no Penalties included in the Article there was no real perspective, or backdrop, of just what kind of trouble they were in. (Valhalan (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

Review and rework

I have done a reasonably thorough rework of the article to present it in a clearer way with some adjustments to the order and section headings. I have tried not to diverge from the main content of the article, but have toned down some statements where I felt they were straying in the POV territory. PeterEastern (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Definite article in short title

Section 16 of the Act specifies the short title to be the Hunting Act 2014, not The Hunting Act 2004. The introduction to this article therefore incorrectly emboldens the definite article The. In addition, the {{Infobox UK legislation}}-->short-title of The Hunting Act 2004 is similarly incorrect and should be Hunting Act 2004.

--Senra (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)