Yesterday a hunting group in Oxfordshire were fined after admitting to engaging in illegal fox hunting. Two members of the hunt were fined £2800 between them and ordered to pay another £5000 in costs. The Heythrop Hunt itself was fined a further £4000 and told to pay £15000 in costs. However despite these princely sums the case still cost the RSPCA a whopping £327000.
It was remarked upon by the magistrate that perhaps the money the RSPCA spent could have been put to better use. He hinted in a BBC news report last night that people who made donations to the charity maybe didn’t intend for their money to be spent on things like this.
That is, quite simply, bollocks.
Aside from the fact that these people BROKE THE LAW and there is footage of them BREAKING THE LAW and therefore it should have been a criminal prosecution and not left to a charity to bring these barbarians to trial that is not how charity works. There have been problems before of people earmarking the donations they made to charity and the charity having a lot of money but not being able to use it as it came with stipulations to be used for something else. This has caused unnecessary problems in Indonesia where money was given just to built orphanages. Anything else the communities needed was denied by do-gooding Westerners who thought they knew better. Almost the opposite happened in Japan after the recent tsunami. Being a developed and relatively wealthy nation Japan did not need all the aid donated to them, but because the money was given to help only victims of the tsunami it couldn't be given to any other causes.
The arrogance of a person giving to charity to tell them what to spend the money on is staggering. When I donate to charity it is a charity I know well and so I assume they know what they are doing so I trust them to put my money to good use. There have also been times when I have heard the argument made by people that they won’t donate to charity because the charity might just ‘use it for overheads’. Does it really never occur to these people that, in order for it to do the best work, the charity will need some sort of infrastructure?
Also I have donated to the RSPCA before. I have made cash donations, bought things in RSPCA shops and it is one of the buckets I am most likely to put spare change in. This could be put down to years of watching Animal Hospital as a child but I really feel the charity does good work. Do I think they did the right thing in this case? Yes I do. Would I be proud to think some of my money went towards bringing the Heythrop Hunt to justice? Damn right I would.
This case sent a clear message to everyone who thinks they can flout this law that it is a law. To continue to hunt and torture foxes for fun is illegal and if you continue to do it you can expect to be prosecuted. Hopefully next time it will be a full on criminal case brought by the CPS and charities won’t need to foot the bill.
Fox hunting is barbaric. I have never heard an argument for it that convinced me to keep it legal. If it controls pests and keeps the fox population at a manageable level there are far more humane ways to do that. I also do not accept that something should be kept alive just because it’s tradition. I also resent the implication trotted out some pro-hunters that I don’t understand because I am not from the countryside or I am not from the particular class that indulges in this vile past time that I don’t understand it. I’m sorry, but I do. You are watching an animal get ripped to pieces for fun. That is both horrific and suggestive of a particularly vicious mindset. Getting pleasure out of watching something being brutally killed should be sounding psychological alarm bells. You can argue the positive social aspects all you want, but I’ve always managed to find positive social aspects in pubs, parks, house parties and good conversation. No animals needed to die.
I applaud the RSPCA’s actions, I just wish it hadn’t been left to them to do it. My only regret is that these scumbags aren’t going to prison.
No comments:
Post a Comment