O tempora, o mores.
Jan. 6th, 2006 10:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyShamelessly yanked from The First Post.
The League Against Cruel Sports recently embarked on a fund-raising drive. It wants money to buy video cameras to film people hunting. In 2003 the League had a deficit of more than £230,000 so little wonder it is desperate to raise funds. It sent out begging letters imploring people to send cheques to a freepost address. The thought that people would send money to the League but be worried about the cost of postage for their cheques was baffling.
But the hunters spotted a perhaps fatal chink. The postage of any letters sent to the freepost address must be paid by the League. Not entirely surprising then that the Pros - gleeful in the knowledge that the League will have to pay - have sent them van-loads of telephone directories, back copies of Horse & Hound and tons of unwanted junk mail. And the League will have to cough up. Patrick O'Brien, a Royal Mail spokesman, says: "We grant freepost licences for a minimum period of a month and we expect people to pay as per the agreement. It doesn't matter whether they don't want the mail, they have agreed to pay us for its delivery." The League says that the unwanted post is being "held at depots around the country" and adds: "We can't put a number on it but anyone with a brain will realise it is a lot. We are not commenting on specifics but we have a strategy to deal with it." Will the welter bankrupt the League? If it doesn't, it might like to consider the following. When it goes out videoing hunts is it entirely sure that it is acting within the law? There are legal complications with videoing children, so what happens when all the child members of a hunt are at the front of the field when hunting the fox? Is the League itself then breaking the law? There are reports that this tactic has already been tried by hunts in Dorset, the Peak District and Wiltshire.
The League Against Cruel Sports recently embarked on a fund-raising drive. It wants money to buy video cameras to film people hunting. In 2003 the League had a deficit of more than £230,000 so little wonder it is desperate to raise funds. It sent out begging letters imploring people to send cheques to a freepost address. The thought that people would send money to the League but be worried about the cost of postage for their cheques was baffling.
But the hunters spotted a perhaps fatal chink. The postage of any letters sent to the freepost address must be paid by the League. Not entirely surprising then that the Pros - gleeful in the knowledge that the League will have to pay - have sent them van-loads of telephone directories, back copies of Horse & Hound and tons of unwanted junk mail. And the League will have to cough up. Patrick O'Brien, a Royal Mail spokesman, says: "We grant freepost licences for a minimum period of a month and we expect people to pay as per the agreement. It doesn't matter whether they don't want the mail, they have agreed to pay us for its delivery." The League says that the unwanted post is being "held at depots around the country" and adds: "We can't put a number on it but anyone with a brain will realise it is a lot. We are not commenting on specifics but we have a strategy to deal with it." Will the welter bankrupt the League? If it doesn't, it might like to consider the following. When it goes out videoing hunts is it entirely sure that it is acting within the law? There are legal complications with videoing children, so what happens when all the child members of a hunt are at the front of the field when hunting the fox? Is the League itself then breaking the law? There are reports that this tactic has already been tried by hunts in Dorset, the Peak District and Wiltshire.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:30 pm (UTC)Boo for taking a political/ethical argument and side-stepping the whole thing by bankrupting the opposition. It happens far too often over here, and we're worse off for it. (Even people who are wrong should be heard out.)
And A) Are you attending Origins this year, or still a Gencon whore?
B) If you've gotten over your Gencon whorishness, what games are you running at Origins so I can sign up?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:33 pm (UTC)I run stuff at GenCon UK, not GenCon US. If you were to come over for it that'd be entirely flattering, but I'm not sure it's what you're really meaning...
no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:53 pm (UTC)Ah. Didn't realize there was a UK counterpart.
No, I was hoping you were replacing your GenCon trip with an Origins trip.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 09:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 03:51 pm (UTC)Versace.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 02:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 03:54 am (UTC)LACS though are not rally THAT bad.
ALF is much worse.
But it is nice to see humour in politics no matter what side does it.
As for the video-taping of children/illegality issue... there seems to be a massive flaw in the law here. CCTV images video tape children all the time. Including non-fixed security cameras. So are security cameras exempt?
Surely all they have to do is to broadcast the images to a base station 'for security purposes' and tra la! They are free.
That and their videotaping is formally for the purposes of gaining evidence for the police.
And the hunts are putting children IN FROUNT of the cameras?
Pandering?
Now if we want to see a muddle-headed, silly, nanny-state New Labour peice of trash legislation- this whole confusion on videotaping children is the issue. And in fact I thought it was just an expansion of the DPA. One may not broadcast images of children without consent? Surely pixilation would do?
I am actually VERY curious on the whole video-taping kids law itself. It seems to be just a goddamn mess.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-08 03:11 pm (UTC)Just so you know.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-08 04:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-09 04:38 pm (UTC)I'm sorry, I'm really inept. I'm also sorry that I didn't respond more promptly. My computer's been in the shop, but now my baby is back.