Yesterday, Clarissa Dickson-Wright and Sir Mark Prescott both pleaded guilty to offences of participating and attending a hare coursing event back in March 2007 in Yorkshire. You know Dickson-Wright? one half of the TV duo Two Fat Ladies - you know - the fat ugly one, er, the one with a toffs accent, er, the one that's alive (fecking hell this is harder than I thought).
Anyway, two things really got my goat about this whole incident.
Firstly - despite pleading guilty they were discharged unpunished. The reason being that they believed, as did the organisers and other participants (including a police officer) that they were acting within the law by letting their muzzled greyhounds chase hares about. The presiding judge let them off due to the apparent complexity of the technicalities of the law, but warned that future cases would not be treated with leniency. WTF! The whole point of such cases is to ensure clarity, set precedents and punish the guilty - not blithely let them off because they were unclear about the law. Sorry M'lud - I was not aware that forcibly penetrating a non-consenting partner was illegal - I won't do it again - I'll be off then.
Secondly - what on earth made the organisers think that having the dogs muzzled for this activity would make it legal. Did they think the hares would be able to rationally assess the situation and realise they were not in danger? Fucking idiots. And why should this be even considered as a mitigating factor anyway.
Sorry M'lud - I was not aware that forcibly penetrating a non-consenting partner was illegal even if wearing a condom - are you entirely sure that's correct?
Shooting for the pot is one thing, organised shoots for sport and continued misguided support for hunting with hounds in any form is another. Even the age-old lame excuses about 'serving conservation needs and controlling a pest species' can't be rolled out for hare coursing. I sincerely hope this foul-faced woman does not appear on my TV screen in the future - even renowned game shooters and self-sufficientists like Hugh Fearnley-Wittingstall should find her participation in such activity to be abhorrent.