Claims huntsman deliberately rode horse into woman

Rot! It was proved absolutely that the woman, dressed in camouflage clothes stepped into the path of the horse. Prior to that the rider had a clear path through the gate and could not have predicted that she would do that. The video was analysed frame by frame in court and the jury only took an hour to reach a unanimous verdict.

That is a different and separate issue from your spurious claim that the jury were biased. He did not stop because he claimed he thought he had only struck the woman a glancing blow, and given the venom being expressed by the hunt protesters at the time I have no doubt he also feared for his own safety.

Whether you approve of hunting or not, or are ambiguous to it it is not very clever to alter the facts to make your point. As far as I am aware the hunt were working within the rules and regulations and were not chasing live quarry. The majority of people who are anti hunting disapprove of it for some kind of 'class' argument.

I agree marispiper. I have seen hunt protesters/saboteurs, whatever you want to call them. I have seen them deliberately trying to spook horses and they disgust me. I saw one blow an air horn in the face of a pony and the rider, a girl of about 12 was thrown into the lane. Thankfully neither she nor her pony were badly hurt, but she was very shocked and tearful. And the reaction of the protesters? Loud cheering. The people hunting are not doing anything illegal yet the protesters are determined to stop them simply enjoying themselves. It can only be because the people out following hounds are doing something they neither understand or have any intention of understanding. I have often wondered how many of the vociferous anti hunting gang - the ones that in the words of Gus are participating in a 'barbaric pastime' have ever even seen a fox.

As I said previously Marispiper the jury did indeed see the whole video, and analysed it frame by frame. There is absolutely no doubt that the woman stepped into the path of the horse when it was almost on top of her. So she knew and knows bugger all about horses. You don't get the best part of 3/4 of a ton of muscle to react that fast.

And to claim the jury was biased in some way is bordering on contempt of court.

When you're galloping along on a horse, you can obviously turn it away from danger but only if you have time. It's difficult to say whether this woman stepped into the horses path deliberately or not. She doesn't flinch when the horn goes and looks like she steps back thinking the horse is going in front of her, which is the direction the other person went before moving forward again. The woman who was hit didn't move forward again. Now was that because she had slower reactions tha n the other person standing there, or because she thought the horse was going in front of her, or because she didn't see it coming until the rider was upon her?

The rider however galloped his horse through a smallish gap that was made smaller by at least 4 people and a land rover. He could have slowed his horse down and trotted through the gap minding the safety of him, his horse and the protesters.

I think they're all to blame and the horse is bloody lucky not to have been injured.


I thought I was signed in when I wrote this and cba to write it all out again
Norty2