You don't say

An 'expert' believes that a ban on hunting with dogs could lead to a serious breakdown in relations between police and rural communities. Well, what do you expect when 40,000 people sign a declaration saying they will deliberately break a law banning hunting before the law is even passed.

I'm sorry, did I say 40,000? That can't be right, the population of a good sized town saying up front that they are willing to break a future law? Ridiculous. Something must be done.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has made it clear it will enforce any ban passed by Parliament.

Indeed, like they enforce the ban on burglaries and muggings. Or better because, you know, at least the hunters have the courtesy to wear a distinctive uniform.

Alistair McWhirter, an Acpo's spokesman, says he is well aware of the implications of a ban for police community relations in the countryside. That's nice to know.

We've been working hard to get the confidence of the people in the rural area and, as a rural chief constable, we work constantly to keep a blue light presence in rural areas and so on.

Blue lights and so on. That's marvellous.

...I would say is that there are quite a few people in rural communities who are anti-hunting just as many as there are pro-hunting. So we have to balance those needs of those communities out against each other.

Yes, that's right, your job is to balance communities out against each other, after all, legislation allows for this kind of balancing doesn't it?

Perhaps you'd like to do a bit of re-balancing between the law abiding home owner and the members of the burglary fraternity, you know, given that you are in the balancing mood?

Or perhaps arresting some fox hunters would be better for balancing out some crime figures.

Again the smiling hedgerow
Shall field from field divide;
Again among the woodlands
The scarlet troop shall ride.

You can't miss them.

Posted by JohnJo at November 18, 2003 08:32 AM | TrackBack