A quick thread explaining the background of Badger baiting and this sort of Fox killing. Most of the "terrier men" involved in this, often work as "terrier men" for official Fox Hunts posh people wearing red coats, who hunt Foxes on horseback with dogs.🧵 dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…
The job of "terrier men" on official Fox Hunts is to block up all the Fox earths and Badger setts in the area, on the day of a Hunt to stop Foxes going to earth. If they do go to earth they then use their terriers to help dig them out.
2/
These are the men you see following Hunts to this day, on quad bikes with boxes - to hold their terriers. Apologists for illegal Fox hunting like the Countryside Alliance laughably claim these boxes on quad bikes are for fence mending. 3/ morethanjustbadgers.net/tag/fence-mend…
There's more than enough photographic evidence showing "terrier men" taking out and putting dogs into these boxes, to show what is actually in these boxes, and it is not fence mending equipment. 4/ foxhuntingevidenceuk.com/the-truth/trut…
Of course, this raises the big question, about why most modern so called "trail hunts" are followed by terrier men on quad bikes, if they are just following trails, and not hunting Foxes illegally, which they self-evidently are.
5/
Terrier men have always followed official Fox Hunts, long before the existence of quad bikes. They obviously have a known role in the hunt, because they are allowed to roam all over private land with the hunt, unchallenged.
6/
However, the precise way these official Hunts employ or engage these gangs of "terrier men" is not known, because only the Hunt itself knows. Nevertheless, the way they're allowed to roam unchallenged, demonstrates it is a knowing arrangement.
7/
Badger baiters can often be local ne'er-do-wells engaged in other criminal activities. This isn't hearsay, I was brought up in the countryside and have met and known many. They were often very dodgy characters.
8/
Virtually all illegal Badger baiters and Fox torturers are either "terrier men" on hunts, or know "terrier men" on hunts. It is a closed secretive network who trade dogs with each other - dogs experienced in or bred for this cruel activity.
9/
This is how Badger baiters know the location of so many Badger setts and Fox Earths in their area. Because landowners and Hunt supporting farmers, show "terrier men" where the Badger setts and Fox earths on their land are, to stop them up before a hunt.
10/
It would be very difficult for Badger baiters to randomly roam around private land looking for Badger setts and Fox earths undetected. But then they don't have to, because through their network, including Hunt "terrier men" they already know where they are.
11/
I must clarify, that none of this is speculation. As I say over my lifetime I have met and known quite a number of these people, and they are only too willing to boast about what they do, and how they operate. You get the impression it's the same everywhere.
12/
As I say, we can only speculate on the relationship between these official Hunts, and these "terrier men", because I very much doubt it is on the record. All we know is the Hunt okay it, because they are not challenged when following Hunts on private land.
13/
You can actually see these "terrier men" talking to Hunt officials whilst they hunt. I watched it myself through binoculars only a couple of years back, from a local hill. So they are definitely not trespassers, the Hunt and landowners don't know about.
14/
I suspect, like much of this in the so call fieldsports community, most of what happens, happens by turning a blind eye. Whether it's the illegal killing of birds of prey, illegal Fox hunting, terrier men etc, they don't want to know the details, as long as the job is done.
15/
That it happens with a nod and a wink, that someone who knows someone, says do it to the right person, and there is not much other discussion. The classic MO of plausible deniability and wilful blindness. 16/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible…
However, the Hunts who are often composed of so called respectable people, titled landowners, other rich landowners, some farmers, professional people etc, all know they are being followed by "terrier men, and know that they are illegally hunting Foxes. So they are culpable.
17/
I realise many may already know this. I am not involved with any sab group, hunt monitoring etc. My field is mainly natural history, nature photography, environmentalism etc. I have my work cut out with these. So it's for those that may not know this.
18/
Therefore, all I'm doing is putting the knowledge I've built up over the years into this thread for anyone concerned, to know how it works. So they know that these Badger baiters, are not random lone individuals, but part of a network of people.
19/
A network that has close connections to the establishment, and where despite Fox hunting being illegal, local police forces bizarrely act as the private security to Fox Hunts, often illegally hunting Foxes under the guise of "trail hunting". 20/ independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/…
Please RT, because I'm not involved in this enough to know all the relevant people and organizations.
PS. I know Hunts call their dogs hounds, and get all puffed up if you refer to them as dogs, which is why I did.
Seeing this tweet reminded me of a long term thought experiment I've had. What if huge wealth is something akin to a powerful addiction to a drug like heroin?
That for all intents and purposes, those with it develop something close to a dangerous personality disorder. 1/
I use these thought experiments to test out how the world actually is. I do this very simply, by setting these thought experiments up, and seeing if I can reject these ideas. Often one single contrary bit of evidence, is all you need to reject the hypothesis.
2/
However, this is the very worrying thing, after many decades of running this thought experiment, I cannot find one shred of evidence to reject this hypothesis. I can't find one example of a very rich person, say a billionaire or serious multi-millionaire, who is normal.
3/
Let me deal with this. I know we need to stop emitting anthropogenic GHG emissions now - I've been saying it consistently on Twitter, and for over 30 years. 1/
I've been pointing out that the 1990 Stockholm Environment Institute report, from which the 2C figure was drawn, said there was nothing safe about 2C, and the real safe figure was more like 1C - since just after the report came out. 2/ carbonbrief.org/two-degrees-th…
I had a running battle with the Guardian newspaper on their comments section, to stop telling people that 2C was the internationally agreed safe limit we could work up to. Telling them to be honest about what the SEI report actually said.
3/
"Revealed: The hard-Left anti-vax aggressors who hurled abuse at Keir Starmer for 'forgetting the working man' were whipped into a frenzy by Jeremy Corbyn's conspiracy theorist brother Piers" dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…
That's clear isn't it. They are claiming that the perpetrators were the "hard-left".
The reality is very different. Actually the instigator was a former Tory councillor only recently expelled from the Conservative Party who campaigned with Boris Johnson. theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/f…
Whilst I don't doubt some anti-vaxxers etc, are left wing. The Mail article presents not one iota of evidence that any of those highlighted were even left wing, let alone "hard left".
I made a point about this a few weeks ago. That what are basically climate change deniers in the Conservative Party, are attempting to take advantage of Boris Johnson's weakness, and need to appease all factions, to undermine climate policy. theguardian.com/politics/2022/…
It is part of a whole agenda to shift all policy to extreme right. They are as the article implies trying to make climate denial part of their culture war agenda. However, I disagree, that this has only started now.
Whilst there has always been a pro-oil, free market, libertarian streak in Conservative politics, both sides of the Atlantic, it has only been in the last 15 years that a left right divide has started to appear over climate policy.
I'd like to clarify, that when I used the acronym and term CCS here I meant all forms of capturing carbon, from just after burning, to removing from the atmosphere and then storing it. I regard all the acronyms and supposed methods, to be highly misleading and indeed false.
What I mean by highly misleading and false, is they give the misleading and false impression that a specific technology actually exists, which could be implemented if possible. In reality all these methods are experimental, and don't really exist.
Yes it is possible to remove carbon and store it. What matters though is at significant scale. There is so far, no evidence at all, that any other these methods could realistically be used at any significant scale. So as far as I'm concerned, they are imaginary.
I'd like to tell a tale about Carbon Capture and Storage CCS. I'm sure @KevinClimate will appreciate the irony. It's a sort of tale in the manner of the Emperor's Clothes, to illustrate the amazing hubris of the powerful. Maybe the wonderful @thejuicemedia could use it.
1/
Essentially, what the aim of CCS is about, is to suck the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, released by our burning of fossil fuels, then pump it deep underground, where it will be stored safely for generations to come. 2/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_ca…
Superficially, it seems a genius idea, which will allow us to carry on burning fossil fuels BAU, whilst sucking the problem product out of the atmosphere. A sort of have your cake and eat it solution. The dream of techno-fantasists (sorry techno-optimists) everywhere.
3/