How political parties play both sides with foxhunting

Foxes vs Dirty Politics

Foxhunting is a toxic issue for political parties.
The vast majority of the public want hunting properly banned, while only a small minority want it to remain.


With such public support for a full ban on hunting, we therefore have to question why the main parties don’t get behind this and fully ban foxhunting.

Are these parties afraid of losing donations from the hunting lobby or treading on the toes of influential people while ignoring the wish of the people.


Dirty Politics : the small minority who do want foxhunting to continue tend to be supported by influential people in high places and corruption at the highest level. 

Some of these influential people often pay large sums of money (cash for favours) to political parties to ensure they get what they want. Corruption, self gain and greed will often dictate what parties support.


So how do political parties who rely on public votes get around this issue.   Answer : They create a public con.


The Con  “Playing both sides”  :  Parties pledge to keep legislation as a public-pleaser, (example : Pledge to keep the ban), …. while actually having no intention of ensuring the law is fully upheld, thus illegal foxhunting is allowed to secretly continue through the backdoor. 

They bring in more legislation and directive to make it as difficult as possible for the law to be upheld thus enabling hunting to continue but without the loss of votes and public outcry.


On the odd occasion, when substantial evidence is presented, a case may make it to court. These cases are usually allowed through for a number of reasons :


  1. To make it appear that weak legislation is working, therefore, no need to strengthen.
  2. To appease the public.
  3. To create a false impression that the Police, CPS, Courts are doing their job.
  4. Can’t be ignored due to overwhelming evidence.


But the pro-hunt lobby have lines of defence for this situation.


  • Financial backing to buy the best defence, often getting sentences overturned on a simple technicality while their crime is still blatantly obvious.  
  • Judges that are often sympathetic towards hunting.
  • Keep appealing until they do get a judge that is sympathetic.
  • Low, lenient sentences that do not deter law breakers.
  • A judicial system and ideology that is geared towards the continuation of the brutal outdated pastime of foxhunting.


This is why just “Keeping the ban” is simply not good enough for any political party to pledge, as nothing changes. It just allows hunting to continue through the backdoor and corrupt tactics.


Only a party who fully pledges to properly ban foxhunting, close loopholes and strengthen legislation will stop (as far as possible) illegal foxhunting.


Most tory MP’s are a total lost cause regarding animal welfare and banning foxhunting. The majority of these MP’s support foxhunting and ignore the public’s wishes when it doesn’t suit their personal agenda. They would vote to repeal the “so called”  ban given half the chance, however, now they have found away for hunting to continue without taking the risk of upsetting voters ie keeping the ban while allowing it to continue through backdoor means. It cons the public while pandering to the hunters.


With Keir Starmer’s (Labour) swing to the right, we must put pressure on him to ensure he delivers on the animal welfare promises and does not backtrack or drop pledges.

Just pledging to “keep the ban” is a cop out and allows hunting to continue with nothing changing. Starmer must not be allowed to play both sides.


We need an up-to-date public confirmation statement from Keir Starmer regarding foxhunting and animal welfare, now that he’s dropped all previous manifesto pledges.

Come and join us  :

Our Main FaceBook Group  :
Fox Hunting Evidence UK

Our WebSite  :

Our FB Share Page  :
Fox Hunting Evidence UK Share Page

Our Twitter Page  :