Talk:League Against Cruel Sports
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
League Against Cruel Sports is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs. |
|||
 |
An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, League Against Cruel Sports, has edited Wikipedia as MikeHobday (talk · contribs) |
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
[edit] Mike Hobday editing this page
Mike Hobday is a paid public relations flak for LACS and more than discredited as a spokesperson for anything after his wanton disregard of the facts about the history of LACS and the truth of Baronsdown (widely reported in the press, in reports and on video). Having him rip up text and eliminate facts on this page is why Wikipedia has been so widely discredited for having public relations flaks "clean up the truth." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.10.134 (talk) 12:36, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
- He edits using his real name, has scrupulously observed Wikipedia etiquette since his first edit, and added the fact that he works for the League to his user page within a day of that edit. — ciphergoth 16:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciphergoth (talk • contribs)
- To be fair to the guy, it says he does at the top of the page in the third box down. He has every right to so long as its made clear he does, in my view. --TFoxton 19:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pro Hunters defecting statement
"Amongst the League's supporters are many people who used to follow and take part in hunts. Indeed, the League has produced publications against fox hunting written by a Master of Fox Hounds and by a professional huntsman." - Have you got any evidence or a link/copy of the 'publications'? I have linked to the evidence on Graham Sirl etc. Please do the same!
[edit] League style of campaigning
From a NPOV i think that there is nothing wrong with filming the odd hunt especially if it is an illegal hunt which believe it or not many hunters are against.Maybe they should not balaclavas while doing this?I think it gives them a bad image but on the other side of the argument maybe it is vital.HECTOR 17:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- League supporters do not wear balaclavas. Some saboteurs do, and some hunt stewards do, but League monuitors do not.MikeHobday 17:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok i will take your word for it but surley ye hide yer identity when filming?I know that ye do not cause violence which is a good thing.I have read a few articles on it.HECTOR i think was just giving a neutral view which is fair.When can we finish the hare coursing article.I see ye tried to hide it from me.im not stupid.Ian davies friend 17:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- The League monitors hunts in two ways. Volunteer monitors film openly. Undercover invetsigators mingle with the hunt supporters. MikeHobday 18:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry there i mistook your group for one of the saboteurs.Would i be interfering if i asked you what you thought of groups like the "sabs"?I do not think that it is right for them to regularly pose as hunters but if by doing it the once for information purposes then i would not condem that.Im not certain if hunters have ever posed as League members.If i am wrong then so be it.HECTOR 18:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Is the "League Against Cruel Sports" totally against all sports where blood is shed?Even fishing?If so then obviously you are a very commited group who must be vegitarians!HECTOR 18:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- The League's policy statement, on its website, says "The League Against Cruel Sports policy is to campaign within the law for changes in the law." This is taken very seriously. If the League was prepared to break any law, what right would it have to expect hunters to obey the law? The policy statement also says, "The League has no policy on angling." MikeHobday 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that Mike.I appreciate your co-operation. If you have no policy on angling then why do you(animal welfare groups)complain so much about bloodsports if you are leaving out perhaps the biggest blood sport of them all?A lot,lot,lot more fish are killed than hares,foxes,badgers,......in a year so why is it you do not campaign against fishing?Hunting is a livelihood for a large number of people around the world.For instance asking some huntsman from a poor country where food is hard to come by to stop doing what he knows best is on the same level as asking someone to stop fishing?Its a fact of life that has been there since the begining of man.I do not agree with the killing of animals unless they are bred for that purpose.I dont think hare coursing is that cruel because they do not intend on harming or killing the hare.I take it that you are vegetarian who eats fish.HECTOR 18:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments on present article
Responding to user:GWP [1], some points:
- Citation for queried RSPCA reference at [2], other history of the League there which I release from copyright
- The League is no longer referred to as LACS. The abbreviated form of “League Against Cruel Sports” in use is “the League”
- The League’s income is based on legacies as well as direct mail fundraising. Briefly, all its costs of campaigning are met by its supporters
- The references to hunting legislation are inaccurate in a number of respects, and such discussion perhaps belongs more properly at the fox hunting legislation article. Both Acts make any deliberate chasing of a fox illegal, regardless of the number of dogs. Scotland permits any number of dogs to be used to flush a fox to be shot. The restrictions on hunting below ground in England and Wales are much more extensive than suggested in the article.
- The section called “tactics of the current leadership” does not in any way describe current tactics which are reported at [3], namely “The League Against Cruel Sports' policy is to campaign within the law for changes in the law. … The League condemns the use of violence, criminal damage, intimidation or threatening behaviour in the furtherance of any campaign.”
- Older versions of the article (see late 2006) discussed the “changing sides” issue in a more neutral way and that text might be considered to replace the current one-sided text.
MikeHobday 08:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Facts are not POV
This is the text that is being deleted by League supporters and PR officials. It is all fact:
The League began in Morden, a suburb of London in 1923. Henry Amos raised a protest against rabbit coursing[citation needed], he was successful in motivating support[citation needed] and managed to achieve a ban. This encouraged him to organise opposition to other forms of cruel sports and so in 1924 along with Ernest Bell, he established the League for the Prohibition of Cruel Sports.[citation needed] Although many blood sports such as bull, bear and badger baiting and cock fighting had already been outlawed at the time[citation needed] the laws only applied to domestic and captive animals[citation needed]. With the RSPCA unwilling to take action against hunting[citation needed], Amos and Bell identified a clear need for an organisationwhich would campaign against what it classified as cruel sports.
Originally called the League for the Prohibition of Cruel Sports[1], the partnership between Henry Amos and Ernest Bell did not last long. The organization had 500 members in 1927, and not many more when, in 1932, Bell left the organization due to a difference in tactics. Bell went on to found the National Society for the Abolition of Cruel Sports (NSACS).
LACS (now called "The League") struggled through World War II, its already small membership depleted by the war effort. In 1956, journalist Eric Hemmingway -- an avid hunt disrupter -- was elected Chairman, and by 1960 LACS (it now calls itself "the League") had a more radical image and a larger support base.[2]
Hemmingway died in 1963, and was succceed by Raymond Rowley. In 1975, after the anti-coursing bill failed, there was an increasing level of disent with the League as to the course and direction the organization should take. In March of 1977, Richard Course, a former hunt saboteur and a member of the Executive Committee of the League, was charged with receiving documents stolen from the British Field Sports Society. This theft did not slow Course's rise within the League, however, and in 1981 Course was made Executive Director and Mark Davies became Chair.[3]
In 1982, League member Mrs. Janet Simmonds won a High Court case against the League over an £80,000 gift the organization made to the Labour party in 1979. The judge ruled the donation invalid and that it had to be repaid back with interest.[4]
In 1982, The London Times revealed that League Press officer Mike Wilkins was actually the convicted grave desecrater Michael Huskisson [5][6] who had previously set up the Cambridge group of the Hunt Saboteurs Association. [7][8] Huskinson was subsequently fired from his League job after he joined the South East Animal Liberation League in sacking the offices of the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) offices at Buxton Brown Farm, Downe, Kent. Huskinson was sentenced to prison for eighteen months for his role in the vandalism and theft of documents[9], and the League now says it does not condone violence.
In the late 1980s, League Executive Director Richard Course was appointed to the Burns Inquiry into hunting with dogs and began to spend some field time with the mounted fox hunts as an outgrowth of this work. After a period of time talking with professional wildife managers, scientists, and hunt supporters, he finally concluded that: "The dogs easily outpace the fox within a minute or two and kill it within a second or two. How the fox is located is totally irrelevant to animal welfare considerations," and he began to say to publicly.
Course was fired from the League for expressing this and other sentiments divergent from the League's mission. What followed was a period of turmoil and bitter accusations within various factions of the League. James Barington assumed Course's position within the League (still widely known as LACS), but he too eventually quit the organization saying that he too had concluded that an absolute ban on hunting was not in the best interests of animal welfare.
Graham Sirl and John Bryant then took over as Joint Chief Officers of the the League, but this partnership did not last long as Bryant quit over the sale of some of the League's wildlife sanctuaries to pay costs associated with political campaigns.
On February 18, 2001, the Sunday Telegraph[10] reported that Andrew Wasley, the League's press officer, had previously been arrested for violent disorder at Hillgrove Farm cat breeding centre, where he was one of the balaclava-wearing saboteurs. Wasley was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for his actions.[11]
In May of 2001 Graham Sirl resigned his position in the League (some say he was fired) and said that he no longer believed a complete ban on hunting was in the best interests of wildlife, and was especially not in the best interests of the Exmoor deer herds which would quickly overpopulate the area if left unmanaged. Sirl says, "I now believe hunting with hounds plays an integral part in the management system of deer on Exmoor and the Quantocks."[12]
LACS went through more leadership turmoil in 2001 and 2002 until, in January of 2003, actress Annette Crosbie was named President.
The current President of the League Against Cruel Sport is actress[13] Annette Crosbie who told The Mirror's David Edwards [1],"When I think about it, I think humans are the nastiest species of animal on the planet ...". In the same interview she describes herself as "impatient, intolerant, judgmental, tactless -- I'm not very nice, I'm really not. And if you don't do it my way, by God you'll be sorry."[2] Supporters of Crosbie says that her personaality is one of the things that that makes her an ideal choice to lead the League.
Crosbie says "We believe that nobody has the right to terrorise and kill animals for sport,"[14] she supports the actions of animal rights activists, telling The Mirror,[3] "The campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences has been very clever -- to frighten the banks into backing off is wonderful... Apart from rescuing animals they focus people's attention on what's going on. You cannot get politicians to pay attention until you get out on the streets and do something." The "do something" campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences has included extreme violence, threats and terroristic acts against Huntingdon employees, including the beating of people with pick ax handles and the deliver of a bomb containing enough dynamite to blow up a city block.
- Please do not allege that League officials are deleting text without evidence thatthey are. MikeHobday 14:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit War and POV
There has been a great deal of activity here of late, to say the least. I have looked back over the edits and it appears that large sections of the article with citations have been removed as POV. Facts are not of themselves POV. Selection of facts can be POV. I submit that the proper recourse for a perceived POV selection of facts is not wholesale removal, but addition of those facts missing to bring the article to a NPOV status. Unfortunately, it seems that the quick and easy path was taken here and cited information was simply deleted.--Counsel 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above - deletion should be a last resort. However PBurns3711 has consisently deleted information already there and replaced it with blatantly one-sided rhetoric which I am certain is also plagiarised as it reads like standard anti-League propaganda.
The standard of his grammar, spelling, writing and wikifying is also very poor.
I propose that he be banned from working on the article as he is a liability to wikipedia.
My own agenda is nothing other than to have an article appropriate for an encyclopedia - he wants to turn the League Against Cruel Sports page into a pro-hunting polemic.
It's not acceptable! GWP 19:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Whether unfortunately or not, it seems that one of the principles of Wikipedia is that people are allowed to make mistakes. User:PBurns3711 might have been reminded a couple of times about the policy on civility and been blocked twice for breach of the policy on WP:3RR, but we have to allow him to learn. What I hope is that intelligent and experienced pro-hunting editors like User:Floridan can remind their supporter that he is damaging Wikipedfia by his approach. MikeHobday 23:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Totally-disputed
PBurns3711 placed a {{totally-disputed}} tag in the history section. (He also removed a good chunk of valid content without explanation, so I restored it.) That tag needs to be discussed here, or else it should be removed. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to Mr. Darcy for setting this process up. Would it help if I suggested specific areas where I think the present article is not written from an NPOV so that discussion can be specific to different issues? (declartation of interest on my user page) MikeHobday 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The League campaigns against ...
I suggest the reference to "so-called" bloodsports is weasel wording. MikeHobday 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Legislation references
The article changed from its December version "The League supported the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act, passed in 2002 by the Scottish Parliament, which make it illegal in Scotland to chase or deliberately kill a wild mammal with dogs and the Hunting Act 2004 which has similar effect in England and Wales." to the current version "The League supported the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act, passed in 2002 by the Scottish Parliament, and the Hunting Act 2004. Both laws[4][5] make it illegal to chase fox with more than two dogs, but allow the use of two dogs (England) or one dog (Scotland) to flush fox to be shot. Both laws also allow the use of one terrier at a time below ground to flush a fox to be shot if the owner of the terrier has written permission from the land owner or occupier to reduce fox populations in order to prevent or reducing serious damage to game birds or wild birds being kept on the land. The terrier must wear an electronic locator collar." The new version is inaccurate. Both Acts make any deliberate chasing of a fox illegal, regardless of the number of dogs. Scotland permits any number of dogs to be used to flush a fox to be shot. The restrictions on hunting below ground in England and Wales are much more extensive than suggested in the article. In any event, detailed discusison perhaps belongs on the Hunting Act 2004 page. MikeHobday 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Changing sides
The pre-December version said (with citations) "Amongst the League's supporters are many people who used to follow and take part in hunts. Indeed, the League has produced publications against fox hunting written by a Master of Fox Hounds and by a professional huntsman. On the other hand, in the period 1990 to 2001 a number of high profile members of the League Against Cruel Sports defected to the pro-hunting and "Middle Way" side of the argument, most notably former chief executive Jim Barrington, and former chief officer Graham Sirl (following his forced resignation)." The new version of the text is one-sided. MikeHobday 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] League campaigning tactics
The article seeks to give the impression that the League supports violent tactics, whereas a removed reference to League policy shows the precise opposite to be true. MikeHobday 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed Tag
I think that the tag is appropriate at this point. The article has been through a recent edit war. The "victor" of this war has left at least one post on another discussion page stating the following: "i was trying to expand the article when this guy (PBurns3711) started to get involved putting in blatant anti-LACS propaganda and displaying all the intelligence to be expected from one of his beliefs. I am determined that the LACS article reflect this important organisation properly and that any criticism be devoid of the manifest bias exemplified by this seemingly rather unfortunate individual and any of his ilk." Having the Wikipedia experience necessary to have another editor, with whom you disagree, blocked, does not mean that your input has been ratified by the community or that it is NPOV.
The strength and weakness of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit an article. I think that personal restraint is an important part of being a good editor. If you have strong personal feelings on a subject and more importantly, if you have a complete inability to understand the position of those with whom you disagree, perhaps you should pick another article to spend your time on. If you believe that anyone who supports LACS does so for lack of intelligence or bad intentions, question your belief. If you think similarly about anyone who supports hunting, do likewise. This is not the place to convince or advocate. This is the place to describe.--Counsel 00:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Editing to Delete Facts
MikeHobday and GWP have repeatedly deleted documented and well cited facts, counter to Wikipedia rules and protocol.
-
- GWP seems to think he "owns this article: As Wikipedia notes,
- "Some contributors feel very possessive about material ... they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia."[6]
- GWP and Hobday Revert Without Addition or Improvement: Wikipedia suggests:
- "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."[7]
- GWP Seems Unclear on What Wikipedia means when it refers to "Neutral Point of View" and he deletes well-suported fact:
- "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source ... Assert facts ... A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source."[8]
- MikeHobday is editing a post for an organization he works for as a paid advocate:
This falls into the Wikipedia catagory of "List of bad article ideas"[9] In the spirit of actually editing for improvement, I suggest moving the rather wordy "charter" to a section called "Mission Statement" as it is NOT history. What was deleted was history. And it will be coming back. - PBurns3711
- Please do not make false accusations. I have not reverted since April last year. I then reverted a factually incorrect edit [10]. I reverted a factually incorrect statement in March at [11], the error being accepted by the editor I reverted. [12]. And that's it. As for my personal interest, that has been declared since February 2006.[13] If I am making biassed edits, report me. If not, please be civil. MikeHobday 18:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not possessive about my submissions in any way, am always pleased for improvement to be made to them. However PBurns has been intent on overloading what is a page on the League Against Cruel Sports with manifestly biased information:
- Deleting an accurate history to replace with plagiarised propaganda is not the spirt of wikipedia.
- It is impossible to edit plagiarised articles.
- The style of writing PBurns has made his submissions in is not suitable for an encyclopedia and is redolent with emotional and loaded language.
- Citing wikipedia dictums out of context does not validate PBurns's points.
- Mike Hobday is, as he points out, perfectly entited to edit the article.
GWP 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure that MikeHobday is perfectly entitled to edit this article. Clearly he can, but that does not mean that he should. He manages PR for this organization. That said, I think that his participation here has been well restrained. Even before this discussion arose here, I checked his activity with the intent to warn him privately against activity which would clearly violate NPOV. I do not find any. He is participating in the Talk page and does so under his own name. I think that making clear who he is and what his POV is allows for his legitimate participation. It at least allows for this discussion. As it stands the article deals matter-of-factly with all neutral or pro-lacs information. Dissent is dealt with in a point-counterpoint form of argument which serves to undermine the information. This should be changed. Again, I would argue that cited information should not be deleted simply because it undermines the organization or its mission. If the cite's are bad, then delete it. If the tone is bad, change it. If it only presents part of an issue then add to it. if the facts tend to portray the organization in a light with which you disagree, tough. I need to take this page off my watchlist.--Counsel 19:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- As a matter of principle, I would not make contentious edits. But I will make suggestions on the talk page. If some of these are relatively minor AND do not meet objection in a week or so (e.g. the above references to "League"/"LACS" or the inaccuracy about the law in Scotland, I might include them in the article if no oner else does. I will not make contentious edits even if these have met no objection on the talk page. I will not reinsert reverted edits. MikeHobday 12:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- A note, for the record, that I am no longer employed by the League, have been offered a new job elsewhere starting April 7, and am therefore no longer "financially dependent" on the League. I consider that the above self-imposed restraining order is no longer necessary, and I hereby withdraw it. I plan to make appropriate edits in due course. MikeHobday (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GW still thinks he owns the article, and still reverts rather than contributes
As suggested by others, if GW wants to edit for wording, etc, that's fine, but instead he has engaged (once again) in wholesale deletion of heavily footnoted facts, and deletion of the note (which is quite proper) that parst of the LACS history is debated. He has also tossed LACS literature (a mission statement) into the history section, where it fits like an egg in the produce bin. -PBurns3711
- The mission statement quoted is 81 years old, is not current, and perhaps belongs in the history section. MikeHobday 12:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the history section is quite the place to put all of an organization's literature. Surely they have something shorter? As to the current mission statement of the League, how about giving us that to put up? Also, when was this old mission statement done away with? It's a pretty rare thing for an organization to revoke its mission statement, no matter how old it is. Finally, GW should be aware of the three-revert rule to avoid being blocked[14]- PBurns3711
[edit] Removal of mis-statement
I have removed the following from the article:
It should be noted that Barrington himself was an unpopular Executive Director and was largely perceived as attempting to use the League as a vehicle for his own political ambitions within the Labour Party. [15]
The reference source does not support this statement. This was in accordance with an OTRS complaint (ticket number 2007020810019682). Bastiq▼e demandez 22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] unreferenced section
In 1982, The Times revealed that League Press officer Mike Wilkins was actually the convicted grave desecrater Michael Huskinson who had previously set up the Cambridge group of the Hunt Saboteurs Association. Huskinson was subsequently fired from his League job after he joined the South East Animal Liberation League in sacking the offices of the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) offices at Buxton Brown Farm, Downe, Kent. Huskinson was sentenced to prison for eighteen months for his role in the vandalism and theft of documents. I can't find references to support this section, it sounds pretty libellous. Sue Wallace 23:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Layout
I've changed the layout of the article, only the history section which I tidied a little, by creating a timeline, I think it makes it easier to read through. Also created a sub-section for sanctuaries, as part of the leagues interests. Also made some edits, looks like theres been some disputes with this article in the past and some tit for tat editing, so I have removed some (perhaps) contentious info that was uncited. Hope this is ok? Sue Wallace 19:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mission statement
When was this issued? I suspect 1924 or so, but the language in the article does not say that it is not modern. MikeHobday (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it originates from here: [16] League Policy: This original declaration of principles taken from the report of the inaugural meeting of the League for the Prohibition of Cruel Sports 1924 etc... Sue Wallace (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
