The Unspeakable in pursuit of the Uneatable (cheers, Oscar)

Fox hunting is "all the rage" here in the UK at the moment. People who do it are raging about the recent "ban", people who don't are raging about the total lack of enforcement of said "ban". I'm using quotes for this word, because in the opinion of many (especially foxes, I imagine, but they can't vote), this recent piece of legislation does not actually stop fox-hunting per se. Not only is it a totally unenforceable fudge (for instance, you can't allow your hounds to rip the fox to pieces any more, but you can use 2 hounds to "flush" a fox from it's den - and then shoot it), but the police have been told to "go easy" on the hunting community. The difficulty here, I feel, is explaining to the 28 other hounds that they aren't allowed to join in. And, as the Master of one Hunt remarked on national TV yesterday, "accidents do happen".

Of course, I can see that; there you are, innocently riding cross-country with 20 0r 30 chums, accompanied by a pack of hounds bred and trained to hunt and kill foxes, and ooops! Perfectly natural, could happen to anyone. It isn't often that we're treated to a real display of "one law for the rich"; many people take objection to the position that fox hunting is a "rich man's sport", but it is an undeniable fact that horses are expensive to own and maintain, especially trained hunters, and that this "sport" is far beyond the reach of most ordinary people here in the UK. The "ban" came into effect last week, and the public at large were treated to the spectacle of hundreds of people, including the Great and the Good of this fair Kingdom, deliberately and openly flouting the law. "So arrest them all!", a naive person might say, looking puzzled and perhaps scratching their head. Sadly, this isn't going to happen; we'd end up arresting half the judiciary, most of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, and all of the Royal Family still spritely enough to sit a horse. It isn't just a rich man's sport, it's the favourite passtime of most of our aristocrats, plutocrats and even some politicians.

The naive person mentioned above might point out that, morally speaking, fox hunting is no better than badger-baiting or dog-fighting, and both of those have been banned in the UK - they still happen, of course, but people really do get arrested for it nowadays. However, badger-baiting and dog-fighting have traditionally been sports for the poor. Nobody important was upset when they were banned, and nobody important gets arrested for it. I've always considered myself quite a cynical person, but I'm still amazed at the power of these Lords and Ladies in a so-called democracy. If I decided to go out and break the law, consciously and deliberately, then I'd do it in the knowledge that if I got caught, bad things would happen to me. That's part of living in a society; you might not like the laws, you might not always obey them, but you have to accept that they exist and that if you break them, you'll be punished. That's life, right?

Not here in the UK, or at least, not if you're rich or titled. Amazingly enough, anyone actually tried and convicted under the new hunting laws (if that ever happens) won't even get a criminal record. Yes, I find that hard to believe too; at first, I couldn't understand the rationale for it. However, it's no great mystery; no-one with a criminal record can become, for instance, a magistrate or a judge, and the people who engage in tearing small woodland mammals to pieces for fun are, in fact, our de facto ruling classes. A real conundrum for our so-called Labour (that used to mean Socialist, for those unused to British politics) Government; the "ban" has huge public support, it was part of the Manifesto which got them elected, but now they're in power, they can't afford to upset the "Establishment". Hence the craven, compromise-riddled piece of legislation that was batted about between the House of Lords and House of Commons, taking up (incredibly enough) some ten times more Parliamentary time than the Iraq War. Yes, that really is true. In spite of 2 million people marching through London to protest against "Tony's War", only 11 hours of Parliamentary debate was needed to ignore the hell out of us. The (pro-hunting) Countryside Alliance, however, was important enough to force the Governemnt to back down again and again, and is confident enough in it's own untouchability to blatantly declare that they'll carry on hunting regardless. And they are.

It's years since I've been an active saboteur, my days of sprinting through woodland with bottles of lemon juice to mask the fox's scent are long behind me. However, in spite of disability and motherhood, this incredible display of arrogance and Government cowardice have made me angry enough to dig my wellies out of the shed and contact the Hunt Saboteurs Association again. I'm not kidding myself that standing around with a banner having insults hurled at me is going to achieve much; I'm a veteran demonstrator, petition-signer and agitator, and it hasn't made a blind bit of difference so far. Nevertheless, I'll be there; I think I just want to see it with my own eyes.

And having seen this for myself, I intend to buy myself a black-and-white stripey sweater, a small black mask, and a large bag with "SWAG" written on it. If you can break the law just because you're properly dressed for it and it's "traditional", then I don't see why I shouldn't just politely knock on people's doors and announce my intention to burgle them. What could be more traditional than thieving? It certainly pre-dates fox hunting.