The words may prove crucial in determining Griffiths' guilt or innocence. They certainly ring very hollow coming from people who lecture others on callousness and cruelty.
The Mail website has a detailed - and sickeningly graphic - report of today's proceedings here: A fox hunting supporter's head was cleaved from 'top to bottom' by the blades of a gyrocopter after he tried to confront the pilot for tracking his hunt, a court heard today...
More details in the Telegraph's report here.
UPDATE 3/3:
Coverage of the case continues on the Telegraph website today; Julie Sargeant, who travelled to the airfield with Trevor Morse, broke down while giving evidence - she told the court how Morse had stood in front of the gyro as the engine started.
8 comments:
It really leaves me speechless. I would have thought murder would be more accurate than manslaughter. Especially after hearing those words!
Wow. How can anyone claim to stand up for animal rights then be so callous when a human being is killed? The man was simply obstructing a take-off as he believed he pilot planned to harrass law abiding hunt followers....haven't animal righs people blocked gates to labs and anti road campaigners laid down in front of bulldozers without being killed? If they guy has screamed, "Oh my god, how awful, is he ok, how did it happen etc" I might have believed his was a horrible accident but......
At the end of the day the Labour Government let a minority of people who used extreme violence and intimidation towards rural country sports men, women and children influence them into banning fox hunting.
Not happy with a ban they carried on with the intimidation with devastating results.
I'd say that pretty much qualifies the guy as a terrorist. Wow.
Who uttered these callous words? Was it the accused, Bryan Griffiths, or those filming the incident, Peter Bunce or John Curtin? The answer is important as only Griffiths is on trial, not all animal rights activists.
In response to Cloudhunter, I believe Griffiths was originally arrested for murder but this was downgraded to manslaughter and then manslaughter by negligence. The CPS must have felt that it would be difficult to secure a conviction for murder.
In response to Vicky, was Trevor Morse 'simply obstructing a take-off' or intimidating Griffiths. Was Morse acting legally by attempting to obstruct the gyrocopter. Was he trespassing on the airfield? Was the pilot planning to harrass hunt followers or simply intending to check that they were abiding by the law?
Unfortunately confrontations like this often lead to violence.
Yes Lazzer they do. But even if the hunt supporter was in the wrong by being on the airfield and was throwing abusive words at the pilot he didn't deserve to be mown down. If anti's tresspass on private land and disrupt a legal shoot we unload and sleeve our guns and catch up our dogs. We don't shoot them! Whatever the provocation the correct action for the pilot should surely have been to cut his engine so no harm could come even if the hunt supporter moved dangerously close to the 'copter. This isn't a pro vs anti hunt debate. It is about whether a pilots negilgent actions caused an unlawful death.
And whoever uttered those words, be they from the pilot, the camera man or another 'anti' I stand by my statement that I can't understand how any caring human could have uttered those words.
I can't understand why he wanted to stop the gyro taking off surely he was only filming and if no crimes being commited why worry also surely he could see the danger he was in and you would expect him to stand aside.Perhaps I am missing something,a sad loss of life anyway.Think both sides were wound up then logic goes out the window.
I suspect he was just fed up of his hunt being followed. It could feel like harassment even if no harm was meant and a helicoper buzzing overhead all day could rather spoil your ride in the countryside. Imagine how you'd feel if someone video'd you driving your car all day just in case you answered your mobile or ran a red light. It might cause less friction if hunt monitors were truly impartial monitors but many have been fervent anti-hunt campaigners; not surprising hunts aren't keen to have them about. Both sides were probably in the wrong to some extent. Just a shame it ended so horrifically.
Post a Comment