Nanny Shoots Her Own Fox

You may recall that Nanny went to great lengths, a while back, to try to stamp out fox hunting.

Fox hunting is now illegal.

As with any illegal act, one might assume that Nanny's forces of law and order would be actively prosecuting those who perpetrate it.

Umm, well not so, this you must remember is Nanny's Britain; a looking glass world where things are never what they really seem to be.

It seems that Nanny's chums on the police have been told not to stop illegal fox hunts, when the hunting season begins, because of health and safety regulations.

Guidance drawn up by police chiefs instructs officers to take the most cautious approach when investigating reports of illegal hunts, for fear that they might injure themselves. They have been told not to go near hounds or horses, and not to confiscate dead animals as evidence in case of injury or infection.

Nanny has instructed officers to carry out risk assessments before embarking on an investigation.

This is a joke, isn't it?

Er no, it's not.

Police must also ask farmers for permission to go on their land, and not to use police helicopters in case they "cause alarm to horses".

Oddly enough this makes the Hunting Act of 2004 was completely unenforceable.

Gloucestershire and Devon and Cornwall police chiefs have stated:

"Police officers will not routinely be deployed to hunt meetings."

If officers are deployed it will only be after a detailed risk assessment completed on the deployment of that officer, or team by a responsible person. Appropriate support must be considered.

Officers sent to investigate a hunt should:

"record all available evidence (visual or verbal) in the most appropriate manner, by pocket notebook".

Nanny makes it makes clear that the police should not try to catch an illegal hunt taking place, but wait until it has run its course before investigating.

The police must use the new Countryside and Rights of Way Act, to see whether they have access to a particular piece of land.

Nanny concludes by saying that it might be "more appropriate" for an individual or organisation to take a civil or private action against an illegal hunt, rather than have police embark on a criminal investigation.

Were I a cynic, I might assume that Nanny wants her police force to follow up crimes that are easier to "solve"; which make good statistics for her annual crime survey and which are revenue beneficial.

You know, like speeding offences.

However, I'm not a cynic; am I?