New battle looms over ruling on hunting
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.ANTI-FIELD sports campaigners are drawing up battle plans to reverse a decision by the National Trust which effectively condones hunting on its land.
Campaigners, led by Peter Jackson, a member of the trust's governing council, are planning to force an extraordinary general meeting of the conservation body to reconsider the issue.
Hunt supporters also received support from Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, over the weekend when he denounced hunt saboteurs and confirmed his intention to introduce legislation making them liable to fines of up to pounds 2,500 and three months' imprisonment.
Mr Howard's speech coincided with a vote of confidence by National Trust members in their executive body's decision to leave 'the ethical and moral issues (of hunting) to be determined by Parliament'.
The vote, which in effect allows hunting to continue on the trust's 580,000 acres of land, was won by 100,723 votes to 29,722 at the trust's annual meeting.
Mr Jackson, a former Labour MP, argues that the result does not reflect the views of the trust's full 2.2 million membership. He believes that he would easily gather the 1,200 signatures required to call an extraordinary meeting to reconsider the matter.
Leading article, page 13
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments