• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Interesting article in the Telegraph;

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interesting article in the Telegraph;

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/t...-Tally-ho.html
    ... _. ._ .._. .._

  • #2
    Hee-hee. They just ignore the law. Every hunt I've been out with in England since the ban has gone out with the full pack of hounds. There is "talk" of someone laying out a drag, plus they'll bring out their Bird of Prey to show to the kids at the meet (since you're allowed to take foxes with raptors, another giggle), but it's a normal hunt. Drag hunts run and run. I haven't. Normal checks. Occasionally I've spent some extended time with the Master and whipper ins at the end of the day as we would do a few more casts after most of the field have gone back.

    The difference is nobody knows if a fox has been taken until later that night at the pub. It gets whispered around....

    Comment


    • #3
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wil...g-beliefs.html

      Un-freaking-real:

      The 43-year-old has been permitted to take his claim to an employment tribunal after a judge’s landmark ruling said his views on fox hunting should be placed on the same legal footing as religious beliefs.
      Thank God here in America such a tool would be laughed out of civil court for such a case.

      Comment

      • Original Poster

        #4
        How come some tool always has to say it wouldn't happen in the USA ?
        One would think (in the case you cited) it would depend on the State in which you live and the employment laws in that State. Do States allow you to fire an employee for cause not related to the performance of his job, or can you fire a person if you just happen to disagree with them ?
        ... _. ._ .._. .._

        Comment


        • #5
          Many states are employment at will states. IN those you can fire an employee for any reason or no reason.
          A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

          Comment

          • Original Poster

            #6
            Originally posted by FitToBeTied View Post
            Many states are employment at will states. IN those you can fire an employee for any reason or no reason.
            And the rest are not, hence;

            Originally posted by Equibrit View Post
            ....it would depend on the State in which you live and the employment laws in that State.
            ... _. ._ .._. .._

            Comment


            • #7
              See when you put a question mark on the end of the sentence, it means you are asking a question, as in, you don't know the answer.


              Do States allow you to fire an employee for cause not related to the performance of his job, or can you fire a person if you just happen to disagree with them ?
              So, if you are going to ask a question, expect people to answer.
              A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Equibrit View Post
                How come some tool always has to say it wouldn't happen in the USA ?
                One would think (in the case you cited) it would depend on the State in which you live and the employment laws in that State. Do States allow you to fire an employee for cause not related to the performance of his job, or can you fire a person if you just happen to disagree with them ?
                In NO state in this country would views on some outdoor sport be given the same standing as religious beliefs.

                The Crown's decision in the cited case is ridiculous prima facie and judicial overreach into legislation from the bench. at least by this country's standards.

                Comment

                • Original Poster

                  #9
                  You do not seem to have read the article you cited. This was not taking place in a court. The guy was right. You do not have to agree with him, but he has the right to hold those views AND his job.

                  Case note:
                  Hashman v Orchard Park Garden Centre, March 2011, (Southampton Employment Tribunal)
                  Ivan Hare (instructed by Bindmans) has established that Joe Hashman's beliefs in the sanctity of life and the moral duty to avoid unnecessary suffering to animals constitute a philosophical belief for the purposes of discrimination law. Joe Hashman is a well-known animal rights activist who already has the important decision of the ECHR in Hashman and Harrup v United Kingdom (setting aside his binding over for engaging in hunt sabotage) to his name. He claims that his contract of employment as a gardener was terminated by active hunters when they realised who he was. The case will now proceed to a merits hearing in the Employment Tribunal. The case follows the EAT's decision in Grainger v Nicholson which was argued successfully by Dinah Rose QC and Ivan Hare in 2009.


                  Animal welfare campaigner 'vindicated' by ground-breaking tribunal findings
                  Posted 28 October 2011

                  In a historic judgement, on 26th October 2011 the Employment Tribunal in Southampton found that life-long animal welfare campaigner Joe Hashman was discriminated against under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

                  Mr Hashman said

                  "My case against the Directors of Orchard Park Garden Centre in Gillingham, Dorset, under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 has included complex legal issues. I am indebted to the brilliance of Shah Qureshi and Nick Fry of Bindman’s LLP and my barrister Ivan Hare for their guidance, support and expertise over the last 2 years.

                  “I am proud to have established in Law my philosophical belief in the sanctity of life (including fervent anti fox hunting and hare coursing beliefs). On 26th October 2011 the Employment Tribunal in Southampton found that I was discriminated against because of these beliefs and so I feel vindicated in taking my case to them for judgement.

                  “The Tribunal has instructed that financial details of settlement remain a private matter. However, the truth is that succeeding with my case was all I ever wanted to achieve. Therefore I was happy to accept the first offer made to me be on behalf of Orchard Park alongside a public apology in respect of a defamatory memo written about me to their staff.”

                  The apology made by the Directors of Orchard Park to Mr Hashman reads as follows:

                  “We, the Directors of Orchard Park, unreservedly apologise to Mr Hashman for any injury to his feelings arising from the memo dated 18th November 2010.”

                  “In particular, we accept that Mr Hashman did not seek to mislead us or set us up in relation to his animal welfare beliefs and activities. Equally, we did not intend to suggest that Mr Hashman engaged in any bullying or mud-slinging.”

                  “We wish Mr Hashman well for the future, in particular in his career as a writer.”
                  ... _. ._ .._. .._

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Another view.

                    Some of the comments sicken me.
                    Horse Show Names Free name website with over 6200 names. Want to add? PM me!

                    Comment

                    • Original Poster

                      #11
                      The Daily Mail - that bastion of truth and equality !
                      ... _. ._ .._. .._

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hey, the Daily Wail is entertaining reading!
                        Horse Show Names Free name website with over 6200 names. Want to add? PM me!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Equibrit View Post
                          You do not seem to have read the article you cited. This was not taking place in a court.
                          Sure it did. His case set precedent (a dreadful one) by expanding the definitions of "religion and belief" in UK anti discrimination law.

                          Right here in the state of Ohio he could not only be fired for cause for holding personal views opposed to his employer's pastime, he would have no legal recourse, and he would have an uphill fight claiming unemployment insurance. Gotta love employment at will.

                          Comment

                          • Original Poster

                            #14
                            Suggest you read;
                            U.S. Supreme Court
                            United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965)

                            United States v. Seeger

                            No. 50

                            Argued November 16-17, 1964

                            Decided March 8, 1965*

                            380 U.S. 163

                            Also the definition of "religion" in the EEOC compliance manual;
                            http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/reli...#_Toc203359487
                            Last edited by Equibrit; Dec. 26, 2011, 09:40 PM.
                            ... _. ._ .._. .._

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Just to set the record straight (from an employment lawyer), in all but twelve U.S. states (Florida, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana, Colorado and California), a person can be legally fired by a private employer (public employers are different, because there are First Amendment implications) for advocating a political view his employer disagrees with. The stringency of these rules and when they apply vary from state-to-state. Even in many of the states that do provide protections, employers can ban all political expression in the workplace, so long as they do so across-the-board and do not allow some viewpoints to be heard but not others. Employees can be terminated for how they express themselves (i.e., if it becomes disruptive in the workplace), so long as the termination is based upon the employee's conduct and not his or her message. Moreover, I doubt that an anti-hunting stance would be given status as a religious belief by most federal courts in the U.S. for purposes of Title VII's prohibitions against religious discrimination in the workplace. Few courts are willing to stretch that far; otherwise, every viewpoint becomes a "religion".

                              Not advocating a particular position or providing legal advice; my point is that in most states in the U.S., there is little-to-no protection for the type of expression being discussed here in the private employment context. I'll leave the discussion of whether or not that is a good or bad thing to others; that subject is probably beyond the scope of this particular forum.
                              Last edited by Peregrine Farm; Dec. 27, 2011, 11:08 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by Equibrit View Post
                                This definition certainly could describe animal rights loons.
                                non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”
                                Specifics aside, even if you are in an at-will state, you are crazy if you give people a specific reason unrelated to a documented pattern of work performance or major on the job misbehavior for firing them.

                                Just because you can legal fire somebody for no reason does not mean you can fire them for "any" reason.

                                Comment

                                • Original Poster

                                  #17
                                  The sanctity of life is a well established religious principle. This employee was fired for believing that, not broadcasting or bringing it to his job.
                                  ... _. ._ .._. .._

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by tangledweb View Post
                                    This definition certainly could describe animal rights loons.
                                    Specifics aside, even if you are in an at-will state, you are crazy if you give people a specific reason unrelated to a documented pattern of work performance or major on the job misbehavior for firing them.
                                    Exactly:

                                    Your services are no longer required

                                    Your position has been consolidated with another

                                    Budgetary reasons.......

                                    A change in business conditions.......

                                    Organizational changes drive........

                                    Pick any of the above or make one up similar.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by Equibrit View Post
                                      The sanctity of life is a well established religious principle. This employee was fired for believing that, not broadcasting or bringing it to his job.
                                      The employee is a sab. The employer is a hunter.

                                      Comment

                                      • Original Poster

                                        #20
                                        Your point ?
                                        Are you familiar with these documents ?
                                        http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/
                                        ... _. ._ .._. .._

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X