What The Law Stops: The Exemption/loophole Issue
The meaning of the Hunting Act 2004 is a matter of substantial public dispute. The Countryside Alliance claim that the Act is unclear, while the League Against Cruel Sports argues the opposite. The difference between the two centres around the alternative views that the Act contains either "tightly drawn exemptions" or "glaring loopholes."
For example, letters from Countryside Alliance officials to a series of local newspapers around the UK in early 2006 say, "The Act makes it an offence to hunt a mouse with a dog but not a rat, you can legally hunt a rabbit but not a hare. You can flush a fox to guns with two dogs legally but if you use three it's an offence. You can flush a fox to a bird of prey with as many dogs as you like." The sections below examine whether such exemptions allow loopholes.
Read more about this topic: Hunting Act 2004
Famous quotes containing the words what the, law, exemption, loophole and/or issue:
“[Great artists] do not copy what they see, but what they desire.”
—Théophile Gautier (1811–1872)
“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom.”
—John Locke (1632–1704)
“Extemporaneous speaking should be practised and cultivated. It is the lawyer’s avenue to the public.... And yet there is not a more fatal error to young lawyers than relying too much on speechmaking. If any one, upon his rare powers of speaking, shall claim an exemption from the drudgery of the law, his case is a failure in advance.”
—Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865)
“I know, you have forgotten those June nights on the Riviera, where we sat ‘neath the shimmering skies, moonlight bathing in the Mediterranean! We were young, gay, reckless! The night I drank champagne from your slipper—two quarts. It would have held more, but you were wearing inner soles!”
—Irving Brecher, U.S. screenwriter, and Edward Buzzell. J. Cheever Loophole (Groucho Marx)
“Take away from the courts, if it could be taken away, the power to issue injunctions in labor disputes, and it would create a privileged class among the laborers and save the lawless among their number from a most needful remedy available to all men for the protection of their business interests against unlawful invasion.... The secondary boycott is an instrument of tyranny, and ought not to be made legitimate.”
—William Howard Taft (1857–1930)