How To Use GPS Data To Fight Speeding Tickets

Have you ever felt annoyed after seeing those flashing blue lights in your rearview mirror? We all admire and respect the essential role police officers play in our society. Their daily sacrifices to maintain our safety are truly commendable. Yet, a twinge of frustration often accompanies traffic citations, whether for speeding or illegal turns. With officers using sophisticated tech like radar guns to track vehicle speed, it may seem like there's no defense. But did you know that the same kind of technology can help you contest traffic citations? Many motorists are now leveraging GPS navigation and tracking systems to fight tickets, whether through a trial by declaration or a court trial. This trend is turning the tables in the courtroom, transforming the way we approach traffic violations. In this article, we will discuss how to use GPS data to fight speeding tickets!
Learn more about GPS tracking here: https://gpstrackershop.com/

Video: 6 Ways How to Use GPS Data to Fight Speeding Tickets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pWJzIDW3D8&t=1s

When GPS Misguides You: Are Police Sympathetic to Tech Errors?

Ever made a wrong turn because your GPS told you to? You're not alone. Many motorists find themselves in this predicament, pulled over for moving violations, often claiming, "My GPS made me do it". Relying heavily on GPS navigation, either through portable units or smartphone apps like Google Maps or iMaps, is an everyday routine for many. But how reliable are these systems?
Sadly, even highly-rated apps can lead you astray. Remember when iMaps notoriously directed drivers to the wrong locations or even one-way streets? Such mistakes have happened more times than you might imagine. But what happens when these inaccuracies cause you to make an illegal turn? Who bears the blame?
Even when your trusted app fumbles, you, as the motorist, carry the responsibility for the final decision. Sounds unfair, right? Yet, that's how it stands. Yes, police may sympathize with the occasional GPS-induced mishap, but accountability doesn't shift. At the end of the day, it's the driver who's held responsible.
Ever wonder what police officers think of these GPS blunders? One anonymous officer shared, "As drivers, we've all got a myriad of excuses. But the bottom line is, the person behind the wheel is accountable. Remember, it's not the smartphone or GPS that holds the driver's license."
Want to avoid a ticket? It's not about passing the blame but accepting accountability. Believe it or not, officers tend to be more lenient towards drivers who own up to their mistakes rather than blaming their GPS or tracking device. Interesting, isn't it?

How To Prove To Police You Weren't Speeding

Do you realize how commonplace GPS tracking devices are in today's vehicles? More than ever, they're becoming a staple in both company and personal cars. These devices aren't just ornamental; they play a crucial role in improving vehicle theft protection and driver safety. Additionally, they're an attractive bonus for those eyeing an auto insurance discount.
But have you ever thought of using your GPS device to contest a speeding ticket? More and more drivers are doing just that. Why? Because these trackers do more than just provide location data. They record your speed, location, and journey duration - all in real time and with a stunning accuracy that refreshes every single second!
Impressed? There's more. You'd be surprised to learn that these devices may even outperform the traditional radar gun held by a police officer. Calibration issues, interference from highway overpasses, or the officer's hiding spot could all affect the radar gun's accuracy. Meanwhile, your GPS tracker's data remains precise and reliable. Who knew GPS technology could be your unexpected ally in a speeding dispute?
Related Article: Best GPS Trackers For Law Enforcement

5 Ways To Use GPS Tracking To Fight A Speeding Ticket

Getting a speeding ticket absolutely sucks. But you know what's worse? Getting a ticket when you weren't actually driving over the posted speed limit. Thankfully, GPS tracking can help. In this section, we will discover some innovative ways your tracking device can help fight your corner. Below are 5 ways your GPS system can help with contesting a speeding violation.

1. Proof of Speed: Your GPS device diligently records your speed at every moment of your journey. This detailed log can provide concrete evidence of your speed at the exact time the alleged violation took place.
2. Route Verification: Were you on a different road when the incident occurred? Your GPS tracker traces your route with precision. Its data could demonstrate you were elsewhere when the offense allegedly happened.
3. Time-Stamped Data: All GPS data is time-stamped, making it easy to correlate your location, speed, and the time of the alleged violation. This accurate chronology could prove essential in disputing a ticket.
4. Calibration Check: In contrast to a police officer's radar gun, which could suffer from calibration issues, your GPS device provides a more accurate and consistent measure of speed. Use this precision to challenge the reliability of the speed detected by the radar gun.
5. Data Log Persistence: Most GPS car trackers keep a history of their data. This historical log can help to establish a pattern of safe driving, potentially increasing your credibility in the courtroom.

By integrating these strategies, your GPS device can become a powerful tool in your defense against a speeding ticket

FAQs

Can GPS Tracking Data Be Used As Evidence In A Traffic Court Hearing?

Yes, GPS tracking data can be used as evidence in a traffic court hearing. If you have a GPS tracking device installed in your vehicle or have a GPS-enabled smartphone, the data collected by these devices can be used to prove your innocence or cast doubt on the accusations against you. However, it's important to note that the admissibility of GPS evidence may vary depending on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances of the case.

How Can GPS Tracking Data Help In Disputing A Traffic Ticket?

GPS tracking data can help in disputing a traffic ticket by providing a record of your vehicle's location and speed at the time of the alleged violation. This data can be used to prove that you were not in the location where the violation supposedly occurred or that you were not driving at the speed that you were accused of. Additionally, GPS data can also provide information about traffic patterns and road conditions that may have contributed to the violation.

What Types Of Traffic Violations Can GPS Data Be Used To Dispute?

GPS tracking data can be used to dispute a variety of traffic violations, including speeding tickets, red light violations, and stop sign violations. GPS data can also be used to dispute accusations of reckless driving, DUI, and other serious traffic offenses.How To Use GPS Data To Fight Speeding Tickets
Have you ever felt annoyed after seeing those flashing blue lights in your rearview mirror? We all admire and respect the essential role police officers play in our society. Their daily sacrifices to maintain our safety are truly commendable. Yet, a twinge of frustration often accompanies traffic citations, whether for speeding or illegal turns. With officers using sophisticated tech like radar guns to track vehicle speed, it may seem like there's no defense. But did you know that the same kind of technology can help you contest traffic citations? Many motorists are now leveraging GPS navigation and tracking systems to fight tickets, whether through a trial by declaration or a court trial. This trend is turning the tables in the courtroom, transforming the way we approach traffic violations. In this article, we will discuss how to use GPS data to fight speeding tickets!

Copied from email:
Dear Huskies,
In light of recent events unfolding on college campuses nationwide, including our own, regarding encampments protesting Israel's actions towards the Palestinian people, we want to address the community with a message of support, understanding, and proactive engagement.
First and foremost, we acknowledge the newly founded Liberated Zone at UW and appreciate the peaceful nature. It's commendable that our campus has been a space for peaceful expression and dialogue, with campus police refraining from engagement. This sets a positive example of how civil discourse can unfold within our community.
However, it's vital that we take time to recognize the gravity of the issues. Across numerous universities and community colleges, not only in the US but also globally, similar protests are taking place. It's extremely disturbing that some of these demonstrations have faced oppression and expedited retaliation from campus and city law enforcement agencies. These series of events remind us of the tragic history of students who were martyred for their activism.
We stand in solidarity with those who are advocating for justice and human rights. It's essential for the University of Washington community to be receptive to the demands and initiatives being proposed by these movements. The voices of our students matter and it's imperative that they are taken seriously, heard, and respected.
We have passed a bill brought in from the ASUW Student Senate and presented Board Bill 5.13: ‘A Resolution to Divest from Companies Profiting from Violations of International Law and Human Rights in the Violence against Palestine’ to the Board of Regents on May 9th. The bill was prepared and sponsored by senators from SUPER-UW, Jewish Voices for Peace, First Nations @ UW, and Institutional Climate Action UW. There are plans to continue to ensure students' voices are not only heard locally, but along with the international community.
This is a call for continued peace and understanding. We are urging the university administration, the Board of Regents, and the surrounding community to engage in respectful discourse, listen with empathy, and to not dilute student perspectives down to legislative channels. It is important to strive for understanding the Palestinians plight. It's through open dialogue and a willingness to learn from one another that we can move towards a more just and equitable world.
Let's continue to uphold the virtues of peace, justice, and inclusivity that define our community here at UW.
Sincerely,
Jacob Feleke, ASUW President

Late April I was experiencing confusion and dizziness while at work (large international manufacturer) in MA. My supervisor and another manager asked me if I was fine and suggested that I took the rest of the day off. I wanted to complete the job that I was working on and went back to the production floor. My supervisor located me and escorted me out of the manufacturing floor and suggested that I go to the hospital. They stated to HR that I told them that I was fine to drive. I left the building and tried to re-enter but I was so Disorientated that I could not use my keycard and was asked by the front desk operator if I was ok. I eventually just left without my wallet with my cash, drivers license, insurance and debit/credit cards. I drove on a local highway for approximately 25 miles until the state police pulled me over, they checked me for DUI and determined that I was experiencing a medical emergency and called for an ambulance to take me to the hospital. The police received several calls due to my erratic driving. almost crashing several times. At the hospital after several tests it was determined that a kidney stone caused a UTI which symptoms can mimic confusion/intoxication. I asked for drug and alcohol testing and both came back negative. The police visited me and stated that my license would be suspended as of that day. I applied for a hearing and received a doctors note for the hearing stating that antibiotics and other treatments have caused the infection to not reoccur. My vehicle was towed and I had to pay $250. to get it back. I am currently waiting for a bill for the ambulance ride. My supervisor called my wife several hours after removing me from the property and wanted to know if I was ok. I filed a complaint with HR and they first stated that since I stated that I was ok to drive they have no responsibility for what happens after I left. My supervisor has repeatedly attempted to contact me but I do not want to have any interaction with him. HR says that in investigation has been initiated but they will not divulge the findings with me regardless of the outcome. I have observed this in the past where an employee had a review and did not get a raise but they could not tell him any more than this. I am the maintenance technician for the plant and I have a perfect attendance record and I have received several commendations from department heads in our engineering department for improvements in efficiency and safety. I have hav excellent reviews and zero disciplinary actions taken against me. The police officer and hospital personnel all stated that I should not have been driving in my condition.
Should I contact a lawyer and request compensation for the expenses incurred due to this. I do not trust that my supervisor and HR will have my best interest in mind when concluding the investigation. There is a hospital with an ambulance 5 miles from the facility.

Sudden Stop By Alan Wake
Alex Casey had seen it all in his 15 years as a detective with the New York Police Department. He'd solved countless murders, worked on high-profile cases, and even earned a few commendations. But nothing could have prepared him for his own sudden stop. It was a typical Friday evening when Alex was driving home from a long day at the precinct. He was running late for dinner with his ex-wife, Miranda, and their two kids, so he was speeding along the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. As he approached the Manhattan Bridge, he noticed a strange smell filling his car. At first, he thought it was just the exhaust from the car in front of him, but then he saw it: a huge cloud of smoke billowing from the bridge itself. Alex's heart skipped a beat as he realized something was very wrong. As he slowed down, a black SUV cut him off, forcing him to swerve into the oncoming lane. Alex tried to regain control of his car, but it was too late. The SUV rammed into him, sending his car crashing onto the side of the bridge. Alex tried to get out of the car, but his door was jammed. He pounded on the window, screaming for help, but no one came. The SUV sped away, leaving Alex alone and injured. As he struggled to free himself, Alex saw a figure emerging from the smoke. It was a tall, imposing man with a cruel grin spreading across his face. Alex recognized him as Victor Vex, a notorious gang leader who had been at the top of his most-wanted list. "You're going to pay for all your meddling," Victor sneered, pulling out a gun. Alex knew he was doomed. He tried to beg for his life, but Victor just laughed and pulled the trigger. Alex's world went dark as he felt his life slipping away. The paramedics arrived soon after, but it was too late. Alex Casey's time had come to an abrupt stop. The city's finest detective had fallen victim to his own killer instincts – and now his own life would be left in cold blood. As they wheeled him away on a stretcher, Alex saw Miranda's face one last time. Her eyes were red from tears, and her expression was a mix of shock and grief. She knew she would never get to tell their kids goodbye. The sudden stop had taken Alex away from the world of crime and punishment, but it would never forget the man who had fought for justice every day of his life – until it was too late.
Alan Wake is a critically acclaimed author known for his dark and suspenseful thrillers. His latest novel, "Sudden Stop", is a gripping tale of murder, betrayal, and revenge that will keep you on the edge of your seat until the very end

IMPORTANT: Before anything derails the process EVERYONE should have a manilla folder, and on the front be keeping copious notes of every step of the FPIC, PPP or PTC Application Process, including when each step was completed, when filed or received, and any discussions or other communications. Hopefully, you won’t need it, but you have to plan ahead. Document everything.
First Always Start with the Licensing Division

• When communicating with your PD, do it by email or certified mail so you have a paper trail if possible, Certified Mail while slower always screams something important or legal related. If you do it via phone, keep detailed dates/times/who you spoke to.
• I always suggest OPENLY CC-ing [Strikeforce@anjrpc.org](mailto:Strikeforce@anjrpc.org) on the initial complaint e-mail or letter about the unreasonable delay, as often the licensing officer just Googling “[Strikeforce@anjrpc.org](mailto:Strikeforce@anjrpc.org)” gets him/her to act.
• Document all communications, after 7 days move on to the next step, as you gave them time to respond, but make sure you have facts to support a letter to the Chief.

Here are the allowable processing times under the law:

• Firearms Purchaser ID (FPIC): 30 days for residents / 45 days for non-residents per 2C:58-3
• Permit to Purchase Handgun (PPP): 30 days per 2C:58-3
• Permit to Carry a Handgun (PTC): 90 days, but Chief can request additional 30 days IN WRITING per 2C:58-4
• After a reasonable time has passed beyond the statutory allowance, and after you are getting nowhere with the permitting officer when trying to resolve the issue, it’s now time to write to the Chief and lay out the facts. This can be via e-mail or certified mail, even if via e-mail I always like to write a letter signed and attached via PDF.

Writing to your Chief

• Not always, but very often, the best and brightest and overachieving cops are NOT the ones assigned to desk duty/firearms licensing. However, you do not get to be made Chief unless you are the rising star of the Department, exceeded standards of policing, and got stuff done during the latter years of your career in a Captain role. A big part of a Chief’s role is that of a politician, so they do take matters that come across their desk seriously. All of the letters I helped write to date 10+, got 100% resolution in less than 72 hours.
• Start the letter off with 3-4 sentences introducing yourself, how long you have lived in your town, you are a law-abiding citizen, make it personal, and ask if they can spare 15 minutes of their time to listen to your frustrations with your FPIC, PPP or PTC Application, which is now X days well beyond the law.
• Next, via bullet points lay out the timeline, the date you applied, the date your references replied, the date you tried to reach the licensing officer, and other times even if you called and got no answer, a callback or reply to an e-mail. Also, lay out any of the BS they might have told on why your application is delayed, they are busy, they don’t have paper, they need more guidance etc.
• In closing, lay out the applicable statute on what the law says in terms how much time was allowed and how much has since passed since your application was filed, and while you are an understanding person, the delay is unreasonable, and how as a Police Department and City we can do better to serve all residents with due process. A Right Delayed is a Right Denied. If the licensing officer gave the common excuse “We are really busy or understaffed, maybe cite this in the letter to the Chief and offer that you would be more than happy to go to the next City Council Meeting or Mayor’s Office and request additional resources allocated to the Police Licensing Department so they can better serve all residents………….No Chief is going to want you to do that.

Over Covid, and under the last Chief of Hoboken here was how I closed off my letter to the Chief after succinctly laying out all the facts.
Now if I could make an unfair and cynical comparison, if you look at a Hoboken City event like SantaCon where your department handles 20+ arrests in a shift, some needing supervised treatment at HUMC, then off to the station for booking, FREE DIGITAL fingerprinting, report issuing, and transport to county jail – all of which is accomplished in a matter of hours. As an outsider, all I can see that is missing in that process are the velvet ropes, a VIP list, and a red carpet outside of Police HQ. I commend all the hard work you and your officers do day in and day out to keep our city safe, but when it comes to firearms permits I feel as a city and department we can do better. I appreciate your time in listening to my frustration and hopefully we can find some ways to better serve all the residents of Hoboken with equal due process.
What do you know, the next day my 3 pistol purchase permits were ready after 4 months of BS.
Hopefully this help others in getting a resolution, when nothing else seems to work, follow the process IT DOES WORK.

Order, Order!
Our second item of business today is a vote on a bill in the name of the Scottish Green Party. The question is that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill, as amended with one SPAG.

Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill

An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision about the prohibition of hunting wild mammals using dogs; to make provision about the prohibition of trail hunting; and for connected purposes.

PART 1

HUNTING A WILD MAMMAL USING A DOG

Offences
1 Offence of hunting a wild mammal using a dog
(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) they hunt a wild mammal using a dog, and
(b) none of the exceptions in sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 apply.

(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding £40,000, or level 5 on the standard scale, whichever would be higher for the person, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).

(3) In this Act—

“hunting” includes, in particular, searching for and coursing (and related expressions are to be construed accordingly),
“wild mammal” means any mammal (other than a human)—

(a) which—

(i) is living in a wild state,
(ii) is of a species recognised as living in a wild state in the British Islands (as defined in schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978), or
(iii) has been deliberately released from temporary or permanent human control, and
(b) which is not—
(i) a rat,
(ii) a mouse, or
(iii) living under temporary or permanent human control.

(4) In this Part, a person is “using a dog” when the hunting of a wild mammal by the person involves the use of a dog, even if the dog is not under that person’s control or direction (and related expressions are to be construed accordingly).
2 Offences of knowingly causing or permitting another person to hunt using a dog
(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) they—

(i) are an owner or occupier of land, and
(ii) knowingly cause or permit another person to hunt a wild mammal using a dog on that land, and

(b) none of the exceptions in sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 apply to the hunting.

(2) A person commits an offence if—

(a) they—

(i) own or are responsible for a dog, and
(ii) knowingly cause or permit another person to hunt a wild mammal using that dog, and

(b) none of the exceptions in sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 apply to the hunting.

(3) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is liable on summary conviction, to—

(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months,
(b) a fine not exceeding £40,000, or level 5 on the standard scale, whichever would be higher for the person, or
(c) both of the penalties under paragraphs (a) and (b).

(4) In this Part, an “owner” of land includes a person who—

(a) manages or controls that land, or
(b) is authorised to give permission for that land to be used for hunting.

(5) In this Act, a person “is responsible for” a dog where the person—

(a) is responsible for the dog on a temporary or permanent basis,
(b) is in charge of the dog, or
(c) has actual care and control of a person under the age of 16 years who is responsible for the dog under paragraph (a) or (b).

Exceptions to the offences
3 Exception: management of wild mammals above ground
(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person is using a dog above ground to—

(i) search for, stalk or flush from cover a wild mammal, with the intention of killing it for one or more of the purposes set out in subsection (2),
(ii) search for and retrieve a wild mammal which has been killed as a result of the activity mentioned in sub-paragraph (i), and

(b) the conditions set out in subsection (3) are met.

(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i) are—

(a) preventing serious damage to livestock, woodland or crops,
(b) preventing the spread of disease,
(c) protecting human health.

(3) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(b) are that—

(a) either—

(i) the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) does not involve the use of more than two dogs, or
(ii) the activity is carried out in accordance with a licence granted under section 4,

(b) any dog used in the activity is under control,
(c) unless paragraph (a)(ii) applies, reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog used in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs,
(d) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place,
(e) the wild mammal which is being searched for, stalked or flushed is shot dead, or killed by a bird of prey, as soon as reasonably possible,
(f) if an attempt to kill the wild mammal, as mentioned in paragraph (e), results in it being injured but not killed, reasonable steps are taken to kill it in a way (other than by using a dog) that causes it the minimum possible suffering.

4 Licence for use of more than two dogs in connection with section 3
(1) A person may apply for a licence permitting the use of more than two dogs for the activity mentioned in section 3(1)(a).
(2) An application for a licence under subsection (1) must be made to the relevant authority.
(3) A licence under subsection (1)—

(a) may be granted to a particular person or to a category of persons,
(b) must relate to a particular species of wild mammal,
(c) must not be granted unless the relevant authority is satisfied that there is no other solution which would be effective in achieving the purpose set out in section 3(2) in relation to which the application for a licence is being made,
(d) may only permit the use of the minimum number of dogs which the relevant authority is satisfied would be effective in achieving the purpose set out in section 3(2) in relation to which the application for a licence is being made,
(e) must require the deployment of the minimum number of guns which the relevant authority is satisfied would be effective for compliance with the conditions set out in section 3(3)(e) and (f) in relation to the activity for which the application for a licence is being made,
(f) may be subject to compliance with such conditions as the relevant authority considers appropriate, which may include, in particular, reporting requirements in relation to activities carried out under the licence,
(g) may be granted for a maximum period of 14 days, which must fall within a period of 6 consecutive months,
(h) may be modified or revoked by the relevant authority at any time.

(5) A licence under this section must specify—

(a) the person or category of persons to whom it is granted,
(b) the species of wild mammal to which it relates,
(c) the area within which the searching for, stalking or flushing of that species of wild mammal may take place under the licence,
(d) the maximum number of dogs which are permitted to be used,
(e) the minimum number of guns (if any) which are required to be deployed,
(f) any conditions to which the licence is subject.

5 Exception: management of foxes below ground
(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person is using a dog to—

(i) search for a fox below ground, or
(ii) flush a fox from below ground,

with the intention of killing it for one or more of the purposes set out in subsection (2), and
(b) the conditions set out in subsection (3) are met.

(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(a) are—

(a) preventing serious damage to livestock, woodland or crops,
(b) preventing the spread of disease,
(c) protecting human health,
(d) relieving the suffering of an injured or dependent fox.

(3) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(b) are that—

(a) the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) does not involve the use of more than one dog,
(b) the dog used in the activity is—

(i) under control,
(ii) fitted with a device to allow tracking of the position of the dog below ground,

(c) reasonable steps are taken—

(i) to prevent the dog becoming trapped below ground, and
(ii) if the dog becomes trapped below ground, to ensure that it is rescued as soon as reasonably possible,
(d) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place,

(e) no steps are taken to prevent the fox from being flushed or emerging from below ground,
(f) if the fox which is being searched for or flushed is found or emerges from below ground, it is shot dead, or killed by a bird of prey, as soon as reasonably possible,
(g) if an attempt to kill the fox, as mentioned in paragraph (f), results in it being injured but not killed, reasonable steps are taken to kill it in a way (other than by using a dog) that causes it the minimum possible suffering.

(4) In this section, “dependent” means that the mother of a fox is dead and it is too young to survive on its own.
6 Exception: falconry, game shooting and deer stalking
(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person is using a dog above ground to—

(i) search for, stalk or flush from cover a wild mammal, with the intention of providing quarry for falconry, game shooting or deer stalking,
(ii) search for and retrieve a wild mammal which has been killed as a result of the activity mentioned in sub-paragraph (i), and

(b) the conditions set out in subsection (2) are met.

(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(b) are that—

(a) the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) does not involve the use of more than two dogs,
(b) any dog used in the activity is under control,
(c) reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog used in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs,
(d) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place,
(e) the wild mammal which is being searched for, stalked or flushed is shot dead, or killed by a bird of prey, as soon as reasonably possible,
(f) if an attempt to kill the wild mammal, as mentioned in paragraph (e), results in it being injured but not killed, reasonable steps are taken to kill it in a way (other than by using a dog) that causes it the minimum possible suffering.

(3) In this section—

“deer stalking” means the stealthy approach of a deer in order to shoot it for sport,
“falconry” means the use of a bird of prey to hunt for sport,
“game shooting” means shooting wild mammals for sport,
“quarry” means the wild mammal intended to be killed by a bird of prey or shot.

7 Exception: relieving the suffering of injured wild mammals
(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person is using a dog above ground to search for, stalk or flush from cover a wild mammal which the person has reasonable grounds for believing is injured, with the intention of treating, capturing or killing it for the purpose of relieving its suffering,
(b) the wild mammal was not deliberately injured for the purpose of allowing the activity mentioned in paragraph (a) to take place, and
(c) the conditions set out in subsection (2) are met.

(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(c) are that—

(a) the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) does not involve the use of more than two dogs,
(b) any dog used in the activity is under control,
(c) reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog used in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs,
(d) either—

(i) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place,
(ii) the person carrying out the activity is a constable exercising a power of entry,
(iii) the person carrying out the activity is exercising a power of entry under section 14M or 14N of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or
(iv) the person carrying out the activity is exercising a power of entry under section 15 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996,

(e) the wild mammal which is being searched for, stalked or flushed is, as soon as reasonably possible, either—

(i) given treatment to reduce or alleviate its pain or discomfort before being allowed to escape without being pursued or killed,
(ii) captured for the purpose of being given treatment to reduce or alleviate its pain or discomfort (whether at that place or at another place),
(iii) shot dead, or
(iv) observed and allowed to escape without being pursued or killed,

(f) if an attempt to kill the wild mammal, as mentioned in paragraph (e)(iii), results in it being injured but not killed, reasonable steps are taken to kill it in a way (other than by using a dog) that causes it the minimum possible suffering.

8 Exception: searching for dead wild mammals
(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person is using a dog above ground to search for and retrieve a dead wild mammal, and
(b) the conditions set out in subsection (2) are met.

(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(b) are that—

(a) the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) does not involve the use of more than two dogs,
(b) any dog used in the activity is under control,
(c) reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog used in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs,
(d) either—

(i) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place,
(ii) the person carrying out the activity is a constable exercising a power of entry,
(iii) the person carrying out the activity is exercising a power of entry under section 14M or 14N of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or
(iv) the person carrying out the activity is exercising a power of entry under section 15 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996,

(e) reasonable steps are taken to ensure that no wild mammal is pursued, injured or killed.

9 Exception: environmental benefit
(1) This section applies if—

(a) the person is using a dog above ground to—

(i) search for, stalk or flush from cover a wild mammal, with the intention of killing, capturing or observing it as part of a scheme or plan for one or more of the purposes set out in subsection (2),
(ii) search for and retrieve a wild mammal which has been killed as a result of the activity referred to in sub-paragraph (i), and

(b) the conditions set out in subsection (3) are met.

(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i) are—

(a) preserving, protecting or restoring a particular species (which may include controlling the number of a species for its welfare) for environmental benefit,
(b) preserving, protecting or restoring the diversity of animal or plant life,
(c) eradicating an invasive non-native species of wild mammal from an area.

(3) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(b) are that—

(a) either—

(i) the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) does not involve the use of more than two dogs, or
(ii) the activity is carried out in accordance with a licence granted under section 10,

(b) any dog used in the activity is under control,
(c) unless paragraph (a)(ii) applies, reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog used in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs,
(d) either—

(i) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place,
(ii) the person carrying out the activity is exercising a power of entry under section 14M or 14N of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or
(iii) the person carrying out the activity is exercising a power of entry under section 15 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996,

(e) the wild mammal which is being searched for, stalked or flushed is either—

(i) captured (whether or not with the intention of subsequently releasing or relocating it) as soon as reasonably possible,
(ii) shot dead, or killed by a bird of prey, as soon as reasonably possible, or
(iii) observed and allowed to escape without being pursued, injured or killed,

(f) if an attempt to kill the wild mammal, as mentioned in paragraph (e)(ii), results in it being injured but not killed, reasonable steps are taken to kill it in a way (other than by using a dog) that causes it the minimum possible suffering.

(4) In this section—

“invasive non-native species” means a species—

(a) which is included on the Scottish list of species of special concern, or
(b) which is—

(i) not native to the area in which the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) takes place, and
(ii) having or likely to have a significant adverse impact on biodiversity, the environment, social or economic interests or human or animal health,

“Scottish list of species of special concern” means the list of species in the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 adopting a list of invasive alien species of Union concern pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended from time to time.

10 Licence for use of more than two dogs in connection with section 9
(1) A person may apply for a licence permitting the use of more than two dogs for the activity mentioned in section 9(1)(a).
(2) An application for a licence under subsection (1) must be made to the relevant authority.
(3) A licence under subsection (1)—

(a) may be granted to a particular person or to a category of persons,
(b) must relate to a particular species of wild mammal,
(c) must not be granted unless the relevant authority is satisfied—

(i) that killing, capturing or observing the wild mammal will contribute towards a significant or long-term environmental benefit, and
(ii) that there is no other solution which would be effective in achieving the purpose set out in section 9(2) in relation to which the application for a licence is being made,

(d) may only permit the use of the minimum number of dogs which the relevant authority is satisfied would be effective in achieving the purpose set out in section 9(2) in relation to which the application for a licence is being made,
(e) must require the deployment of the minimum number of guns which the relevant authority is satisfied would be effective for compliance with the conditions set out in section 9(3)(e) and (f) in relation to the activity for which the application for a licence is being made,
(f) may be subject to compliance with such conditions as the relevant authority considers appropriate, which may include, in particular, reporting requirements in relation to activities carried out under the licence,
(g) may be granted for a maximum period of two years, which must fall within a period of two consecutive years,
(h) may be modified or revoked by the relevant authority at any time.

(5) A licence under this section must specify—

(a) the person or category of persons to whom it is granted,
(b) the species of wild mammal to which it relates,
(c) the area within which the searching for, stalking or flushing of that species of wild mammal may take place under the licence,
(d) the maximum number of dogs which are permitted to be used,
(e) the minimum number of guns (if any) which are required to be deployed,
(f) any conditions to which the licence is subject.

11 Regulations: licences
(1) The Scottish Ministers may, by regulations—

(a) make provision for—

(i) the form of applications for licences under subsection (1) of sections 4 and 10,
(ii) a reasonable fee to be paid to the relevant authority for the application of licences under sections 4 and 10,

(b) appoint the relevant authority under sections 4 and 10 or
(c) make such other provision as they see fit in relation to licences under this section and section 10

(2) Regulations—

(a) when made under paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b), are subject to the negative procedure,
(b) when made under paragraph (1)(c), are subject to the affirmative procedure.

(3) Regulations under paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b) may not amend the text of any Act.
(4) Until and unless the Scottish Ministers appoint a relevant authority under paragraph (1)(b), the Scottish Ministers shall be the relevant authority.
(5) For greater clarity, nothing in this section prevents the Scottish Ministers appointing themselves as the relevant authority.

PART 2

TRAIL HUNTING

Offences
12 Offences relating to trail hunting
(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person engages or participates in trail hunting, and
(b) the exception in section 13 does not apply.

(2) In this Part—

“trail hunting” is the activity in which a dog is directed to find and follow an animal-based scent which has been laid for that purpose,
“animal-based scent” means—

(a) a scent which is derived from a wild mammal, or
(b) a scent which mimics, replicates or resembles the scent of a wild mammal (or which is designed to do so), whether or not that scent is derived wholly or in part from artificial ingredients.

(3) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person—

(i) is an owner or occupier of land, and
(ii) knowingly causes or permits another person to engage or participate in trail hunting on that land, and

(b) the exception in section 13 does not apply to the trail hunting.

(4) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person—

(i) owns or is responsible for a dog, and
(ii) knowingly causes or permits another person to use the dog for trail hunting, and

(b) the exception in section 13 does not apply to the trail hunting.

(5) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1), (3) or (4) is liable on summary conviction to—

(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months,
(b) a fine not exceeding £40,000, or level 5 on the standard scale, whichever would be higher for the person, or
(c) both of the penalties under paragraphs (a) and (b).

(6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) or (4) to show that the person reasonably believed that the exception in section 13 applied to the trail hunting.
(7) In this Part, an “owner” of land includes, in particular, a person who—

(a) manages or controls that land, or
(b) is authorised to give permission for that land to be used for trail hunting.

Exception to the offences
13 Exception: training dogs to follow an animal-based scent
(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person—

(i) directs a dog to find and follow an animal-based scent which has been laid for that purpose, or
(ii) lays an animal-based scent for a dog to find and follow,

in order to train a dog for a lawful purpose, and
(b) all of the conditions set out in subsection (2) are met.

(2) The conditions are that—

(a) the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) does not involve more than two dogs,
(b) any dog involved in the activity is under control,
(c) reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog involved in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs,
(d) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place,
(e) reasonable steps are taken to ensure that no wild mammal is pursued, injured or killed.

PART 3

GENERAL PROVISIONS

14 Ancillary provision
(1) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make any incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision they consider appropriate for the purposes of, in connection with or for giving full effect to this Act.
(2) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make such provision as they see fit regarding the enforcement of this Act.
(3) Regulations under this section may—

(a) make different provision for different purposes,
(b) modify any enactment (including this Act).

(4) Regulations under this section—

(a) are subject to the affirmative procedure if they—

(i) add to, replace or omit any part of the text of this or any other Act; or
(ii) are made under subsection (2);

(b) otherwise, are subject to the negative procedure.

(5) Before making regulations under subsection (2), the Scottish Ministers must consult such people as they see fit.
15 Interpretation
In this Act—

“animal” means a vertebrate (other than a human) or an invertebrate,
“constable” has the meaning given by section 99(1) of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012,
“cover” means a place above ground in which a wild mammal may be concealed from sight, but does not include an enclosed place from which a wild mammal could not be flushed,
“hunting” is to be construed in accordance with section 1(3),
“livestock” means cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses, camelids, ratites, farmed deer, enclosed game birds or poultry, and for the purposes of this definition—

(a) “cattle” means bulls, cows, oxen, buffalo, heifers or calves,
(b) “horses” includes donkeys and mules,
(c) “farmed deer” means deer of any species which are on agricultural land enclosed by a deer-proof barrier and kept by way of business for the primary purpose of meat production,
(d) “enclosed game birds” means any pheasant, partridge, grouse (or moor game), black (or heath) game or ptarmigan that are being kept enclosed prior to their release for sporting purposes,
(e) “poultry” means domestic fowls, turkeys, geese or ducks,

“relevant authority” is to be construed in accordance with sections 4, 10, and 11,
“responsible for”, in relation to a dog, is to be construed in accordance with section 2(6),
“under control”, in relation to a dog, means that a person who is responsible for the dog is able to direct the dog’s activity by physical contact or verbal or audible command,
“wild mammal” has the meaning given by section 1(3),
“woodland” means land on which trees are grown, whether or not commercially, and includes any such trees and any vegetation planted or growing naturally among such trees on that land.

15 Repeal of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002
The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 is repealed.
16 Crown application: criminal offences
(1) Nothing in this Act makes the Crown criminally liable.
(2) The Court of Session may, on an application by the Lord Advocate, declare unlawful any act or omission for which the Crown would be criminally liable if it were not for subsection (1).
(3) Subsection (1) does not affect the criminal liability of persons in the service of the Crown.
17 Commencement
This Act comes into force 6 months after Royal Assent.
18 Short title
ThIs Act may be cited as the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2024.
Enactments cited:

• Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30)
  
• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c.69)
  
• Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 (c. 58)
  
• Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (asp 8)
  
• Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 6)
  
• Commission Implementing Regulation adopting a list of invasive alien species of Union concern (EU 2016/1141)
  
• Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (EU No 1143/2014)
  

This Act was written by the Most Honourable model-avtron, Marchioness Hebrides LT OM CT PC MP MSP MS, Leader of the Opposition and the Scottish Green Party, on behalf of the Scottish Green Party.
This Act draws heavily from the IRL Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023.

Opening Speech

Oifigear-riaghlaidh,
Hunting with dogs is a unique killer. The numbers aren't precise, but about one fifth of foxes disturbed by hunts are killed by dogs, despite the fact that a large majority of hunts go on without dogs.
This bill bans this killer. It bans hunting with dogs. This will save the lives of mammals like foxes.
Now, there are some legitimate uses for hunting with dogs, I don't dispute that. For example, to relieve the suffering of dying mammals. This bill ensures that farmers and rural communities can continue to hunt for legitimate reasons.
This bill will reduce suffering for mammals and will make it easier to convict people for unlawfully using dogs in hunting. I commend this bill to the Pàrlamaid.
Oifigear-riaghlaidh, I move,
That the Pàrlamaid agrees to the general principles of the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill.
Voting on this bill will end with the close of business at 10pm GMT on the 12th of May 2024.

I AM NOT THE OOP. OOP is u/ThrowRA-3258
Originally posted in relationship_advice
4 updates (3 in original post, one in a new post)
Original Post - April 29th, 2024
My (32F) boyfriend (35M) of six years disappeared while I was out of town and I don't know what to do?
Last Tuesday evening I (32F) came home from a being out of town for two weeks for work, my boyfriend (35M) Nate was supposed to pick me up from the airport but once I got in, I wasn't able to get ahold of him and he never showed up, I was a little annoyed but no too worried because I figured he had fallen asleep(When I talked to him earlier that morning he said he didn't sleep very well the night before and was going to lay down before he had to come get me)so I called my sister for a ride home.
When I got home Nate was no where to be found, I checked the garage an his car was gone, so I sent him a text asking where he was and headed up stairs to unpack. When I open the closet to put my things away I saw that almost all of his clothes were gone. At this point I'm confused, so I start calling him it just keeps ringing and then going to voicemail. I check his office and everything is still there, everything in the house is still there and in place except his clothes and his car. I'm really starting to freak out at this point, so I call my sister and she comes over and we both try calling and messaging him and still get no answer. his computer and his laptop are both still in his office, I logged on to his computer and my sister his laptop(I know all his passwords) but we didn't find anything out of the ordinary, so I started searching his desk and found his iPad in the top drawer, I logged into it and checked everything I could think of and found nothing out of the ordinary, my sister suggested checking the find my iPhone app on his iPad to see if we find out where his phone was. We logged into the app and see that his phone was pinging in the next state over, I starting calling him again but still got no answers to my calls or text.
I really start to lose it here, my mind starts going all over the place trying to figure out what could be going on, I called the police because I think someone has to have done something to him. The police came out but they said there wasn't much they could do because he hasn't been gone long and his clothes missing was sign the he left on his own violation.
Over the last few days I've done everything I can to contact him, He doesn't have any family except for a brother that he cut ties with before I met him, I found him online and sent him a message but he said he hasn't seen or heard from Nate in years. I keep checking his phones location and since Saturday morning it has been pinging in the same location in the PNW, I took off work for the rest of the week and my sister and I are flying up there to go to the location his phone is pinging.
Has anyone ever dealt with something like this before? How do I even confront him, what if he is with another woman, what if he isn't there or worse? I am so lost and hurt right now, my mind is all over the place, I can’t think straight, I’m so lost right now.
tl;dr my(32F) boyfriend (35M) of six years disappeared while I was out of town, haven't been able to contact him but his phone is pinging in the PNW and I am going to confront him tomorrow.
Edit: Yes I have called or messaged all of his friends, none of them have seen or heard from him, I do have access to his bank account as we have a joint account but not his business account, He last used his debt card Friday night in a town west of Seattle Washington, He owns his own business but has taken a step back over the last year so he doesn't communicate with them regularly, they haven't heard from him since last month.
I am 5 months pregnant and we have known for 3 months, he did become a bit reserved and withdrawn since we found out but its not uncommon for him to do that every so often especially around this time of year. I don't truly believe that he would abandon me and his child, that's just not the type of man he is but I don't know what to think anymore.
small update: first I want say thank you to everyone for suggesting the welfare check epically u/MuppetJonBonJovi We called the the department where his phone is pinging and they have sent someone over to see if they can make contact with him.. Its been over an hour and we are still waiting to hear back. I am hopeful but still have a overbearing since of dread. All I want to know right now is that he is ok and I can figure out everything else later, I just need to know he is ok.
UPDATE [same post]: The police were able to do a welfare check and although they were unable to make direct contact with him they spoke to the couple who live at the house, they said they were old family friends and that he was there on Friday and Saturday but that he went to the Olympics Sunday morning to go hiking for a couple of days, The officers informed them of what was going on and they told him, they believed he was ok and that they would contact me tonight to try and help explain the situation. What does that even mean? I am even more confused, our flight to Seattle is at 9:45am tomorrow and at this point we are still going, I hope these people do call but its been awhile now and I haven't heard anything.
NEW UPDATE [same post]: I think this will be my final update, I have to get ready and get my stuff packed for the flight in the morning, I have just spent the last hour speaking to the couple who house he was at and they against his wishes told me what is going on. They have known Nate since he was 12 years old, he started dating their daughter Ashley when they were in sixth grade and they counited dating all through middle school and high school. Ashley got pregnant toward the end of their senior year and they got engaged. I don't know how to even write this next part, When their son was a 1.5 years old they were involved in an accident with a drunk driver, Nate was ejected from the car and Ashley and his son passed away in the accident, She said that he blames himself for it because according to him they were never supposed to be out that night and it was his fault they were, She said he withdrew from them and everyone else and that up until last Friday that hadn't heard from him since he left. She has offered to come get my sister and I from the airport in the morning and she can try to answer any questions I have while we wait for him to return, She said they know where he is, he is at the spot they spread their ashes, she said he told her that he need be with his son one more time before he let him go... I'm honestly in a total state of shock right now, I don't know what to think but I know he is in pain and I need to get to him and I can figure everything else after.
Thank you to all the kind people who reached out and offered your suggestions, I honestly don't think I would have this information right now if it wasn't for you all, so again thank you!
UPDATE - May 9th, 2024
First I want to say thank you to everyone who reached out and offered your advice and help on the other hand the people who were just mean or all the men who came into my messages, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
We did fly out to Seattle last Tuesday morning. Kathy(the wife of the couple) picked us up from the airport and took us back to their place, on the way there she said her husband was on his way to go find Nate so he could bring him back but it would likely be a few hours before they would arrive back.
As we waited Kathy did her best to answer some of the questions that I had, I knew Nate lost his mom at a young age to breast cancer but she said it had deeply profound effect on him and he became a very troubled child, she said that when him and Ashley met that Nate was in a group home(I did not know this)because he was in a lot of trouble for fighting and drug use(he was 12!) I was kind of taken back by this because I've never know him to do anything besides smoke marijuana from time to time, he doesn't even drink. She said that when they met Ashley immediately took on a role of protector of him, she could feel his pain and she wanted to rescue him from it, when they finally got to know him they decided that they would take Nate in if he wanted that once he was was out of the group home, when he was 16 he finally got out of the group home but was still on probation so he had to live with his dad who was a alcoholic and abusive but he would spend most evenings and weekends at their house, he still got in trouble because he kept failing his U.A. for marijuana but he was no longer getting into fights, he credited Ashley for that and felt like she and her family were the only people besides his mom to ever show him any compassion or love. She asked if I would like to see pictures of them and when she showed me the picture of Nate holding his son for the first time I broke down, because I have never seen him in the six years we have been together with a smile like that, he was so happy, he smiles now from time to time and he is always laughing but I've never seen that smile, that gleam. it just broke me to know that he had been living in that much pain for 15+ years and hid it from everyone. We looked through more pictures and she told more stories. and spoke of how sad she was when he left, we talked for hours and then finally her husband came through the doo but Nate was not with him.
George(Kathy's husband) said that he had found Nate where he was supposed to be and explained that my sister and I were at their house waiting for him. He said when he told him this that Nate laughed and said of course, and that he would head back, he just needed a few more minutes alone.
so we waited for what felt like forever and finally a little over two hours after George arrived back, Nate walked in the front door. He looked at me and the first words out of his mouth were "I should have known my note wouldn't be good enough and that you would come find me, I love you and I am very sorry" I said what note! and he said the one I put in you front seat, he put in my car! I never even thought to check there for anything.
I am going to leave out a lot of this next part because its very personal but I asked him why he would just leave me at the airport and why he wouldn't just call or text me that he was leaving. He said that while I was gone, he wanted to put some of the things that we had gotten for the baby in the nursey and start painting it before I got back and that everything was fine until he started putting together the dresser and the changing station, while he was doing that he was flooded with memories of his son and Ashley and that it actually knocked him off his feet and he broke down, he said every time he closed his eyes he saw them(that's why he couldn't sleep) he said he deiced to take mushrooms to try and help get him out of it(what!) but all that did was make things worse and he realized that he needed to not forget them and not hide them and that he needed to go make peace with them and ask them to forgive him for abandoning their memory. He knew that when I got home that I would obviously know something wasn't right with him and he also didn't know how to tell me he had been hiding a huge part of his past, anyway he expressed how sorry he was and that he understood if all of this was to much and if I didn't want to be with him anymore that he would completely understand. I let him know that as long as he agreed to never hide something from me or disappear again and would agree to go to therapy and couples therapy that I wouldn't be going anywhere. He promised he would do whatever I asked of him. I asked him to fly back with me and my sister called her husband to fly in and they would drive his car back. So we are back home now, he hasn't started therapy yet but has an appointment next week.
Our baby is doing ok and so am I, I just need him to be ok and everything will be good again, anyway thank you again to all the kind hearts who reached out, you gave me a lot of positive vibes in a dark time and I really cant thank you enough for that.
Comments
Svennerson
OP, I want to commend you for a bit here.
For most people, what Nate did here would be an absolute irredeemable break of trust. To leave a pregnant wife with no communication aside from a single note that was easy to miss, and fly cross country is the sort of sudden and deep traumatic act that shatters so many relationships, no matter how understandable it is.
The fact that you are clear-headed about why this hurt you and formulated a plan and specific boundaries you will need to have maintained shows that you have enough self-respect to not be treated like dirt, to ensure that you won't let his pain turn into further mistreatment of you. But the fact that you were able to see the level of pain he's going through, see the struggle, and understand why he did what he did shows both an astounding level of empathy, and the deep, powerful love you have for this man. The fact that you were able to see a picture of a past him, when he was with a different woman, smiling harder than you've ever seen, and instead of letting the pain of his flight and move surge into rage, feel compassion knowing the man you have loved has been hurting all this time, is a frankly staggering combination of that empathy and love.
May your therapy sessions turn out bountiful, may you help him recover so that in the future, he smiles just as hard as he did in that photo, and may your relationship only blossom further from this ordeal.
Sensimya
I'm happy everything is okay. But man, this was rough. I hope in therapy he truly understands what his actions caused you to experience. Also, he needs to know what a dunder head he is for leaving the note in your front seat!? Who does that? The kitchen is where you leave the note, and regardless he shouldve answered your calls, called and texted, etc.
I think it's going to take time for you both to realize that a lot of trust has been broken by all of this. You can both understand him and still feel a loss of trust from this situation. I hope y'all make it through it.
Marked concluded (unless BF pull another Houdini).
REMINDER, I AM NOT OOP.
No brigading or harassment.

A petition circulated by Minneapolis residents would amend the city’s charter to grant a newly elected Civilian Police Accountability Commission a wide swath of authority over the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD).
But city officials say there aren’t enough verified signatures yet to get the proposal on the ballot for voters.
On Thursday, the Minneapolis City Council reviewed the petition that seeks to appear as a city charter amendment ballot question during the general election on Nov. 5, 2024, after the city clerk received the gathered signatures to establish a new Civilian Police Accountability Commission (CPAC).
If approved, the amendment would create a 13-member body, which would have:
- authority to determine all policies and general operations of the Minneapolis Police Department
- authority to conduct investigations into police misconduct allegations and to discipline officers
- exercise full control over MPD personnel, including the power to appoint, commend, discipline, or discharge the Chief of Police and any officers and employees.
To be considered for CPAC, a person would need to "Have specified experience or expertise serving and advocating for community members impacted by police crimes." Prior law enforcement service would be a disqualification.
But according to the city clerk’s office, the petition fell short of verified signatures.
A citizen petition must have the verified signatures of at least 5% of the total number of votes cast in the 2022 general election to be considered. In 2022, a total of 178,848 ballots were cast in Minneapolis, requiring a valid petition to have at least 8,943 valid signatures.
According to city officials, only 5,445 signatures could be verified, making it an invalid petition.

The full article is on Fox9: https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-residents-petition-civilian-police-accountability-commission?taid=663d0ba43ffa530001b0213e

Hi all,
Here's what happened at the last senate meeting of the semester. As always, let me know if you have any questions.
*I am not affiliated with SA in any way.*
*This information may be inaccurate and is definitely incomplete. Read at your own risk!*

TLDR

• Lots and lots of discussion about divestment
• SA calls upon UB to improve their broad based fee surveying efforts and to stop using buses to transport arrested people

The Meeting

The meeting was called to order at: 5:09
Attendance: 12/23
The Senate meeting minutes from last meeting were approved (although you already had them from me) unanimously. Meeting notes: April 24, 2024
No committee reports.

Old Business

Resolution #24 - Broad Based Fees - Denied Unanimously (12Y/0A/0N)

New Business

Resolution #26 - Broad Based Fees - This resolution calls for UB to overhaul their survey taking process when it comes to getting student opinions about fee increases.

Becky brings up concerns that no action will be taken after this resolution. Jacob recommends forming a committee for this item. Cole recommends getting SA to amplify this survey. Kayla recommends passing the resolution as a sentiment that SA expresses. Becky recommends contacting the office that sent the email and setting up a meeting.
Result - Approved (7Y/5A/0N)

Resolution #27 - Transportation Fees - This resolution calls for UB to stop using the Stampede to transport arrested people.

The person who put this forward is "open to criticism" about the resolution. If the senators agree with this sentiment, they should pass it. Becky says that the only alternative would be putting students into a cop car. Becky doesn’t know if there is an alternative. Becky does not approve of students being arrested like criminals. Gavin says that a resolution may not be the best way to do this. The person who put this forward says that the students are dissatisfied with the action take and SA should express their support. The Student Affairs director says he has no issues with this resolution.
Result: Approved (9Y/3A/0N)

Open Discussion

Here's what the scene looked like. On the right side of the room, there were about 7-10 people all in support of Israel. The majority of them were from JSU/are Jewish. On the left side of the room were about 15-20 people in support of Palestine, holding up signs calling for Becky to put forward the divestment resolution. The signs talked about how the divestment petition got 1400+ undergrad signatures while Becky was elected with 700 votes. Here's a brief summary of almost everyone's statements (I will add context if needed).
Gavin says that each student gets 5 minutes with one extension, no Q and A.
Ben’s statement: he wants the university to drop the charges of the student protests that were charged with “loitering, trespassing, and disorderly conduct”. His resolution did not get placed on the table, he made it as neutral as possible, in regards to free speech for protestors.
SUNY SA Delegate Tiffany: Talks about her email with another SA delegate, says it’s SA’s choice. The delegate believes that it should be put on the table. She mentions that 1400 undergrads signed the petition for divestment and Becky was only voted in by 700 votes. “Don’t let controversy stop you from speaking up”.
UB MSA President: claims that Becky is taking a stance by not letting senators vote on the divestment resolution.
UB OAS President: Continued discrimination on Palestine related issues. “Bias and injustice”. Here in full support of the divestment resolution. Wednesday night the protestors complied, and were still brutalized while praying. Broke her heart to see friend get beat up, hijab ripped off. Becky does not represent students.
UB JSU Member: Been here for 4 years. Since Oct 7th there has been more antisemitism, been called Nazi, k*ke. One pro Palestine protester yelled during a moment of silence for the holocaust and oct 7th, terror threats have been made.
UB LASA President: Brutalization of protestors is not ok. On brand for UB for this point. Ellicott was design against protesting. Not the only school in the SUNY system that goes against their own students. Supports brothers and sisters in this organization.
UB LASA VP: Grew up in NYC. BLM protests are very similar to Wednesday protest. Does not feel safe on campus after this UBPD. Everyone is afraid of the UBPD. Understand that Becky cannot chose sides, feel like being voices are immediately being silenced, as a fellow student of color.
UB JSU Member: Called a Nazi, told go back to Germany. Wednesday could not get to lab for thesis work. Feels unsafe on this campus as a Jew, sees parallel to grandfather going to Auschwitz for trying to go to work.
UB JSU President: Should not have to feel unsafe. Students feel that they are comfortable with terror threats. “Clear what environment you created”. The bull was painted with the phrase "We love being Jewish" and was vandalized. Jew hatred has increased on campus. Conversations are being held on campus. Conversation is continually rejected (CONTEXT: protestors were asked not to interact with counter protestors). Asked not to remain overnight. Free speech has rules. Sad that it has come to this point. Harassed, doxxed, followed, feels like grandparents during WWII.
UB Student Voices SUNY SA Exec Director: Becky had the nerve to say that the campus is safe. Exercise their first amendment right, SA is the one who has created this environment by not letting conversation happen on campus.
Motion to limit discussion to 3 mins, consent unanimously.
UB SA Senate Affairs Director: Commend everyone for being here and sharing your narrative. Conversations with both of you personally. Peaceful protests, encouraging protests from both sides. Condemns any kind of hatred and people who have felt unsafe. Continue to fight for what you believe.
UB student: Jewish student. 3 of my parents are holocaust survivors, grandmother is Palestinian. He can see antisemitism as it pops up in 1930s Germany, certain words and phrases are antisemitic. People need to know what words mean. BDS means no tomatoes or touch screens or cancer treatments. We should all learn.
UB student: Hate towards Jewish community from some students vs hate towards Brown people from UB administration. Someone who does not feel safe with the current police force. Rebuild relationship with the UBPD, Amherst. People are dying right now in Gaza. Family grown up with genocide by being descended by African slaves.
UB student: Mixed race Jewish student. Misinfo spread on social media about his heritage. Quote and fact check your numbers. Asked where all the Jewish people in the middle east. Hamas’s goal is to genocide all the Jews. Tired of hearing false narratives and nothing rooted in false narratives. Wants people to sit down and research.
UB SA delegate: Sorry for anyone experiencing hate/hate crime. The city of children (in Palestine) should not exist. Killing needs to stop, that is the #1 priority.
UB SA Student Affairs: All the people in this room are doing the right things. Turning into a conversation where. Directing anger at each other rather than the issue at hand. No resolution being voted on today. Nothing more to discuss. Doing things the right way by these protests. Only way to work towards a solution for everyone. Keep dialogue open.
Becky: SA president. This room is the perfect example for SA people neutral. SJP and JSU are both SA clubs. Becky’s feelings have no impact. She is black, nothing stems from personal bias. Misinfo going around. Would like to clarify something. The signatures were not a condition for the resolution being passed. Show that student support this. SA needs to have neutrality. Legally required to not do anything. Say as many buzzwords as you want, cannot yell at the law. EO 157, state law. Applies until the SC or NYS says it doesn’t. Protecting SA by getting sued. None of the clubs will not exist. She does not want to take the risk. She is sorry if she may have provided misinformation. Told both sides the exact same story. I’ve said the same thing. This (the open discussion) is voices being heard. Does not mean rights being violated. When I get emails, this does not change what I have to follow as president. My job is to keep the SA running. This may be hard to understand. Many other ways to go about it. This is not where it will occur. This is not a Becky stance. Sorry for disappointing people on both sides.
UB JSU: A vote would bring more division on campus. Talked to almost all of you. Some of you ignored us, want an open discussion.
UB Vegans VP: We are asking for a vote. If we care about free and open discussions, we would have the vote. There is no neutrality we can take on this issue. Response on Wednesday made me feel safe on this issue. Students were being randomly being ID checked during peaceful candlelight vigil.
Becky: Law does not care about this issue. SA is not the one with the power to change that. If your goal is to get something done, you don’t give up when one path fails. There are other ways to get to the goal if SA does not work.
Will: EO 157 targets the act of calling for divestment.
Becky: I act as a legal filter, do it with people who are actual lawyers.
Kayla: Lobbying to Kathy Hochul might be the better solution here. No wiggle room that they give us. Wants to work with campus to make sure that it is a safe place for Jewish students. Threatened by BLM protests when she participated, wants to be there for everyone.
Tiffany: There are two different risks to take, which one is more important? The law can change + push for the law to change.
Becky: UBPD is separate from SA. Separate actions needed for the UPD issue. Ben’s resolution was dropped and was not cleared, not the resolution that was passed. UPD to act differently is different from divestments. Does not want resolutions that will not do anything.
UB Student: Increase in Jew hatred if BDS is passed. All my friends have experienced Jew hatred. Open discussion is needed.
Discussion ends at 6:51.
No announcements.
Adjournment - 6:51

Final Thoughts

I was hoping to see a resolution about UBF's investment portfolio, but it wasn't put up to a vote.
Thanks to everyone for a great semester. P.S. - I won my argument with the administration over the UBCSR election. The Spectrum put together a full article you can read.
That's all from me for now. As always, if you have any questions please let me know.

I'm worried about the Penn students in the encampment at this point. It is increasingly obvious that the encampment is mostly run by people with no connection to Penn. (In fact, they kept saying exactly that over the PA system tonight) It is also increasingly obvious that none of their actions or tactics are in alignment with achieving their stated goals, and they're all about riling people up and pissing off the people in power who are the ones they most need to convince.
My concern has nothing to do with the actual goals the encampment protesters have put forth, or what side of the issue you're on. It is pretty clear that Penn will not be agreeing to their demands (just like no other University has agreed to divesting from Israel), and the protesters in the encampment have chosen to escalate things at every step rather than de-escalate and comply with the University's request that they follow campus policy and disband the camp, clearly trying to force Penn's hand.
I honestly can't tell at this point whether these are just naive college students who foolishly think that if they push the 800 pound gorilla that is Penn hard enough, Penn will actually cave? Or if they're being manipulated by the "outside agitators" (as the non-Penn speakers/organizers referred to themselves tonight at the newly enlarged encampment) into doing something they'll regret later, in the name of publicity for the Palestinian cause? Or if they're (justifiably) angry and upset about the war and just want to be arrested so they can feel like martyrs and feel like they've done something? And I certainly don't think they've truly internalized the potential physical, psychological, legal, and academic consequences they could face.
There were over 50 cops on College Green tonight. FIFTY. Many of them are Major Incident Response Team and Counterterrorism Unit members according to their badges. And one look at the crowd made it crystal clear that 50 cops is NOTHING compared to the number of protesters. Hell, there are more tents than there were cops. When the cops do come in with force (which is looking more likely with every passing day) they will come in much larger numbers than that, and they will come with riot gear, and they will be facing down a group of angry, resistant protesters who have been glorifying "intifada" and the Al Qassam brigades, and tonight chanted "Oink Oink Piggy Piggy, We will make your lives shitty". The cops are not going to be going easy on these folks.
Penn has been commendably tolerant of the protest so far, negotiating with protesters at a time when many other schools have already sent in police, sometimes with very unpleasant results for the students involved. But the encampment has grown significantly larger today, which means an even larger number of police will be needed to forcibly disband it, and that strikes me as a recipe for disaster. I don't want to see these men and women of Penn get hurt.

Okay going to start off by saying, I never had issues with this facility. The staff have always been accommodating and wonderful and kind. I can genuinely tell that they care about the children attending. The ages are about 2-6. Alot of the children have disabilities. As such, I will not name them because I truly believe their hands are tied and they are doing their best given the circumstances.
I am dealing with a complicated dillema that started last Thursday afternoon when my 5 year old child told me that they have a "rude" daycare worker. When asked to clarify, they stated that the daycare worker has been shaking them at nap time. We were in the car so I told them to show me what they meant by that. When we arrived home they grabbed me by the arms and shoulders and jostled and jolted me with force. They said that they are rough while putting them for a nap. They said that they sound angry and tell them "GO TO BED" they said they will roughly put the blanket around their shoulders and arms as well. They said that this happened like 20 times, alot. Ive seen the lay out and dimness from nap time, but from my understanding I can see how they could disguise the force they were using.
The complaint that my child had was too specific to be dismissed. Definitely not something that can be made up in a 5 year olds mind.
My child has never had any complaints of being difficult or having behavioral issues. They are always commended on how helpful but shy and timid they are in daycare and school settings.
As such, I was immediately livid. I quickly reported the incident to the daycare and immediately called the designated intake agency for reports of child abuse. The daycare did the same. I reported it the same as I did above. This was last Thursday at 3:45pm. They did not send anyone that evening to take a statement from my child.
The next morning, I spoke with the daycare again. They were concerned that this person has not been identified. I was worried that sending my child and talking to them too much would mess up the investigation and confuse them so I suggested we wait and that the investigator will hopefully identify this person quickly.
Except, Friday came and went and when I called the agency they gave me the run around and wrong phone numbers. The investigator was assigned first thing friday morning, they told me but yet nobody contacted me or set time to interview my child. I left voice mails to follow up, as this perpetrator still was not identified as of Friday end of day and was still employed. I left several voice mails stating my concern that the offender still has access to small toddlers and non verbal children with disabilities.
So weekend passed. Monday comes up, I missed the call Monday close to lunch from the child abuse investigator. They called back at 2:30pm and suggested times later this week to set up an interview. Before even asking me about the incidents, they started asking me weird questionss like: "What is your child's bed time on the weekend? Do they like nap time? Do they go to bed easily? Do they have any diagnosis or a hard time settling?"
I told them, "No they're consistently told they are a good and timid child who is helpful."
They said, "Oh. Well, do you think that they might struggle with discipline or feel sensitive to being told what to do? Maybe it was just that they need better training and the kids are difficult and it will be fine and they need a warning."
This is when I finally became mad, "Okay. Well. Actually I feel like that is an under reaction to what was described to me, because what was described to me is assault. This is an adult that shook my child. There are two year olds there and children with disabilities that can't talk. What they are doing sounds deliberate and sneaky and they need to be identified because they have access to small children who are vulnerable." I also said other stuff but I was flustered and can't remember but that summarizes it. So she ends up ending the call saying she needs a drink of water and suggested I come up with a plan. I suggested asking my child to identify the worker by photos on the wall.
The child abuse investigator says, "Im worried about the comfort and safety of the daycare workers by my presence being there."
I took it up the chain of command after that call. There has been no movement, except this workers supervisor defending their actions and still refusing to act to remove this person from this daycare. I got mad and asked if they're there to protect children or themselves and asked why they're not keeping the other children safe at this daycare.
Which brings me to my dillema. I do not want to go to the media with this, but I am worried about the daycare themselves. They were nice but the child abuse investigators are being lazy and incompetent. The daycare has their hands tied and don't seem to know the investigative process. The abuse investigator isn't being impartial and seems set out on blaming my child and is minimizing the repeated sneaky assaults by this daycare worker.
I think the parents should have the right to know that they are sending their kids to this daycare while this worker is still yhere. I do not want to get in trouble for outing this daycare for something out of their control.
What do I do next? There's little movement with the investigators and they're botching the investigation and not giving parents the opportunity to protect their children. The governing authority over the agency is tied up and that's another long process.
What do you think I should do?
Tldr: My child reported abuse at daycare by new daycare worker. The designated abuse investigation agency is being lazy and making decisions and judgments before investigating and is refusing to provide an impartial investigator. Adminstration isn't being helpful. Authority isn't being helpful. Meanwhile the perpetrator still has access to children at daycare who cannot remove them without movement from the investigators and the parents don't know that this is happening. Do I take it to the province or media? What about police?
Thanks.
Edit* changed to "I do not want to go to the media"
Also my child has not gone back there since they let me know what happened.

Okay going to start off by saying, I never had issues with this facility. The staff have always been accommodating and wonderful and kind. I can genuinely tell that they care about the children attending. The ages are about 2-6. Alot of the children have disabilities. As such, I will not name them because I truly believe their hands are tied and they are doing their best given the circumstances.
I am dealing with a complicated dillema that started last Thursday afternoon when my 5 year old child told me that they have a "rude" daycare worker. When asked to clarify, they stated that the daycare worker has been shaking them at nap time. We were in the car so I told them to show me what they meant by that. When we arrived home they grabbed me by the arms and shoulders and jostled and jolted me with force. They said that they are rough while putting them for a nap. They said that they sound angry and tell them "GO TO BED" they said they will roughly put the blanket around their shoulders and arms as well. They said that this happened like 20 times, alot. Ive seen the lay out and dimness from nap time, but from my understanding I can see how they could disguise the force they were using.
The complaint that my child had was too specific to be dismissed. Definitely not something that can be made up in a 5 year olds mind.
My child has never had any complaints of being difficult or having behavioral issues. They are always commended on how helpful but shy and timid they are in daycare and school settings.
As such, I was immediately livid. I quickly reported the incident to the daycare and immediately called the designated intake agency for reports of child abuse. The daycare did the same. I reported it the same as I did above. This was last Thursday at 3:45pm. They did not send anyone that evening to take a statement from my child.
The next morning, I spoke with the daycare again. They were concerned that this person has not been identified. I was worried that sending my child and talking to them too much would mess up the investigation and confuse them so I suggested we wait and that the investigator will hopefully identify this person quickly.
Except, Friday came and went and when I called the agency they gave me the run around and wrong phone numbers. The investigator was assigned first thing friday morning, they told me but yet nobody contacted me or set time to interview my child. I left voice mails to follow up, as this perpetrator still was not identified as of Friday end of day and was still employed. I left several voice mails stating my concern that the offender still has access to small toddlers and non verbal children with disabilities.
So weekend passed. Monday comes up, I missed the call Monday close to lunch from the child abuse investigator. They called back at 2:30pm and suggested times later this week to set up an interview. Before even asking me about the incidents, they started asking me weird questionss like: "What is your child's bed time on the weekend? Do they like nap time? Do they go to bed easily? Do they have any diagnosis or a hard time settling?"
I told them, "No they're consistently told they are a good and timid child who is helpful."
They said, "Oh. Well, do you think that they might struggle with discipline or feel sensitive to being told what to do? Maybe it was just that they need better training and the kids are difficult and it will be fine and they need a warning."
This is when I finally became mad, "Okay. Well. Actually I feel like that is an under reaction to what was described to me, because what was described to me is assault. This is an adult that shook my child. There are two year olds there and children with disabilities that can't talk. What they are doing sounds deliberate and sneaky and they need to be identified because they have access to small children who are vulnerable." I also said other stuff but I was flustered and can't remember but that summarizes it. So she ends up ending the call saying she needs a drink of water and suggested I come up with a plan. I suggested asking my child to identify the worker by photos on the wall.
The child abuse investigator says, "Im worried about the comfort and safety of the daycare workers by my presence being there."
I took it up the chain of command after that call. There has been no movement, except this workers supervisor defending their actions and still refusing to act to remove this person from this daycare. I got mad and asked if they're there to protect children or themselves and asked why they're not keeping the other children safe at this daycare.
Which brings me to my dillema. I do not want to go to the media with this, but I am worried about the daycare themselves. They were nice but the child abuse investigators are being lazy and incompetent. The daycare has their hands tied and don't seem to know the investigative process. The abuse investigator isn't being impartial and seems set out on blaming my child and is minimizing the repeated sneaky assaults by this daycare worker.
I think the parents should have the right to know that they are sending their kids to this daycare while this worker is still yhere. I do not want to get in trouble for outing this daycare for something out of their control.
What do I do next? There's little movement with the investigators and they're botching the investigation and not giving parents the opportunity to protect their children. The governing authority over the agency is tied up and that's another long process.
What do you think I should do?
Tldr: My child reported abuse at daycare by new daycare worker. The designated abuse investigation agency is being lazy and making decisions and judgments before investigating and is refusing to provide an impartial investigator. Adminstration isn't being helpful. Authority isn't being helpful. Meanwhile the perpetrator still has access to children at daycare who cannot remove them without movement from the investigators and the parents don't know that this is happening. Do I take it to the province or media? What about police?
Thanks.

For context, I am a 4th year graduate student at UCSD and steward in student worker union UAW 4811. I've been to the encampment to give them apples, oranges, and sunscreen. The encampment was entirely peaceful & minimally disruptive with respect to regular campus operations. I and many of my colleagues had no issue with the encampment, and I commend everyone who risked their safety and career to stand up for victims in this conflict.
I thought the encampment was ENTIRELY REASONABLE as a method of students and other members of the UCSD community to express our desire to not have our tuition or money from our work as student workers invested into companies which profit from the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. OUR money is being used in UC's investment portfolio to this end, we have the right to request a change of policy such that we are less complicit in this genocide.
There is historical precedent for this: protests NEARLY IDENTICAL to these were performed in order to pressure for divestment from apartheid South Africa decades ago at campuses across the nation, and many other peaceful protests throughout history have made massive impacts to change the policies that enable this type of violence and oppression. From the vast majority of sources that I've seen, the contemporary protest movement has done an amazing job regarding nonviolent practices of political speech. From the apparent evidence, the modern protest movement has been even more cognizant of nonviolence than in the past. The basic demands are very reasonable: stop spending the money you get from our tuition and labors supporting a genocide. Any college administration, police force, government body, media, etc should recognize the historical parallels and do their due diligence with respect to upholding civil rights and negotiating in good faith over the requested policy reforms. It is not an excuse to feign ignorance if you're tasked with an important administrator job and paid upwards of a million dollars a year to run the campus.
Many campuses have dealt with these issues responsibly by agreeing to hold student body votes on divestment and taking actions such as this. Today we see that UCSD administration has chose a different path: APPLYING STATE VIOLENCE TO SUPPRESS PROTEST.
This is BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL use of agents of the state, police, to suppress free speech and assembly. The UCSD admin will have many excuses, namely that the encampment wasn't sanctioned by them and are mildly outside of the modus operandi of the university, looking out for 'safety' (?? cops assaulting people), and other institutional excuses such as this; however, these reasonings are extremely weak given the peaceful nature of the protests and the reasonable demands of the protestors. Hence the reasonings they give are NO EXCUSE for an authoritarian, unconstitutional, violent crackdown of free speech and free expression.
This leaves us with a simple conclusion: the chancellor and campus leadership are UNFIT to do the basic job of upholding civil rights on our campus, and they shouldn't be able to wield the power to summon a mob of police officers to assault and arrest peacefully protesting students. Civil rights should be upheld NO MATTER WHAT and the Chancellor has shown the inability to respect such. It should be a career-ending embarrassment to be paid over a million dollars a year to run a university yet you can't understand the first line of the bill of rights in our nation. Shame
So the main call to action that I have: UCSD Chancellor Pradeep Khosla should RESIGN from his position, and if he refuses to then the student body should immediately begin the process of having a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE or some other procedure to remove him from his position.
I appreciate any comments or discussions to flesh out how the student body can begin the procedure to at least vote on this matter. You may disagree and vote against his removal, that's fine; what I'm interested in is the procedure about how this should go down & historical precedent. to at least have a student body vote on the matter.

Strolling down soap opera memory lane: I spent the weekend watching “One Life to Live” clips on YouTube. Gawd, criminal psychology professor Keri Reynolds and police detective Antonio Vega were such a downright incredible pair. Thus, I wrote about their tragic love story. Rest in power to Antonio’s commendable portrayer Kamar de los Reyes who deserved more praises than was given to him.
http://femfilmrogues.blogspot.com/2024/04/saturday-soapy-flashback-antonio-vega.html

This will be loong, and not proof read. I am so sorry in advance. It's bad formatting as well because it's on mobile.
I've always considered my home life good. Sure, we don't have all the money in the world, and a lot of us are mentally unwell, but we get through stuff and come out stronger. I love my parents, so, so much. There are things that have annoyed me, especially in regards of my mom, but that has always been when alcohol was involved (or when I was already overwhelmed. She has severe adhd, and I have asd, so it's quite a mix. But regardless, I've always loved her in the end. My dad is one of the most caring people in the world. He works so hard (he usually works 80-100 hours per week), but he's always made time for us. He does have quite a short fuse when it comes to temper, but that has improved a lot since he switched jobs.
As a bit of background information, I have 3 siblings. Maude (25f), Celia (24f), and Luke (14M). My sisters and I are only half-siblings. My mom was married to Max, who she left because he was abusive towards both my sisters and my mom (also, he was a closet-skinhead, so good riddance). Mom and dad met when he was 22 and she was 30, and got married 17 years ago when she fell pregnant with me. They have had A LOT of financial struggles throughout the years, currently too, (we've had to move around 5 times since I was born), and my mom has been in a heavy debt of more than 50 000 dollars. However, we've made it work. We currently live on a "ranch" that we co-own with Celia and her boyfriend, John. Moms debt also got cleared half a year ago. Maude lifes with her partner, Chris, in another city, but she comes to visit and usually lives with Celia and John during her stays.
Saturday was great, in the beginning. Mom fired up the grill, Maude was home, we had football tickets for sunday, and it was overall really great. Celia had the night shift at her job, so she had to leave after food, but the rest of us stayed outside and chatted, and had a very pleasant evening and afternoon. The adults, excluding Maude, were drinking and having a good time, while the rest of us just enjoyed eachothers company. The time passed, and mom especially was very intoxicated. She was still happy, but me and my sister decided that it was time to round off the night since it was 11 PM already. We brought the alcohol inside, but mom just continued to insist that she wanted to continue, and brought out more and tried to get John to continue drinking with her. I am so fucking glad that he can hold his liquor.
Dad decided around 12 AM as well that this was enough. Mom, still wanted to drink. She had smokes almost two packs of cigarettes at this point. She was VERY out of it, dropping lit cigs on the ground and going in and out of what I can only describe as sleep. Luke was inside with dad, and me and the others tried to convince mom to just go inside and sleep. She still refused. Dad comes out, and before anyone could process what was happening, he slams his fist on the table and yells
"WHO THE FUCKING HELL IS NIKLAS WITH A 'K' (his name most definitely isn't niklas)". We are all stunned around the table, and again, before we know it, he forcefully grabs the back of moms chair and continues yelling at her. All of our instinct kick in, and we rush forward to push dad off of her. Luke comes outside, and I just sternly yell at him to stay inside and to go to his room. I regret it in hindsight, I sounded really mad, and of course he wasn't going to go to his room. I knew fully well that he would just sit by the door. The rest of the night is a fucking blur. I was screaming and crying trying to hold dad away together with my sister and John, pleading with him to just go inside and to please take this tomorrow when they're all sober. I can't even fully remember what was happening, I only externally heard myself yelling and sobbing. Maude at one point tries to nudge me and telling me to call the police, but I just couldn't I was scared, angry, sad and confused, trying to stand in between mom and dad. Mom was just sitting there. Barely speaking . I didn't pay a lot of attention, but it was just a blank stare. Dad at one point starts kicking at the grill and yelling, after reading out the texts between my mom and niklas, and I think Maude went inside to call the police. We keep pleading with dad, and he does this thing where he tells us he's calm (we still wouldn't let go), only to then take that as a chance to hit something or get closer to mom and yell. He's crying and yelling, asking what he ever did wrong, venting his frustration about everything. He sold his late uncles home to ensure that we could buy this house, he wakes up every day (even weekends) at 5 in the morning to feed my moms horses that she has, he spends 500 dollars a month on food for said horses, he cooks, he handles all cleaning and laundry, they work together, and much much more. I can't even remember everything he said. She still just sits there, motionless, and blankly. Police headlights are seen on the driveway and dad calmly sits down. I just fall on my knees beside him apologizing, and crying, still holdning onto his arm, and he genly pats my head a bit. Maude joins and holds me as well. Police arrive, and we are separated.
Me, along with my siblings and our mom, are taken into Celia and John's house, while John and dad stay outside. Maybe they went inside with the cops, I don't know. Mom lays down on the floor and pats the dog, and she sounds... oddly happy? I don't know, she's blackout drunk and it's probably a trauma response. Whatever. Me and Maude sit on the floor, and she's being incredibly strong. Her only focus is answering the police's questions, as well as comforting me. Luke also comes inside, and we're all gathered there. The police leaves after a while, while giving us no further help. Mom is passed out on the floor. We're all in since, before Maude, of course, takes the initiative and asks where everyone wants to sleep. Dad will of course stay at our house, and we decide that John should be there as well, just to make sure everything stays calm, and that dad doesn't hurt himself or destroys anything. Luke also wanted to sleep at home, stating that he can't even look or be in the same room as mom. I wanted to stay with Maude and John, and Maude made her bed suitable for mom to lay in. We heard her in there, and John leaves. Me and my sister just sit in stunned silence, switching between starting a sentence, or silently crying.
John returns, obviously very upset, and says that dad told him to go. Maude hugs him and tells him that he did his best, and he cries a bit. John truly is the sweetest guy I've ever met, and I believe him fully when he said he tried to stay. Dad is incredibly persuasive as well. I decide to go over home and get a charger and my medicine. Maude is hesitant, but let's me go without her. I walk inside, and I see dad on my way upstairs. He's calm, and he tells me that he would never hurt any one of us. Not me, my siblings, or mom. He reiterates that objects aren't living things, and that those are replaceable. We aren't, and he would never hurt us, no matter how mad he was. I wanted so baldy to tell him that "of course I know that", but I just replied with a weak "ok.". I ask why he's on his way upstairs, and he shows that he's bleeding on his foot and that he's going to clean it off before going to bed. I assume that he got that from kicking the grill. I get my stuff, and hand him some bandaids that I keep in my bag for school. He thanks me and tells me good night. I nod, and ask him to please stay safe. He messages me later, and tells me to forward to Maude that she did incredibly, and that he doesn't blame her for doing the right thing and calling the police.
None of us were able to sleep that night, save for mom who was passed out like a log. John loads up some games, and puts his headphones on. It's obvious that he's crying, but we don't push it. Celia hasn't been made aware of any of this, she's at work and unable to do anything, and we refuse to let this hinder her. We decide that John would meet her in the driveway when she returns home in the morning. To get something to do, Maude prepares a box of crackers and some juice for mom when she wakes up, and I contribute with an orange. My head was fucking spinning. I hate mom currently, but I can't lie and say that seeing her like that fucking shattered me. I'm also insanly worried about dad, and what he might do to himself. The house is full of medicine, and he's alone with only Luke who's in his room. Me and my sister talk a bit, about what just happened and unrelated things. I felt so incredibly warm, but I was still shivering. My throat hurt from yelling and crying. The atmosphere was heavy. John asks if he's allowed to go into the bedroom and attempt to sleep, and of course we tell him it's okay. Hours pass, of me and Maude attempting to sleep, and I decide to get up and make some breakfast for dad once he wakes up, as well as feed the horses since I assumed that dad wouldn't (understandable). I try to sneak, but Maude wasn't able to sleep either and tells me that she wants to go with me. I try to decline, saying that it's fine, but she asks to please let her go, just in case. We leave a note, and head out.
The horses were fed, which meant that dad was awake, or at the very least did wake up to feed them. We went inside, and we assumed that he was in the bedroom. I made two sandwiches and cut an apple up, and then me and Maude helped to unload and load the dishwasher. To our fucking horror, mom comes through the door. She goes straight into the bedroom, and I assume that she lays down in bed. Yelling ensues from dad, and mom is crying. Apparently, this affair has been going on for a fucking year. I'm frozen in place, but Maude goes and knocks on the door. She's talking sternly, and tells mom to go back to Celia and Johns house. She tells them that this is a pressing situation, but to take into account that me and Luke are in the house. She also says that she apologizes, but that she promised Luke that when mom and dad talked, Maude, or another adult, would be in the room. She also brings up the fact that we were all scared yesterday, and that me and her tried to get them to stop drinking. Mom sobs and refuses to leave the bed, and dad just sighs and says:
"Whatever, she can get the bed. I'm going and taking care of the laundry."
I try to continue loading the dishwasher and ignoring what mom and Maude are talking about, but I still hear her crying and Maude tells her to go back to Celia and John's, but mom just continues crying and saying that she's staying right here, and if she leaves she'll never return. Again, I can't help but feel bad for her. My sister comes outside of the room, and tells me to go to the neighbors (Celia and John's house). Mom comes outside as well, and asks me to make a coffee for her. I comply and then go back to the neighbors. I do, but I sit myself on the steps infront of the door to just calm down. Dad comes out of the laundry room and pats me on the back while telling me everything will be alright. He heads inside and I sit there. John opens the front porch door to let the dogs out, and we chat for a bit. I ask if he wants me to join him when he tells Celia, but he says that he'd prefer it if I stayed here. Maude sends me a message and asks if I permit mom and dad speaking alone, since they refuse to speak otherwise. She informs me that everything's calm currently, and that they're just silently holding each other. I say sure, and she says that Luke said the same. She joins me and John, and we try to think about other stuff.
John goes outside to meet Celia. She comes inside and takes Maude with her, and after hugging me and saying hello, she goes out with Maude and John to where mom and dad are (they asked me before if it was fine).
I lay down on the couch inside, and just try to make everything make sense. Just why? Why the hell would she do this? Shattering a marriage, and for what? Some dude name fucking Niklas who likes having his nipples nibbled (that information was in one of the texts dad read out during the night). What did we do wrong? Why weren't we enough for her? And dad; what the hell. I completely understand his anger, I can't even imagine losing 17 years of marriage, and the amount of money he's spent on mom throughout the years. Selling his dead uncles home, paying off her debt, taking care of her daughters, having me and my brother, buying the house that we said we will live in forever in, and so, so much more. Of course she contributed, but she wouldn't have been able to without him. She was hopping in and out of pshyc wards after they met for fucks sake. He loved her... but it's still wrong to hit stuff, regardless if it's alive or not. He kicked the chair mom was sitting in. What if it broke and she fell down? Would he have gone further if we hadn't stopped him? A part of me wants to say no, but how can we be sure? This entire thing feels fucking unreal. What did we do wrong? Why is this happening? This doesn't feel real at all. When I write this I can't help but think it sounds like some self aware novel. This isn't something that would happen in my life. Fucking why weren't we enough? How long did she plan for this to continue? I've barely been able to eat or sleep, and the thought of it just makes me feel nauseous. What am I supposed to feel for her? I fucking hate her; she's a cheating whore who ruined our lives... but...she's still my mom. She's helped me so much. I love her. But she... just threw that away... why...
Some time passes, and all of my siblings return (and John, but he's my brother in law, so it counts). Celia is crying and cursing, apologizes for not being here. We all just talk, and all of us makes sure to commend Maude for her valiant effort. She's been making sure everyone is safe, and relatively okay this entire time. She called the police, after none of us were able to bring themselves to. She's such a kind, wonderful person. We ask her how SHE is feeling, since she barely let us before, and her only reply was "My throat is dry". We continue talking, and Celia is experiencing everything that us others were during the night. It was interesting and heartbreaking to see. More and more time passes, and dad comes through the door. He explains that everything is calm. That we're justified in being angry, confused, and sad. He praises us and tells us that he loves us, and that he's incredibly proud of how we handled everything, as well as apologizing for everything he did.
He and mom will not divorce, or separate. He says that it was only ever over text, and that Niklas is blocked now. He won't forget this, but he is able to let it go. All of us object, and Celia is sobbing as she tells him to please reconsider. She recognizes that she wasn't here during the night, and that she has no idea how bad dad was, but she's solely focusing on moms actions. She begs that to have some self respect, and that things will work out. His response was that, while he is incredibly hurt, in the end, nothing really happened. That it might be normal for the mind to wander after 20 years of marriage. He won't forget, but he will forgive. He says that mom for sure won't forget this either. He asks if we still want to go to the football match, but me and my brother decline. He says that he understands. I feel really guilty, because football tickets are expensive for us, but I just can't bear seeing mom. Dad and mom decided to go alone, since they needed to go grocery shopping as well, so I guess that's a good sign. Us siblings spend the rest of the day together, trying to do some positive things. John and Celia go outside and talk, and they both come back ruined. Maude and Celia also got to talk one on one at some point as well.
I know that I should be happy about them not divorcing. We get to stay in our house, and they're on... fine or neutral terms. But I also recognize that there is not way that this is genuine, in the way that dad, will forgive. I mean, really, why would he? I'm almost certain that he's doing this to avoid complicating our housing situation, as well as work. Celia and John's house is included in the loan for ours, and they're connected. If mom and dad separated, they would have to look for another house as well. I'm just so hurt, confused, and scared. Why the hell weren't we enough?
I slept over at my sister house this night as well. I went over to get a pillow and my headphone chargers, and I didn't see mom. I think that was good. I did, however, see dad. He asked what I was doing and I said that I were going to sleep at the neighbors. I couldn't even meet his eyes, and yet he looked so dejected. I feel horrible for hurting my parents like this, but I just can't spend the night in that house. Not yet. Luke didn't really want to sleep there either, but he said that it was fine and that he just wanted to be alone. I was finally able to sleep, probably out of sheer exhaustion, and while nice to finally rest, it just confirmed that this is reality. It really happend. Mom has been cheating for an entire year, and dad hits and destroys things when drunk and angry. We had to call the cops on dad...I'm so confused and sad... I'm going to stay with Celia, John, and Maude for today as well, I just feel so guilty and bad about dad. He is all alone with mon when he's the one who got cheated on by her..20 years and two kids.. what the fuck was she thinking with? I hate myself for the sadness I feel for her, but hearing your mom cry feels like a knife to the chest. I just wish that these few days weren't real.

Strolling down soap opera memory lane: I spent the weekend watching “One Life to Live” clips on YouTube. Gawd, criminal psychology professor Keri Reynolds and police detective Antonio Vega were such a downright incredible pair. Thus, I wrote about their tragic love story. Rest in power to Antonio’s commendable portrayer Kamar de Los Reyes who deserved more praises than was given to him. http://femfilmrogues.blogspot.com/2024/04/saturday-soapy-flashback-antonio-vega.html

Order!
Our second item of business today is a Stage 3 Debate in the name of the Scottish Green Party. The question is that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill, as amended with one SPAG.

Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill

An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision about the prohibition of hunting wild mammals using dogs; to make provision about the prohibition of trail hunting; and for connected purposes.

PART 1

HUNTING A WILD MAMMAL USING A DOG

Offences
1 Offence of hunting a wild mammal using a dog
(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) they hunt a wild mammal using a dog, and
(b) none of the exceptions in sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 apply.

(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding £40,000, or level 5 on the standard scale, whichever would be higher for the person, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).

(3) In this Act—

“hunting” includes, in particular, searching for and coursing (and related expressions are to be construed accordingly),
“wild mammal” means any mammal (other than a human)—

(a) which—

(i) is living in a wild state,
(ii) is of a species recognised as living in a wild state in the British Islands (as defined in schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978), or
(iii) has been deliberately released from temporary or permanent human control, and
(b) which is not—
(i) a rat,
(ii) a mouse, or
(iii) living under temporary or permanent human control.

(4) In this Part, a person is “using a dog” when the hunting of a wild mammal by the person involves the use of a dog, even if the dog is not under that person’s control or direction (and related expressions are to be construed accordingly).
2 Offences of knowingly causing or permitting another person to hunt using a dog
(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) they—

(i) are an owner or occupier of land, and
(ii) knowingly cause or permit another person to hunt a wild mammal using a dog on that land, and

(b) none of the exceptions in sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 apply to the hunting.

(2) A person commits an offence if—

(a) they—

(i) own or are responsible for a dog, and
(ii) knowingly cause or permit another person to hunt a wild mammal using that dog, and

(b) none of the exceptions in sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 apply to the hunting.

(3) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is liable on summary conviction, to—

(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months,
(b) a fine not exceeding £40,000, or level 5 on the standard scale, whichever would be higher for the person, or
(c) both of the penalties under paragraphs (a) and (b).

(4) In this Part, an “owner” of land includes a person who—

(a) manages or controls that land, or
(b) is authorised to give permission for that land to be used for hunting.

(5) In this Act, a person “is responsible for” a dog where the person—

(a) is responsible for the dog on a temporary or permanent basis,
(b) is in charge of the dog, or
(c) has actual care and control of a person under the age of 16 years who is responsible for the dog under paragraph (a) or (b).

Exceptions to the offences
3 Exception: management of wild mammals above ground
(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person is using a dog above ground to—

(i) search for, stalk or flush from cover a wild mammal, with the intention of killing it for one or more of the purposes set out in subsection (2),
(ii) search for and retrieve a wild mammal which has been killed as a result of the activity mentioned in sub-paragraph (i), and

(b) the conditions set out in subsection (3) are met.

(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i) are—

(a) preventing serious damage to livestock, woodland or crops,
(b) preventing the spread of disease,
(c) protecting human health.

(3) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(b) are that—

(a) either—

(i) the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) does not involve the use of more than two dogs, or
(ii) the activity is carried out in accordance with a licence granted under section 4,

(b) any dog used in the activity is under control,
(c) unless paragraph (a)(ii) applies, reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog used in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs,
(d) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place,
(e) the wild mammal which is being searched for, stalked or flushed is shot dead, or killed by a bird of prey, as soon as reasonably possible,
(f) if an attempt to kill the wild mammal, as mentioned in paragraph (e), results in it being injured but not killed, reasonable steps are taken to kill it in a way (other than by using a dog) that causes it the minimum possible suffering.

4 Licence for use of more than two dogs in connection with section 3
(1) A person may apply for a licence permitting the use of more than two dogs for the activity mentioned in section 3(1)(a).
(2) An application for a licence under subsection (1) must be made to the relevant authority.
(3) A licence under subsection (1)—

(a) may be granted to a particular person or to a category of persons,
(b) must relate to a particular species of wild mammal,
(c) must not be granted unless the relevant authority is satisfied that there is no other solution which would be effective in achieving the purpose set out in section 3(2) in relation to which the application for a licence is being made,
(d) may only permit the use of the minimum number of dogs which the relevant authority is satisfied would be effective in achieving the purpose set out in section 3(2) in relation to which the application for a licence is being made,
(e) must require the deployment of the minimum number of guns which the relevant authority is satisfied would be effective for compliance with the conditions set out in section 3(3)(e) and (f) in relation to the activity for which the application for a licence is being made,
(f) may be subject to compliance with such conditions as the relevant authority considers appropriate, which may include, in particular, reporting requirements in relation to activities carried out under the licence,
(g) may be granted for a maximum period of 14 days, which must fall within a period of 6 consecutive months,
(h) may be modified or revoked by the relevant authority at any time.

(5) A licence under this section must specify—

(a) the person or category of persons to whom it is granted,
(b) the species of wild mammal to which it relates,
(c) the area within which the searching for, stalking or flushing of that species of wild mammal may take place under the licence,
(d) the maximum number of dogs which are permitted to be used,
(e) the minimum number of guns (if any) which are required to be deployed,
(f) any conditions to which the licence is subject.

5 Exception: management of foxes below ground
(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person is using a dog to—

(i) search for a fox below ground, or
(ii) flush a fox from below ground,

with the intention of killing it for one or more of the purposes set out in subsection (2), and
(b) the conditions set out in subsection (3) are met.

(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(a) are—

(a) preventing serious damage to livestock, woodland or crops,
(b) preventing the spread of disease,
(c) protecting human health,
(d) relieving the suffering of an injured or dependent fox.

(3) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(b) are that—

(a) the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) does not involve the use of more than one dog,
(b) the dog used in the activity is—

(i) under control,
(ii) fitted with a device to allow tracking of the position of the dog below ground,

(c) reasonable steps are taken—

(i) to prevent the dog becoming trapped below ground, and
(ii) if the dog becomes trapped below ground, to ensure that it is rescued as soon as reasonably possible,
(d) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place,

(e) no steps are taken to prevent the fox from being flushed or emerging from below ground,
(f) if the fox which is being searched for or flushed is found or emerges from below ground, it is shot dead, or killed by a bird of prey, as soon as reasonably possible,
(g) if an attempt to kill the fox, as mentioned in paragraph (f), results in it being injured but not killed, reasonable steps are taken to kill it in a way (other than by using a dog) that causes it the minimum possible suffering.

(4) In this section, “dependent” means that the mother of a fox is dead and it is too young to survive on its own.
6 Exception: falconry, game shooting and deer stalking
(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person is using a dog above ground to—

(i) search for, stalk or flush from cover a wild mammal, with the intention of providing quarry for falconry, game shooting or deer stalking,
(ii) search for and retrieve a wild mammal which has been killed as a result of the activity mentioned in sub-paragraph (i), and

(b) the conditions set out in subsection (2) are met.

(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(b) are that—

(a) the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) does not involve the use of more than two dogs,
(b) any dog used in the activity is under control,
(c) reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog used in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs,
(d) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place,
(e) the wild mammal which is being searched for, stalked or flushed is shot dead, or killed by a bird of prey, as soon as reasonably possible,
(f) if an attempt to kill the wild mammal, as mentioned in paragraph (e), results in it being injured but not killed, reasonable steps are taken to kill it in a way (other than by using a dog) that causes it the minimum possible suffering.

(3) In this section—

“deer stalking” means the stealthy approach of a deer in order to shoot it for sport,
“falconry” means the use of a bird of prey to hunt for sport,
“game shooting” means shooting wild mammals for sport,
“quarry” means the wild mammal intended to be killed by a bird of prey or shot.

7 Exception: relieving the suffering of injured wild mammals
(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person is using a dog above ground to search for, stalk or flush from cover a wild mammal which the person has reasonable grounds for believing is injured, with the intention of treating, capturing or killing it for the purpose of relieving its suffering,
(b) the wild mammal was not deliberately injured for the purpose of allowing the activity mentioned in paragraph (a) to take place, and
(c) the conditions set out in subsection (2) are met.

(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(c) are that—

(a) the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) does not involve the use of more than two dogs,
(b) any dog used in the activity is under control,
(c) reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog used in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs,
(d) either—

(i) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place,
(ii) the person carrying out the activity is a constable exercising a power of entry,
(iii) the person carrying out the activity is exercising a power of entry under section 14M or 14N of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or
(iv) the person carrying out the activity is exercising a power of entry under section 15 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996,

(e) the wild mammal which is being searched for, stalked or flushed is, as soon as reasonably possible, either—

(i) given treatment to reduce or alleviate its pain or discomfort before being allowed to escape without being pursued or killed,
(ii) captured for the purpose of being given treatment to reduce or alleviate its pain or discomfort (whether at that place or at another place),
(iii) shot dead, or
(iv) observed and allowed to escape without being pursued or killed,

(f) if an attempt to kill the wild mammal, as mentioned in paragraph (e)(iii), results in it being injured but not killed, reasonable steps are taken to kill it in a way (other than by using a dog) that causes it the minimum possible suffering.

8 Exception: searching for dead wild mammals
(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person is using a dog above ground to search for and retrieve a dead wild mammal, and
(b) the conditions set out in subsection (2) are met.

(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(b) are that—

(a) the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) does not involve the use of more than two dogs,
(b) any dog used in the activity is under control,
(c) reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog used in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs,
(d) either—

(i) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place,
(ii) the person carrying out the activity is a constable exercising a power of entry,
(iii) the person carrying out the activity is exercising a power of entry under section 14M or 14N of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or
(iv) the person carrying out the activity is exercising a power of entry under section 15 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996,

(e) reasonable steps are taken to ensure that no wild mammal is pursued, injured or killed.

9 Exception: environmental benefit
(1) This section applies if—

(a) the person is using a dog above ground to—

(i) search for, stalk or flush from cover a wild mammal, with the intention of killing, capturing or observing it as part of a scheme or plan for one or more of the purposes set out in subsection (2),
(ii) search for and retrieve a wild mammal which has been killed as a result of the activity referred to in sub-paragraph (i), and

(b) the conditions set out in subsection (3) are met.

(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i) are—

(a) preserving, protecting or restoring a particular species (which may include controlling the number of a species for its welfare) for environmental benefit,
(b) preserving, protecting or restoring the diversity of animal or plant life,
(c) eradicating an invasive non-native species of wild mammal from an area.

(3) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(b) are that—

(a) either—

(i) the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) does not involve the use of more than two dogs, or
(ii) the activity is carried out in accordance with a licence granted under section 10,

(b) any dog used in the activity is under control,
(c) unless paragraph (a)(ii) applies, reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog used in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs,
(d) either—

(i) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place,
(ii) the person carrying out the activity is exercising a power of entry under section 14M or 14N of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or
(iii) the person carrying out the activity is exercising a power of entry under section 15 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996,

(e) the wild mammal which is being searched for, stalked or flushed is either—

(i) captured (whether or not with the intention of subsequently releasing or relocating it) as soon as reasonably possible,
(ii) shot dead, or killed by a bird of prey, as soon as reasonably possible, or
(iii) observed and allowed to escape without being pursued, injured or killed,

(f) if an attempt to kill the wild mammal, as mentioned in paragraph (e)(ii), results in it being injured but not killed, reasonable steps are taken to kill it in a way (other than by using a dog) that causes it the minimum possible suffering.

(4) In this section—

“invasive non-native species” means a species—

(a) which is included on the Scottish list of species of special concern, or
(b) which is—

(i) not native to the area in which the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) takes place, and
(ii) having or likely to have a significant adverse impact on biodiversity, the environment, social or economic interests or human or animal health,

“Scottish list of species of special concern” means the list of species in the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 adopting a list of invasive alien species of Union concern pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended from time to time.

10 Licence for use of more than two dogs in connection with section 9
(1) A person may apply for a licence permitting the use of more than two dogs for the activity mentioned in section 9(1)(a).
(2) An application for a licence under subsection (1) must be made to the relevant authority.
(3) A licence under subsection (1)—

(a) may be granted to a particular person or to a category of persons,
(b) must relate to a particular species of wild mammal,
(c) must not be granted unless the relevant authority is satisfied—

(i) that killing, capturing or observing the wild mammal will contribute towards a significant or long-term environmental benefit, and
(ii) that there is no other solution which would be effective in achieving the purpose set out in section 9(2) in relation to which the application for a licence is being made,

(d) may only permit the use of the minimum number of dogs which the relevant authority is satisfied would be effective in achieving the purpose set out in section 9(2) in relation to which the application for a licence is being made,
(e) must require the deployment of the minimum number of guns which the relevant authority is satisfied would be effective for compliance with the conditions set out in section 9(3)(e) and (f) in relation to the activity for which the application for a licence is being made,
(f) may be subject to compliance with such conditions as the relevant authority considers appropriate, which may include, in particular, reporting requirements in relation to activities carried out under the licence,
(g) may be granted for a maximum period of two years, which must fall within a period of two consecutive years,
(h) may be modified or revoked by the relevant authority at any time.

(5) A licence under this section must specify—

(a) the person or category of persons to whom it is granted,
(b) the species of wild mammal to which it relates,
(c) the area within which the searching for, stalking or flushing of that species of wild mammal may take place under the licence,
(d) the maximum number of dogs which are permitted to be used,
(e) the minimum number of guns (if any) which are required to be deployed,
(f) any conditions to which the licence is subject.

11 Regulations: licences
(1) The Scottish Ministers may, by regulations—

(a) make provision for—

(i) the form of applications for licences under subsection (1) of sections 4 and 10,
(ii) a reasonable fee to be paid to the relevant authority for the application of licences under sections 4 and 10,

(b) appoint the relevant authority under sections 4 and 10 or
(c) make such other provision as they see fit in relation to licences under this section and section 10

(2) Regulations—

(a) when made under paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b), are subject to the negative procedure,
(b) when made under paragraph (1)(c), are subject to the affirmative procedure.

(3) Regulations under paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b) may not amend the text of any Act.
(4) Until and unless the Scottish Ministers appoint a relevant authority under paragraph (1)(b), the Scottish Ministers shall be the relevant authority.
(5) For greater clarity, nothing in this section prevents the Scottish Ministers appointing themselves as the relevant authority.

PART 2

TRAIL HUNTING

Offences
12 Offences relating to trail hunting
(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person engages or participates in trail hunting, and
(b) the exception in section 13 does not apply.

(2) In this Part—

“trail hunting” is the activity in which a dog is directed to find and follow an animal-based scent which has been laid for that purpose,
“animal-based scent” means—

(a) a scent which is derived from a wild mammal, or
(b) a scent which mimics, replicates or resembles the scent of a wild mammal (or which is designed to do so), whether or not that scent is derived wholly or in part from artificial ingredients.

(3) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person—

(i) is an owner or occupier of land, and
(ii) knowingly causes or permits another person to engage or participate in trail hunting on that land, and

(b) the exception in section 13 does not apply to the trail hunting.

(4) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person—

(i) owns or is responsible for a dog, and
(ii) knowingly causes or permits another person to use the dog for trail hunting, and

(b) the exception in section 13 does not apply to the trail hunting.

(5) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1), (3) or (4) is liable on summary conviction to—

(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months,
(b) a fine not exceeding £40,000, or level 5 on the standard scale, whichever would be higher for the person, or
(c) both of the penalties under paragraphs (a) and (b).

(6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) or (4) to show that the person reasonably believed that the exception in section 13 applied to the trail hunting.
(7) In this Part, an “owner” of land includes, in particular, a person who—

(a) manages or controls that land, or
(b) is authorised to give permission for that land to be used for trail hunting.

Exception to the offences
13 Exception: training dogs to follow an animal-based scent
(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person—

(i) directs a dog to find and follow an animal-based scent which has been laid for that purpose, or
(ii) lays an animal-based scent for a dog to find and follow,

in order to train a dog for a lawful purpose, and
(b) all of the conditions set out in subsection (2) are met.

(2) The conditions are that—

(a) the activity mentioned in subsection (1)(a) does not involve more than two dogs,
(b) any dog involved in the activity is under control,
(c) reasonable steps are taken to ensure that any dog involved in the activity does not join with others to form a pack of more than two dogs,
(d) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place,
(e) reasonable steps are taken to ensure that no wild mammal is pursued, injured or killed.

PART 3

GENERAL PROVISIONS

14 Ancillary provision
(1) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make any incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision they consider appropriate for the purposes of, in connection with or for giving full effect to this Act.
(2) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make such provision as they see fit regarding the enforcement of this Act.
(3) Regulations under this section may—

(a) make different provision for different purposes,
(b) modify any enactment (including this Act).

(4) Regulations under this section—

(a) are subject to the affirmative procedure if they—

(i) add to, replace or omit any part of the text of this or any other Act; or
(ii) are made under subsection (2);

(b) otherwise, are subject to the negative procedure.

(5) Before making regulations under subsection (2), the Scottish Ministers must consult such people as they see fit.
15 Interpretation
In this Act—

“animal” means a vertebrate (other than a human) or an invertebrate,
“constable” has the meaning given by section 99(1) of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012,
“cover” means a place above ground in which a wild mammal may be concealed from sight, but does not include an enclosed place from which a wild mammal could not be flushed,
“hunting” is to be construed in accordance with section 1(3),
“livestock” means cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses, camelids, ratites, farmed deer, enclosed game birds or poultry, and for the purposes of this definition—

(a) “cattle” means bulls, cows, oxen, buffalo, heifers or calves,
(b) “horses” includes donkeys and mules,
(c) “farmed deer” means deer of any species which are on agricultural land enclosed by a deer-proof barrier and kept by way of business for the primary purpose of meat production,
(d) “enclosed game birds” means any pheasant, partridge, grouse (or moor game), black (or heath) game or ptarmigan that are being kept enclosed prior to their release for sporting purposes,
(e) “poultry” means domestic fowls, turkeys, geese or ducks,

“relevant authority” is to be construed in accordance with sections 4, 10, and 11,
“responsible for”, in relation to a dog, is to be construed in accordance with section 2(6),
“under control”, in relation to a dog, means that a person who is responsible for the dog is able to direct the dog’s activity by physical contact or verbal or audible command,
“wild mammal” has the meaning given by section 1(3),
“woodland” means land on which trees are grown, whether or not commercially, and includes any such trees and any vegetation planted or growing naturally among such trees on that land.

15 Repeal of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002
The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 is repealed.
16 Crown application: criminal offences
(1) Nothing in this Act makes the Crown criminally liable.
(2) The Court of Session may, on an application by the Lord Advocate, declare unlawful any act or omission for which the Crown would be criminally liable if it were not for subsection (1).
(3) Subsection (1) does not affect the criminal liability of persons in the service of the Crown.
17 Commencement
This Act comes into force 6 months after Royal Assent.
18 Short title
ThIs Act may be cited as the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2024.
Enactments cited:

• Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30)
  
• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c.69)
  
• Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 (c. 58)
  
• Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (asp 8)
  
• Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 6)
  
• Commission Implementing Regulation adopting a list of invasive alien species of Union concern (EU 2016/1141)
  
• Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (EU No 1143/2014)
  

This Act was written by the Most Honourable model-avtron, Marchioness Hebrides LT OM CT PC MP MSP MS, Leader of the Opposition and the Scottish Green Party, on behalf of the Scottish Green Party.
This Act draws heavily from the IRL Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023.

Opening Speech

Oifigear-riaghlaidh,
Hunting with dogs is a unique killer. The numbers aren't precise, but about one fifth of foxes disturbed by hunts are killed by dogs, despite the fact that a large majority of hunts go on without dogs.
This bill bans this killer. It bans hunting with dogs. This will save the lives of mammals like foxes.
Now, there are some legitimate uses for hunting with dogs, I don't dispute that. For example, to relieve the suffering of dying mammals. This bill ensures that farmers and rural communities can continue to hunt for legitimate reasons.
This bill will reduce suffering for mammals and will make it easier to convict people for unlawfully using dogs in hunting. I commend this bill to the Pàrlamaid.
Oifigear-riaghlaidh, I move,
That the Pàrlamaid agrees to the general principles of the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill.
Debate on this bill will end with the close of business at 10pm GMT on the 8th of May 2024.