Pieta House reject fundraising money from hunt

Snugglebunnies · 23-12-2016 08:30PM #1

http://www.banbloodsports.com/

Pieta House have rejected money to be raised by charity hunt event organised the Premier Harriers. I think this is a positive move,in my opinion fox hunting is archaic and barbaric an has no place in modern society. I don't think any charity should accept money raised through the suffering of animals.

I will be donating to them and hope this will encourage others who are anti bloodsports and who care about animal welfare to do the same.

I've been reading comments on the situation online and many people are disgusted by Pieta Houses stance. What do you think AH?

zeroliner · 23-12-2016 08:33PM

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

http://www.banbloodsports.com/

Pieta House have rejected money to be raised by charity hunt event organised the Premier Harriers. I think this is a positive move,in my opinion fox hunting is archaic and barbaric an has no place in modern society. I don't think any charity should accept money raised through the suffering of animals.

I will be donating to them and hope this will encourage others who are anti bloodsports and who care about animal welfare to do the same.

I've been reading comments on the situation online and many people are disgusted by Pieta Houses stance. What do you think AH?

Pieta House is one of my all time, favourite, good charities.

humberklog · 23-12-2016 08:34PM

I think it's silly not to take the money because someone in the organisation has an issue with hunting.

The_Valeyard · 23-12-2016 08:35PM

Are you against the charity which rejected the money from the prostitution website OP?

If the charity is opposed to the group donating I'm sure it's within their remit to do to.

But i do think charity groups if desperate for cash, should take the money and put it to good use. I have mixed views about charities mixing with politics. But i suppose sometimes it can't be helped. Like the Peter McVerry trust.

Snugglebunnies · 23-12-2016 08:36PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Are you against the charity with rejected the money from the prostitution website OP?

If the charity is opposed to the group donating I'm sure it's within their remit to do to.

But i do think charity groups if desperate for cash, should take the money and put it to good use. I have mixed views about charities mixing with politics. But i suppose sometimes it can't be helped. Like the Peter McVerry trust.

Prostitution website?

The_Valeyard · 23-12-2016 08:39PM

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Prostitution website?

Yeah was on some newspaper during the week. They raised money for the homeless but was rejected.

foggy_lad · 23-12-2016 08:43PM

Because the charity deals primarily with young people I think it was the right decision as many of the young people will be against hunting and knowing or finding out that the service they rest so much confidence in may be funded by hunting would be a betrayal of sorts.

Snugglebunnies · 23-12-2016 08:47PM

foggy_lad wrote:

Because the charity deals primarily with young people I think it was the right decision as many of the young people will be against hunting and knowing or finding out that the service they rest so much confidence in may be funded by hunting would be a betrayal of sorts.

Yes exactly. It wouldn't sit right with me for a charity who aims to do good receiving money from a group which promotes pain and suffering.

Snugglebunnies · 23-12-2016 08:50PM

The_Valeyard wrote:

Yeah was on some newspaper during the week. They raised money for the homeless but was rejected.

Oh i heard about that actually. I suppose if everyone involved us a consenting adult then maybe it's not too bad but I suppose a charity has the right not to be associated with groups who the feel they aren't ethically compatible with.

23-12-2016 08:50PM

They should end this association with fish torturers too.

http://fishinginireland.info/news/other-news/get-behind-fishing-for-pieta-angling-for-mental-health-suicide-awareness/

Widdershins · 23-12-2016 08:51PM

I'm impressed and I'll donate to Pieta House. Looks like the Hope Foundation also declined money from the hunt.

foggy_lad · 23-12-2016 08:55PM

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Yes exactly. It wouldn't sit right with me for a charity who aims to do good receiving money from a group which promotes pain and suffering.

Absolutely nothing to do with the pain and suffering of any animal but simply because a service which these kids and young adults believe in and trust so much should not be funded by any group which their service users might see as unsuitable, or that they would be unhappy with.

Spanish Eyes · 23-12-2016 08:58PM

Charities should not turn away donations like this, and make it into a political/ethical thing.

I suppose they will take grants from the Government that is somewhat lacking in looking after the homeless, the disabled and so on.

Double fekkin standards if you ask me.

Widdershins · 23-12-2016 09:03PM

They can't be that perfectionist. This is directly connected to harm though. You could argue that every organisation indirectly contributes to harm, e.g McDonalds selling meat products.. The government neglecting homeless people.

Pkiernan · 23-12-2016 09:06PM

Didn't realise there were so many macro vegans in AH.

After all they're the only people who can be anti hunting and not total fukkin hypocritical assholes.

PucaMama · 23-12-2016 09:07PM

Pkiernan wrote: »

Didn't realise there were so many macro vegans in AH.

After all they're the only people who can be anti hunting and not total fukkin hypocritical assholes.

You can be anti killing for fun without being vegan. But you know that already. I suspect you like to hunt.

Spanish Eyes · 23-12-2016 09:10PM

I just do not like it when charities that are largely funded by the taxpayer can decide on our behalf which donations to accept or reject.

It could turn very quickly into a devisive issue.

Just take the money and donate it to animal shelters or something if they are that obsessed about it.

I would be concerned about the objectivity of the Pieta House board or whoever is deciding this.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 23-12-2016 09:12PM

Not to criticise the many great staff and volunteers or belittle the help they've been to some people, but Pieta House's number one skill bar none is fundraising.

Maybe this is a principled stand but they're still not going to be down money I'd say, even going by this thread.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 23-12-2016 09:13PM

PucaMama wrote: »

You can be anti killing for fun without being vegan. But you know that already. I suspect you like to hunt.

Almost the first page, commiserations.

So, what's wrong with hunting? What's wrong with liking to hunt?

Just so we are on the same page here, there's a huge difference between fox hunting with horse and hound, and hunting in general.

Feisar · 23-12-2016 09:17PM

I enjoy hunting, with a rifle not that craic with dogs and horses. However I can see why Pieta wouldn't want any association with bloodsports. It could be damaging to their fundraising generally and might cost them more in the long run.

Snugglebunnies · 23-12-2016 10:08PM

Crew Glamorous Silicon wrote:

Maybe this is a principled stand but they're still not going to be down money I'd say, even going by this thread.

True, I suspect there are more people who will see this and donate to them now knowing they are anti bloodsports. I'm sure they won't lose out by turning down the hunts fundraiser.

PucaMama · 23-12-2016 10:49PM

Ari Purring Machinery wrote: »

Almost the first page, commiserations.

So, what's wrong with hunting? What's wrong with liking to hunt?

Just so we are on the same page here, there's a huge difference between fox hunting with horse and hound, and hunting in general.

Unless you eat what you kill what's the difference. Do you mean the way the animal dies? I dont care if your running an animal into the ground with a pack of dogs or letting your terrier rip it to bits or hiding in a bush and shooting it, if it's not feeding you or your dogs it's pointless.

anewme · 24-12-2016 12:25AM

So they were going to raise money that help with people committing suicide by holding a hunt where an animal dies in agony?

It was a totally inappropriate to even suggest a hunt as fundraiser - clearly no self awareness whatsoever in this crowd of numptys.

Goya · 24-12-2016 12:32AM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Charities should not turn away donations like this, and make it into a political/ethical thing.

I suppose they will take grants from the Government that is somewhat lacking in looking after the homeless, the disabled and so on.

Double fekkin standards if you ask me.

Only if funding for supporting suicidal people/their families and suicide awareness/prevention is less important than homelessness/disability.

robertpatterson · 24-12-2016 12:36AM

It seems beggars can be choosers after all ...

ChikiChiki · 24-12-2016 12:38AM

Good move by Pieta House. They are all about life and seeing the light. It would be hypocritical of them to take money from a group that deals in barbaric death.

1eg0a3xv7b82of · 24-12-2016 12:47AM

pieta made correct decision. It is well known fact that all the hunt horsey crowd are pretentious assholes as are the coursing and shooting set. Some serious assholes in those pastimes.

anewme · 24-12-2016 12:49AM

they were calling it "Hunt for light"

Such a contradiction in terms.

Says it all really.

jackboy · 24-12-2016 12:50AM

Ember Scarce Mind wrote: »

pieta made correct decision. It is well known fact that all the hunt horsey crowd are pretentious assholes as are the coursing and shooting set. Some serious assholes in those pastimes.

Not true. After that rant you need to look in the mirror.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 24-12-2016 12:58AM

PucaMama wrote: »

Unless you eat what you kill what's the difference. Do you mean the way the animal dies? I dont care if your running an animal into the ground with a pack of dogs or letting your terrier rip it to bits or hiding in a bush and shooting it, if it's not feeding you or your dogs it's pointless.

Well "running an animal into the ground" or "letting my terrior rip it to bits" or "hiding in a bush and shooting it" are quite different. Not sure what type of hunting the first two are, really.

Anyway, there's more than one reason to hunt than feeding yourself or your dogs. Hunting to feed your dogs is a strange one, never heard of anybody doing that to be honest.

Ember Scarce Mind wrote: »

pieta made correct decision. It is well known fact that all the hunt horsey crowd are pretentious assholes as are the coursing and shooting set. Some serious assholes in those pastimes.

The part in bold, what exactly are you talking about in relation to "pretentious assholes"? You are not making a whole lot of sense.

There's serious assholes in all pastimes, what's your point?

PucaMama · 24-12-2016 01:22AM

Ari Purring Machinery wrote: »

Well "running an animal into the ground" or "letting my terrior rip it to bits" or "hiding in a bush and shooting it" are quite different. Not sure what type of hunting the first two are, really.

Anyway, there's more than one reason to hunt than feeding yourself or your dogs. Hunting to feed your dogs is a strange one, never heard of anybody doing that to be honest.

The part in bold, what exactly are you talking about in relation to "pretentious assholes"? You are not making a whole lot of sense.

There's serious assholes in all pastimes, what's your point?

Oh of course you don't know what the first two are. Of course not. Silly me.

Except you do but you want to pretend you don't.

People have fed their dogs on rabbit they have hunted.

Pieta House reject fundraising money from hunt

Comments