Fake LeAGUE Outrage Over Mod Hunts

In December 2022, Ben Wallace, then Defence Secretary, made headlines when he revoked a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that had granted the League Against Cruel Sports access to details of hunting dates on Ministry of Defence (MoD) land. The League claimed that this move would “ensure hunts’ activities on MoD land cannot be scrutinised” by its monitors. However, a closer examination reveals that the League’s protestations may have been disingenuous.

A month before Wallace’s controversial decision, the League Against Cruel Sports had already made their investigation team redundant. This decision signalled a strategic withdrawal from actively scrutinising hunts across MoD land—and, indeed, across England and Wales. Despite the League’s public outcry, the organisation had already decided to forgo any genuine effort in monitoring hunting activities.

The League’s response to Wallace’s revocation of the MoU was framed as a betrayal of their mission to ensure transparency and accountability. Their public statement condemned the loss of access to crucial data, portraying the Defence Secretary’s decision as an obstruction to their anti-hunting efforts. According to their announcement, the revocation was a grave setback that would undermine their ability to scrutinise hunts operating on MoD land.

Yet, this stance comes into sharp focus when considering that, just a month earlier, the League had disbanded their investigation team. This move effectively ended their capacity to investigate and report on hunts, rendering their claims of outrage and betrayal somewhat hollow. The League’s public statements suggested a vigorous campaign against hunting on MoD land, but their actions—or lack thereof—reveal a different narrative.

This situation raises serious questions about the League’s commitment to their cause. By publicly condemning Wallace’s decision while privately withdrawing from investigative work, the League appears to have been more concerned with maintaining an image of activism rather than genuinely engaging in it. Their campaign against hunting on MoD land, therefore, seems less about actual scrutiny and more about creating a façade of opposition to satisfy their supporters.

The League Against Cruel Sports has been criticised for adopting a strategy of public outrage without substantive action. Their response to Wallace’s decision, while certainly reflecting a genuine setback in terms of access to information, also highlights a troubling pattern of using such setbacks as a smokescreen for their own strategic withdrawals. The charity’s failure to maintain an investigation team—despite their continued public statements—suggests a prioritisation of appearances over effective activism.

In this context, Ben Wallace’s revocation of the MoU, while undeniably dishonest in its own right, should be viewed alongside the League’s own misleading public stance. Both the League and the Defence Secretary’s decision reflect a broader issue of transparency and accountability. The League’s actions reveal a disheartening disconnect between their public statements and their actual practices.

As the debate over hunting on MoD land continues, it is crucial for supporters and observers alike to critically assess the motives and actions of all parties involved. The League Against Cruel Sports must address these discrepancies to restore trust and demonstrate a genuine commitment to their mission, rather than merely projecting the appearance of activism.