Claim 22dccad6Checked 09 Jul 2026
Strongly SupportedOn the evidence scale
“Other people wanting to hunt foxes does not actually impinge on my personal freedom.”
Reasoning & Evidence09 Jul 2026
In the ordinary legal sense, the claim is supported. The Hunting Act 2004 makes it an offence for a person to hunt a wild mammal with a dog, and its exemptions are framed around the hunter’s conduct and landowner/occupier permission, not around restricting bystanders or people who merely prefer hunting. GOV.UK likewise states that foxes may not be hunted with a pack of dogs in England and Wales. So a third party’s wish to hunt foxes does not, by itself, create any direct legal restriction on another person’s personal freedom; that conclusion is an inference from the law. If “impinge” is meant in a broader symbolic or political sense, the statement becomes more subjective. Sources: Hunting Act 2004 (legislation.gov.uk) (legislation.gov.uk); GOV.UK, “Hunting and shooting wildlife: Mammals” (gov.uk).
From article
It’s difficult. I mean, listen, there are extreme libertarians who argue that all forms of pornography are acceptable, or – yeah, there are some very extreme positions out there. I don’t support those, but I do think that in this country government is impinging, bit by bit, upon our freedoms – and I think that the smoking ban and the hunting ban are two very good examples. I don’t hunt foxes, but if other people want to, that doesn’t actually impinge on my personal freedom.
Sources opened+ 30 search hits considered
| [1] | legislation.gov.uk |
| [2] | legislation.gov.uk |