Kemi Badenoch was last night savaged for supporting a hunt that has a member being probed over an alleged fox-killing by hounds.
Footage of the apparent incident – deemed too distressing for Mirror to publish – emerged as Ms Badenoch prepares for her keynote speech at the Tory party conference. It shows a huntsman climbing into woodland near the village of Lower Swell, Gloucestershire, to recover the body of a fox on the morning of Friday, September 18, then running off with it.
Article continues below
Blood and internal fox body parts were found at the scene.
Article continues below
The man is a member of the Heythrop Hunt – a group whose fundraiser Ms Badenoch spoke at in January.
She used her speech to criticise Labour’s proposed ban on trail hunting, in which hounds follow a pre-laid scent trail. The ban was put forward amid fears that trail hunting was used as a smokescreen for genuine fox hunting.
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. More info
The top Tory said: “A ban is completely the wrong priority for the country, and the Conservatives would oppose it. This is not about animal welfare; it is a political gesture driven by pressure from a small group of hard-left MPs.”
The British Hound Sports Association, hunting’s governing body, confirmed to us yesterday that it was probing the Heythrop member.
Article continues below
A spokesman said: “We will review the footage and seek an account from those present to establish the facts.
“The BHSA requires all recognised hunts and its members to comply with the law and its core principles and rules.
“Any evidence of suspected unlawful activity is a matter for the police to assess.” It is not the first time Heythrop Hunt members have been suspected of illegal activity. In 2012, two were convicted of hunting foxes illegally, in a prosecution brought by the RSPCA.
Article continues below
Labour MP Ruth Jones MP said: “Kemi Badenoch saying the ban is unnecessary only shows how out of touch she is with public opinion. Over 80% of the general public, including farmers and rural communities support a ban on fox hunting. It is cruel and barbaric.”
Fellow Labour MP Irene Campbell said of Ms Badenoch supporting the Hunt: “This certainly does not bode well for the future of animal welfare in the UK, and perhaps indicates the path the Tories may be taking us down.”
Rowan Hughes of the Hunt Saboteurs Association, which obtained the Lower Swell video, said: “Every week we hear from rural people who want to bring an end to hunting. Rural communities are far from being united by a love of animal cruelty and blood sports, that is just a vocal minority.”
Article continues below
Emma Slawinski, Chief Executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, said: “The government is absolutely right to strengthen fox hunting laws and to ban trail hunting.” Defra is currently weighing up the responses to a public consultation on a trail hunting ban.
Gloucestershire Constabulary said a rural crime officer was told of the Lower Swell allegation. The Tory party declined to comment.
Kemi Badenoch Branded ‘Out of Touch’ Over Fox Hunting Stance After Gruesome Video
Kemi Badenoch has come under renewed political pressure after defending her opposition to a proposed ban on trail hunting, following the emergence of disturbing footage connected to the Heythrop Hunt in Gloucestershire. The controversy has reignited the debate over animal welfare, rural traditions and the Conservative Party’s approach to hunting, with critics accusing the Tory leader of failing to recognise public concerns about cruelty to animals.
The dispute intensified after footage reportedly showed a huntsman associated with the Heythrop Hunt entering woodland near Lower Swell and recovering the body of a fox. The incident, which reportedly took place on September 18, has prompted scrutiny from hunting organisations and attracted the attention of police.
The footage has not established a final legal conclusion about what happened or who, if anyone, was responsible for an offence. Nevertheless, its emergence has placed Badenoch’s previous comments about trail hunting under renewed scrutiny.
For animal welfare campaigners, the controversy demonstrates why they believe existing restrictions are insufficient. For hunting supporters, the debate raises questions about due process, rural traditions and whether an individual allegation should determine the public perception of an entire organisation.
At the centre of the political argument is Badenoch’s opposition to Labour’s proposed ban on trail hunting, a practice in which hounds are supposed to follow a scent laid in advance rather than pursue a live animal.
Why Badenoch is facing criticism
Badenoch has previously argued that banning trail hunting would be the wrong priority for the country. Speaking at a fundraiser associated with the Heythrop Hunt in January, she criticised Labour’s proposal and said the Conservatives would oppose it.
Her argument was that a ban would amount to a political gesture driven by pressure from left-wing MPs rather than a necessary animal welfare measure.
Those comments have returned to the spotlight following the reports about the alleged fox-killing incident. Critics say the footage reinforces their concerns that trail hunting can provide cover for illegal hunting with hounds.
Labour MP Ruth Jones accused Badenoch of being out of touch with public opinion, arguing that support for stronger protections for animals extends beyond traditional animal welfare campaigners and includes people living in rural communities.
Labour MP Irene Campbell also expressed concern about the implications of Badenoch’s position for the future of animal welfare policy.
Their criticism has placed the Conservative leader in a difficult political debate. The question is not simply whether hunting should be permitted, but whether the rules governing trail hunting are sufficiently effective to prevent unlawful activity.
However, it is important to distinguish criticism of Badenoch’s political position from evidence that she knew about or supported any alleged unlawful conduct. Her opposition to a ban does not, by itself, establish involvement in the incident under investigation.
What does the footage show?
According to reports, the footage shows a huntsman associated with the Heythrop Hunt entering woodland near Lower Swell, Gloucestershire, to recover a fox’s body before leaving with it. Blood and internal body parts were reportedly found at the scene.
The footage was obtained by people associated with the hunt-saboteur movement and was described by the publication reporting the story as too distressing to publish.
The British Hound Sports Association, which oversees recognised hunting organisations, confirmed that it would review the footage and seek accounts from those present to establish the facts.
The organisation said recognised hunts and their members were expected to comply with the law and its rules. It also stated that suspected unlawful activity was a matter for the police to assess.
Gloucestershire Constabulary was reportedly informed of the allegation, and a rural crime officer was made aware of the matter.
These steps are significant, but an investigation or review is not the same as a finding of guilt. Establishing what happened would require consideration of the available evidence, the circumstances surrounding the incident and any explanations provided by those involved.
Until the relevant authorities reach conclusions, the allegations should be treated as allegations rather than proven criminal conduct.
Why trail hunting has become so controversial
Trail hunting developed as a practice in which hounds follow a scent deliberately laid along a route. Its supporters argue that it allows people to maintain traditional hunting activities without pursuing live foxes.
Critics have long questioned whether the distinction is always maintained in practice. They argue that following an artificial scent can resemble traditional fox hunting and that the practice may make it difficult for authorities to establish whether illegal hunting has occurred.
Fox hunting with dogs was banned in England and Wales under the Hunting Act 2004, which came into force in 2005. The legislation established restrictions on hunting wild mammals with dogs, subject to specified exemptions.
The law does not mean that every activity involving hounds is automatically illegal. The legal position depends on what actually happens, the purpose of the activity and whether the relevant statutory requirements and exemptions apply.
That distinction is central to the debate over Labour’s proposed trail-hunting ban. Supporters believe further restrictions would close loopholes and make enforcement more effective. Opponents argue that a blanket ban would unfairly restrict lawful activities and could penalise people who follow the rules.
The controversy surrounding the Heythrop Hunt has given campaigners a new example to cite in support of their position. Hunting organisations, however, are entitled to argue that allegations must be investigated individually and that lawful activity should not be treated as criminal simply because it resembles an activity that is prohibited.
Animal welfare campaigners demand stronger action
The League Against Cruel Sports has supported stronger restrictions on trail hunting, arguing that the practice can provide a means of continuing activities that would otherwise be unlawful.
The organisation’s chief executive, Emma Slawinski, welcomed the government’s intention to strengthen hunting laws and ban trail hunting.
Campaigners argue that wildlife protection depends not only on having legal restrictions but also on ensuring that those rules can be enforced effectively. They believe the authorities should have sufficient powers to investigate suspicious incidents and hold people accountable when evidence demonstrates that the law has been broken.
The latest footage has also prompted campaigners to challenge the suggestion that hunting enjoys uniform support in the countryside.
Rural communities are diverse. Some residents participate in or support hunting traditions, while others oppose them on animal welfare grounds. Farmers and landowners may also have different views depending on their experiences, local circumstances and attitudes towards wildlife management.
It is therefore misleading to assume that rural voters all share one position on hunting.
The political debate would benefit from distinguishing between the interests of those who participate in hunting, those who live in areas where it takes place and those who campaign for animal protection.
The Conservative Party faces a policy dilemma
Badenoch’s stance raises broader questions about the direction of the Conservative Party.
The Conservatives have traditionally sought to appeal to voters who value rural communities, private enterprise, individual liberty and established traditions. For some supporters, opposition to a trail-hunting ban fits within a broader argument against government intervention in lawful activities.
Other voters, including some Conservative supporters, may regard animal welfare as a matter of principle and want stronger safeguards against cruelty.
The party must therefore navigate competing concerns. Defending rural traditions can appeal to one section of its support base, while appearing dismissive of animal welfare concerns may alienate others.
The issue also presents a challenge for Badenoch’s public messaging. Her criticism of the proposed ban was framed around national priorities and the argument that the measure was politically motivated. Following the emergence of the footage, opponents have argued that animal welfare deserves more serious consideration.
Whether the controversy changes public attitudes towards the Conservatives remains uncertain. What it has clearly done is force renewed attention on a policy dispute that might otherwise have received less scrutiny.
A more detailed explanation of how the party would enforce existing hunting laws and address suspected abuses could help clarify its position.
What would a ban on trail hunting mean?
Labour’s proposal to ban trail hunting is intended to address concerns that the practice could be used to disguise the pursuit of live animals.
Supporters say a ban would make the law easier to enforce and reduce opportunities for illegal fox hunting. They argue that animal welfare should take precedence over maintaining a recreational activity where the distinction between lawful and unlawful conduct is difficult to police.
Opponents may question whether a ban is proportionate, how it would be enforced and what consequences it would have for people involved in legitimate rural activities.
Any final policy would need to explain its scope, how existing activities would be treated and what evidence would be required to establish an offence. The government would also need to consider the practical implications for landowners, hunting organisations, local communities and enforcement agencies.
A clear legal framework would help prevent confusion and ensure that the rules are applied consistently.
The debate should not be reduced to a choice between supporting animal welfare and supporting rural communities. Effective policy needs to consider both the protection of wildlife and the legitimate interests of people whose activities are affected by new restrictions.
The importance of due process
The footage has provoked strong reactions because it appears to show a disturbing incident involving a dead fox. Yet the strength of public feeling cannot replace the need for a fair investigation.
The authorities must establish what happened, examine the available evidence and determine whether any law was broken. If an offence is established, the appropriate legal process should follow. If the evidence does not support an allegation, that conclusion must also be respected.
This approach protects animal welfare by ensuring that genuine wrongdoing can be investigated properly. It also protects individuals from being treated as guilty before the facts have been established.
The same principle applies to the wider hunting debate. Evidence of alleged unlawful activity may support arguments for stronger enforcement, but policymakers should explain why particular changes are necessary rather than relying on one incident alone.
Likewise, defenders of trail hunting should recognise that calls for stronger safeguards cannot simply be dismissed as political hostility towards rural traditions.
A debate that is unlikely to disappear
The controversy surrounding Badenoch and the Heythrop Hunt has exposed a deep divide over how Britain should balance animal welfare, rural traditions and individual freedom.
For campaigners, the reported incident strengthens the case for banning trail hunting and improving enforcement. For opponents of the proposed ban, the priority should be to investigate allegations and punish unlawful behaviour without automatically prohibiting an entire activity.
Badenoch’s position has attracted criticism because she opposed the ban before the latest footage emerged. Her critics argue that the new allegations make her stance appear disconnected from concerns about animal cruelty. Her supporters may counter that policy should be based on evidence and carefully designed legislation rather than reactions to disturbing footage.
The ultimate outcome will depend on the investigation, the government’s legislative proposals and the arguments presented by both sides.
The key issue is whether existing protections are sufficient to prevent illegal hunting and whether any new restrictions would deliver meaningful improvements in animal welfare.
Badenoch now faces renewed pressure to explain why she believes a trail-hunting ban is unnecessary and what alternative safeguards the Conservatives would support. The government, meanwhile, must demonstrate that its proposed changes are clear, enforceable and proportionate.
The debate over fox hunting has endured for years because it touches on competing ideas about tradition, liberty, wildlife and the responsibilities of government. The latest controversy has brought those questions back into focus.
Whatever the final policy, the public deserves a system that protects animals, applies the law fairly and bases decisions on established evidence rather than political accusation alone.