Another cruelty case even after banning

Penny Less

Penny Less

Joined
10 March 2009
Messages
7,682
Visit site
See on HH news re owner who was banned for cruelty carried on torturing and starving another horse even while ban still in force. I believe this is widespread as no one actually checks up on these people do they once they are banned ? Im afraid Im firmly in favour of an eye for an eye and would like to treat these scum the way they treat their animals, this also applies to people who treat their children badly. I know this probably means I would be as bad as them (Dont mention the hanging debate !) but it incenses me.
 
Have you got the link?

I agree with you, once banned the person/people should be checked on at regular intervals and have spot checks too.
Just like 'life' in prison should mean life!

However, when going down the 'eye for an eye' route, does that not make us as bad as them? Restriction of rights, privileges and freedoms means that they still suffer, just not physically.
 
its in H & H Latest News forum. Yes I did say an eye for an eye probably means being as bad as them, but half the problem in this country is the total lack of deterrent for many crimes.
 
On that I completely agree!
When I think of what prisoners get in jail (I have several friends in the prison service) I think sometimes I would be better off in there!
 
I agree it's terrible that someone who was already banned from keeping horses has allowed another horse to suffer.

The problem is though, how can they really keep tabs on every person that gets given a ban for keeping animals? Considering some people receive life time bans or bans exceeding 10 years, how could they commit to checking up on the person for that length of time? Also, in order to determine that they are keeping horses, surely some kind of surveillance would be required as they may not be keeping a horse at their home address.
 
I know someone who has been banned but still keeps animals. All they do is passport the horses in the names of family members.

Banning does not work. Even public naming and shaming does not work. The only thing I can think of that would possibly work is confiscating grazing land but imagine the red tape etc that would involve.
 
Rosehip said:
When I think of what prisoners get in jail (I have several friends in the prison service) I think sometimes I would be better off in there!
Click to expand...

I disagree, I would never want to swap places with someone who lived in a cell and had no freedom, however nicely carpeted that cell was, however big their tv or decent the food.
 
My OH jokes about robbing a bank - if he gets away with it, brilliant! If he gets caught, pffft never mind, he'd be kept in the lap of luxury for a few years (out early for good behaviour, obvs) and would get to do a degree or 2 in cabinet making for free, a course he cannot afford to take 'outside' as its so expensive :rolleyes: :D
*yells* Go for it honey! I'll wait for you!!! :p
 
She was convicted under two separate names, and possibly two separate locations.... So perhaps a little difficult to keep an eye on her.
 
alma said:
its in H & H Latest News forum. Yes I did say an eye for an eye probably means being as bad as them, but half the problem in this country is the total lack of deterrent for many crimes.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: yes I quite agree with you, there is just no real deterrent whatsoever,:eek:
 
FionaM12 said:
I disagree, I would never want to swap places with someone who lived in a cell and had no freedom, however nicely carpeted that cell was, however big their tv or decent the food.
Click to expand...

With the state of my life and health at the moment, I'd take some of the solitude, tax breaks, free bed and board and private healthcare on the taxpayer thanks very much..... Freedom Shmeedom, they can lock me in 24/7!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top