any update on TIC TOC . did the rspca persue this?

[Moomin1]

The problem is that it is clearly illegal to beat a dog with a whip. Unfortunately it is not illegal to beat a horse with a whip otherwise every member of every Olympic team would be in court at one time or another.

The defence would say that the horse was being beaten as a punishment for bucking in order to make it safe to sell. Now we all know that's junk, but the Magistrates (who won't be seeing the video, remember because it was obtained by copyright violation) have just seen numerous riders at the Olympics hit their horses, and have to bring in a verdict "beyond reasonable doubt". There's not much chance of that, which is why we'll never, in my opinion, see the Tic Toc case in a criminal court.

It is illegal to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal under the control of man. It is also illegal to allow unnecessary suffering to be caused without taking reasonable steps to prevent it from happening, so videoing such an act whilst standing around laughing falls under that category.

If the whip use was excessive and caused suffering in the opinion of a vet, and that suffering was unnecessarily caused, then an offence has been committed.

For instance, a traveller was recently prosecuted for inappropriate use of the bit whilst breaking a horse in. The horse had sores around it's mouth caused by over use of the bit on a sensitive mouth. He was also prosecuted for causing unnecessary suffering for kicking the horse twice in the flank. He was succesfully prosecuted for it.

 

[cptrayes]

It is illegal to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal under the control of man. It is also illegal to allow unnecessary suffering to be caused without taking reasonable steps to prevent it from happening, so videoing such an act whilst standing around laughing falls under that category.

If the whip use was excessive and caused suffering in the opinion of a vet, and that suffering was unnecessarily caused, then an offence has been committed.

And proving any of that in relation to Tic Toc to a standard to satisfy a court will be impossible, IMO.

For instance, a traveller was recently prosecuted for inappropriate use of the bit whilst breaking a horse in. The horse had sores around it's mouth caused by over use of the bit on a sensitive mouth. He was also prosecuted for causing unnecessary suffering for kicking the horse twice in the flank. He was succesfully prosecuted for it.

That was easy, the evidence was there for all to see. The horse had blood on its mouth during a breaking in process, which is not normal (though I know a non-traveller, pro breaker who does the same ) Kicking horses is also not normal, though far more common. But hitting them with whips is completely "normal", so it would be far less easy to get a prosecution.

 

[Moomin1]

And proving any of that in relation to Tic Toc to a standard to satisfy a court will be impossible, IMO.



That was easy, the evidence was there for all to see. The horse had blood on its mouth during a breaking in process, which is not normal (though I know a non-traveller, pro breaker who does the same ) Kicking horses is also not normal, though far more common. But hitting them with whips is completely "normal", so it would be far less easy to get a prosecution.

It's not normal to use a whip to such an excess though, and if a vet feels that suffering has been caused, then there is a case to answer. Of course, none of us know whether a vet has said this, but I suppose we will find out in time.

It would also depend upon opinions given by an expert in horse training and behaviour, as to whether they felt it was proportionate to behave in such a way. I would think most people would feel it was not proportionate.

Will be interesting to see the outcome.

 

[cptrayes]

It's not normal to use a whip to such an excess though, and if a vet feels that suffering has been caused, then there is a case to answer. Of course, none of us know whether a vet has said this, but I suppose we will find out in time.

But they will have to see the excess, Moomin, and at the moment I cannot see a court giving permission for a video obtained by copyright violation to be produced as evidence. And unless the owner has been able to photograph weals once she got the horse back, and get a vet to confirm that the horse was damaged, there is no evidence that the horse suffered any physical harm.

Will be interesting to see the outcome.

Why do you think that there will be any outcome?

I would be surprised if the RSPCA were spending any "legal-issues" time on it at all, but I'd be very interested if anyone knows different.

 

[Goldenstar]

It willbe interesting to see what happens.
IMO a vet is not qualified to make a judgement of unnessary suffering from just watching that clip.
Vets are not trained to train horses so can really make an informed judgement of course if the vet had seen the horse soon after the clip was taken and seen physical evidence of the hitting on the horse that would be quite different.
It would be easy to mount a spirited defence agaisnt a vet making that judgment It is not yet illegal to behave like a nasty witch and laugh at a bit of very inappropriate behaviour .
However if I was in position of having to prosecute this case I would be looking at a apporiate expert to say why the behaviour in the clip was not apporiate that person would have to be someone who was a expert in the area of horse training with a CV that would impress the magistrates .
If the clip is not admissible evidence I really don't see how there could be a case unless the horse had visible injurys seen very soon after the incident.

 

[Moomin1]

It willbe interesting to see what happens.
IMO a vet is not qualified to make a judgement of unnessary suffering from just watching that clip.
Vets are not trained to train horses so can really make an informed judgement of course if the vet had seen the horse soon after the clip was taken and seen physical evidence of the hitting on the horse that would be quite different.
It would be easy to mount a spirited defence agaisnt a vet making that judgment It is not yet illegal to behave like a nasty witch and laugh at a bit of very inappropriate behaviour .
However if I was in position of having to prosecute this case I would be looking at a apporiate expert to say why the behaviour in the clip was not apporiate that person would have to be someone who was a expert in the area of horse training with a CV that would impress the magistrates .
If the clip is not admissible evidence I really don't see how there could be a case unless the horse had visible injurys seen very soon after the incident.

The fact that there may be a copyright violation will not make the footage inadmissable as evidence IMO. Plenty of youtube footage has been taken to court in similar circumstances with copyright violations, and been succesful.

The fact that a copyright breach may have taken place by the person who provided the footage, is a separate matter.

Goldenstar, it is an offence to allow unnecessary suffering to take place without taking reasonable steps to prevent it or stop it from happening, so the person videoing may well be committing an offence.

For instance, two youths were prosecuted a few years back. One of them picked a cat up and swung it around numerous times by it's tail, before drop kicking it into the road. The other filmed it, whilst clearly laughing for all to hear. Interestingly, guess who got the bigger sentence?..The kid that filmed it! The fact that he was laughing and clearly enjoying what he was seeing did not go down well with the magistrate!

 

[Goldenstar]

But they would have to prove suffering and that's going to be hard bit here.
Without physical evidence ( assuming there is none) and without the clip, no case .
With the clip mmm very difficult to see it happening as I said I can see several routes to a spirtited defence .The expert for the prosecution would have to be a great performer in court but I do think it could be done.

 

[cptrayes]

The fact that there may be a copyright violation will not make the footage inadmissable as evidence IMO. Plenty of youtube footage has been taken to court in similar circumstances with copyright violations, and been succesful.

Can you point some out to me? The same as in this case:

- where the video was taken by a person who will be prosecuted for the offence

- where the alleged offence took place on private property,

- where there were no indipendent witnessed to the event at all

- where the abuse was an escalation of behaviour that is experienced by thousands of animals everyday, some in very public view (eg racing, cross country)

 

[Moomin1]

But they would have to prove suffering and that's going to be hard bit here.
Without physical evidence ( assuming there is none) and without the clip, no case .
With the clip mmm very difficult to see it happening as I said I can see several routes to a spirtited defence .The expert for the prosecution would have to be a great performer in court but I do think it could be done.

We don't know for one minute there isn't physical evidence.

Just to also point out (my memory evaded me in my last post), that the cat involved in the case I pointed out above, was actually completely uninjured and there was no physical evidence of harm.

The case of unnecessary suffering was proven by a vet's opinion as to the mental suffering and distress caused. The RSPCA then proved that the mental suffering and distress was unnecessary and disproportionate (the defence argued that the cat 'scratched' one of the children ).

 

[cptrayes]

We don't know for one minute there isn't physical evidence.

Just to also point out (my memory evaded me in my last post), that the cat involved in the case I pointed out above, was actually completely uninjured and there was no physical evidence of harm.

The case of unnecessary suffering was proven by a vet's opinion as to the mental suffering and distress caused. The RSPCA then proved that the mental suffering and distress was unnecessary and disproportionate (the defence argued that the cat 'scratched' one of the children ).

But that's easy moomin.

It isn't in any way normal to pick a cat up and swing it round by its tail.

It's completely normal to hit a horse with a whip when you are riding it.

 

[Moomin1]

Can you point some out to me? The same as in this case:

- where the video was taken by a person who will be prosecuted for the offence

- where the alleged offence took place on private property,

- where there were no indipendent witnessed to the event at all

- where the abuse was an escalation of behaviour that is experienced by thousands of animals everyday, some in very public view (eg racing, cross country)

The case I pointed out above with regards the cat ticks all of those boxes apart from the last one.

And IMO, the last one does not give a reasonable defence to an act which is disproportionate to the circumstances, which is prolonged, and which in a vet's opinion caused suffering, mental or physical.

But I don't know CPTrayes, we will all have to wait and see.

 

[Moomin1]

But that's easy moomin.

It isn't in any way normal to pick a cat up and swing it round by its tail.

It's completely normal to hit a horse with a whip when you are riding it.

It isn't completely normal to repeatedly whip a horse to excess when there is no valid reason ie self defence, and to cause suffering by doing so.

 

[Goldenstar]

We don't know for one minute there isn't physical evidence.

Just to also point out (my memory evaded me in my last post), that the cat involved in the case I pointed out above, was actually completely uninjured and there was no physical evidence of harm.

The case of unnecessary suffering was proven by a vet's opinion as to the mental suffering and distress caused. The RSPCA then proved that the mental suffering and distress was unnecessary and disproportionate (the defence argued that the cat 'scratched' one of the children ).

Yup but in the training enviroment it's a different case , I have no intention of posting the defence routes I would go down but as I say I see where they are and although I have no personal knowledge of these dealers I have read the threads and I think there's every chance they are well able to see those routes too.

 

[cptrayes]

And IMO, the last one does not give a reasonable defence to an act which is disproportionate to the circumstances, which is prolonged, and which in a vet's opinion caused suffering, mental or physical.

But you have to PROVE the horse suffered and that's going, in my opinion, to be impossible

But I don't know CPTrayes, we will all have to wait and see.

Why do you keep saying this?

If you are aware that the case is being pursued I would question whether you should be posting about it.

If you are not, then I think you are waiting in vain.

In fact whatever happens, I think you are waiting in vain.

 

[Goldenstar]

It isn't completely normal to repeatedly whip a horse to excess when there is no valid reason ie self defence, and to cause suffering by doing so.

Prove in law it's too excess prove and there's no valid reason and , prove that suffering was caused.
That why your expert witness would have to be a big hitter , some vet would just not hack it .

 

[Moomin1]

Prove in law it's too excess prove and there's no valid reason and , prove that suffering was caused.
That why your expert witness would have to be a big hitter , some vet would just not hack it .

It is not down to the vet in any welfare case to say whether the suffering was unnecessary, that is down to the RSPCA to prove, and if that involves the help of a respected and qualified horse trainer, then so be it..wouldn't be too difficult to find some of them.

It is purely whether the animal has suffered (not whether it was necessary or unnecessary) which is down to the vet. They need not get involved any further. So the vet would not have any say in whether the act of whipping was justifiable or proportionate.

Remember, the defence would have to provide a pretty justifiable reason why that horse was being repeatedly whipped over a prolonged period of time, with no obvious reason being shown in the footage - the horse stops on a number of occassions and stands quietly, but the rider starts up again, for no apparent reason. I think it would be pretty hard for them to justify that.

But like I say, who knows - maybe nothing is going to happen at all, we shall have to wait and see.

 

[cptrayes]

Yup but in the training enviroment it's a different case , I have no intention of posting the defence routes I would go down but as I say I see where they are and although I have no personal knowledge of these dealers I have read the threads and I think there's every chance they are well able to see those routes too.

Me too. I don't think it will be at all difficult for them to find an old-school trainer with 50 years or more experience who will tell you that it is a very effective strategy to hit a bucker until it stops bucking and moves forwards off the last hit. What's more, I'd bet you that with a jockey who can actually sit it, and a horse who genuinely was a confirmed bucker, it's a strategy that really does work. Disclaimer - this does not indicate that I approve!

And the problem with that is that the court will be completely unable to tell that Tic Toc was not one of those horses. If they put his previous owner in the witness box, all that is going to have to be said to demolish her evidence as to how nice he was totally is to ask why she was so desperate to get rid of the horse if there was nothing wrong with it.

I mean no offence to the owner by that, it's just how courts work, so don't shoot the messenger folks.


All the defence needs is to sew the seeds of doubt, and I can see where they'd find a sackful.

 

[Moomin1]

But you have to PROVE the horse suffered and that's going, in my opinion, to be impossible



Why do you keep saying this?

If you are aware that the case is being pursued I would question whether you should be posting about it.

If you are not, then I think you are waiting in vain.

In fact whatever happens, I think you are waiting in vain.

Anyway, I won't post again, as there's no point - none of us know, and won't know for a while even if something is being done. I suppose the owner would know, so unless she/he is willing and able to enlighten us then there's not much point speculating.
Not quite sure why you are getting so uppity towards me CPtrayes, I am merely pointing out that I think it could be a worthwhile thing to pursue, but I say I don't know, because, err, well, I don't know!! I am not psychic, I don't know what's happening, if anything, with this case.

Whether I am waiting in vain is my business, is it not? And if I choose to positively hope that action is taken, then that is my business too? Am I not allowed to have an opinion on what I think should happen?

 

[cptrayes]

Remember, the defence would have to provide a pretty justifiable reason why that horse was being repeatedly whipped over a prolonged period of time, with no obvious reason being shown in the footage - the horse stops on a number of occassions and stands quietly, but the rider starts up again, for no apparent reason. I think it would be pretty hard for them to justify that.
.

They don't actually. It's for the prosecution to prove that it was unreasonable.

Your definition of "prolonged" is different from mine, the incident lasted only seconds.

 

[lamehorse]

just want to say that a lad down the yard , half kicked his massive dog just once , very lightly, for chasing the horses, woman who hates him reported him to the rspca , who went round his house the next morning and demanded to see the dog !! he denied kicking it ( he really didnt KICK it , not that it would have noticed anyway ) but the inspector was thorough and gave him a warning !!! this happened only a couple of months back . so , yes , i would be surprised if the rspca wernt interested at all !

 

[Goldenstar]

It is not down to the vet in any welfare case to say whether the suffering was unnecessary, that is down to the RSPCA to prove, and if that involves the help of a respected and qualified horse trainer, then so be it..wouldn't be too difficult to find some of them.

It is purely whether the animal has suffered (not whether it was necessary or unnecessary) which is down to the vet. They need not get involved any further. So the vet would not have any say in whether the act of whipping was justifiable or proportionate.

Remember, the defence would have to provide a pretty justifiable reason why that horse was being repeatedly whipped over a prolonged period of time, with no obvious reason being shown in the footage - the horse stops on a number of occassions and stands quietly, but the rider starts up again, for no apparent reason. I think it would be pretty hard for them to justify that.

But like I say, who knows - maybe nothing is going to happen at all, we shall have to wait and see.

As I say I can several routes they could go down maybe my mind is just more open than yours .
And remember the greater burden of proof is always on the prosecution.

 

[cptrayes]

Not quite sure why you are getting so uppity towards me CPtrayes, I am merely pointing out that I think it could be a worthwhile thing to pursue, but I say I don't know, because, err, well, I don't know!! I am not psychic, I don't know what's happening, if anything, with this case.

Whether I am waiting in vain is my business, is it not? And if I choose to positively hope that action is taken, then that is my business too? Am I not allowed to have an opinion on what I think should happen?

Oh come on Moomin, all Goldstar and I are doing is discussing your point of view and putting our own. Uppity? Can't see where you got that from, sorry

 

[Moomin1]

They don't actually. It's for the prosecution to prove that it was unreasonable.

Your definition of "prolonged" is different from mine, the incident lasted only seconds.

One final post from me, as I said before I don't see the point in this discussion anymore.

But for some strange reason, you seem to actually advocate what is going on in the footage?

 

[shellonabeach]

If I remember rightly the owner said that the horse was inspected by a vet once they had got him back from the dealer and that he had wheal marks from the whip...

Hence a second youtube video from said dealer (now long gone) claiming to be of tic toc to show there were no marks...

 

[cptrayes]

One final post from me, as I said before I don't see the point in this discussion anymore.

But for some strange reason, you seem to actually advocate what is going on in the footage?

No, I have made it very clear that I do not approve.

But that is a very far cry from:

- believing that it would be a worthwhile use of RSPCA resources to prosecute this case, of a few seconds of abuse which was over long ago, even if they could win.

- believing that there is a cat in hell's chance of a prosecution succeeding.

 

[Goldenstar]

If I remember rightly the owner said that the horse was inspected by a vet once they had got him back from the dealer and that he had wheal marks from the whip...

Hence a second youtube video from said dealer (now long gone) claiming to be of tic toc to show there were no marks...

Yup but the length of time between the clip and the vets inspection would make it difficult to prove when the wheals got there .

 

[cptrayes]

If I remember rightly the owner said that the horse was inspected by a vet once they had got him back from the dealer and that he had wheal marks from the whip...
.

And it's going to be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any marks on the horse were due to being beaten at that yard, after a delay of at least a day (two?) and transporting the horse from one yard to the other.

 

[lamehorse]

well considering the lad said he was just pushing the dog with his foot to get it to move away and into the car , AND it was the womans word against his and she absolutely hates him , all of this explained to the inspector , the inspector took it very seriously indeed . in fact we all couldnt believe it . so HE could have been prosecuted if the inspector had had proof ( like the woman had videod it !! ) . cant be different for mrs dealer lady , who was clearly having a laugh and nothing more .

 

[Goldenstar]

well considering the lad said he was just pushing the dog with his foot to get it to move away and into the car , AND it was the womans word against his and she absolutely hates him , all of this explained to the inspector , the inspector took it very seriously indeed . in fact we all couldnt believe it . so HE could have been prosecuted if the inspector had had proof ( like the woman had videod it !! ) . cant be different for mrs dealer lady , who was clearly having a laugh and nothing more .

There was a witness in the dog case , but blagging your way into someone's house and given them a "warning"is a long long way from prosecuting the man .
All the man had to do was stand on his doorstep refuse to let the officer in .

 

[luckyoldme]

this all sounds so like a dealer in durham..they got him in the end by numerous court cases against him. One for selling a horse with a broken pelvis . I had dealings with him.