Been thinking folks

jacks_mum

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 March 2006
Messages
17,503
Location
Somewhere else
Visit site
There are no answers to my post below Myjack, so you have obviously missed it or perhaps you are just a man and unable to focus on more than one post at a time...
 

myjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2008
Messages
933
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
see folks ? All MJ does is quote quote quote BUT has there been any facts written down ? I am ignoring it so i dont know

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I do quote. I do so to make my posts clear to people. I have answered questions and have asked people to THINK but I am not asking you to do so as it is evident that you are unable to.
 

myjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2008
Messages
933
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
There are no answers to my post below Myjack, so you have obviously missed it or perhaps you are just a man and unable to focus on more than one post at a time...

[/ QUOTE ]

Then please do re-post it and I'll be happy to answer it.
 

Stella

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 May 2003
Messages
1,084
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because it becomes about property, ego and pride. Its seen time and time again in child protection cases, where children have been systematically abused and neglected. They are very clearly not loved by their parents, but the parents become indignant when they are removed and fight like hell to have them returned, because, they say "no one takes MY kids"!

Also people never have any intention of paying these large bills or fines. Invariably, the recipients of them plead poverty and are ordered to pay 50p a week!

[/ QUOTE ]

If Mr Gray didn't have any intentions of paying then I'm sure he would have gladly signed them over and had it over and done with - thats besides he £1000's he must have spent already.

Do you not believe that there is a chance that Mr Gray is innocent so for that reason alone, he is continuing to fight?

[/ QUOTE ] I take it you don't know whether or not he will receive legal aid. Whether he does or not, it will not have cost £1000s so far!

Also, since he will also be fighting a criminal conviction, he is likely to say he has not abused the animals and wants them returned.
 

myjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2008
Messages
933
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not reposting it, it is a post in it's own right; go find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have searched for it. I have come across 3 of your posts. One of them is to me and I have answered it....

So is there another one which I have missed?
 

Stella

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 May 2003
Messages
1,084
Visit site
MYJACK COULD BE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO EXPRESS THEIR STRONG VIEWS ABOUT JG ON THE BASIS THAT IF TOO MUCH NEGATIVE IS WRITTEN AND SAID, IT WILL PREDUDICE A FAIR TRIAL AND THE CASE COULD BE DISMISSED.

I THINK WE SHOULD STOP RISING TO THE BAIT
shocked.gif
 

Tia

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 January 2004
Messages
26,100
Visit site
Oh I don't think you have used a lawyer for many years Stella? His bill WILL be thousands by now.
 

Stella

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 May 2003
Messages
1,084
Visit site
Maybe, I doubt it yet, but I know I might be wrong. We don't know that he doesn't have legal aid though do we?
 

myjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2008
Messages
933
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because it becomes about property, ego and pride. Its seen time and time again in child protection cases, where children have been systematically abused and neglected. They are very clearly not loved by their parents, but the parents become indignant when they are removed and fight like hell to have them returned, because, they say "no one takes MY kids"!

Also people never have any intention of paying these large bills or fines. Invariably, the recipients of them plead poverty and are ordered to pay 50p a week!

[/ QUOTE ]

If Mr Gray didn't have any intentions of paying then I'm sure he would have gladly signed them over and had it over and done with - thats besides he £1000's he must have spent already.

Do you not believe that there is a chance that Mr Gray is innocent so for that reason alone, he is continuing to fight?

[/ QUOTE ] I take it you don't know whether or not he will receive legal aid. Whether he does or not, it will not have cost £1000s so far!

Also, since he will also be fighting a criminal conviction, he is likely to say he has not abused the animals and wants them returned.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it has cost a huge amout so far and it has all been paid for by Mr Gray.
 

AmyMay

Situation normal
Joined
1 July 2004
Messages
65,903
Location
South
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
Whether he does or not, it will not have cost £1000s so far!

[/ QUOTE ]
It will have cost at least that - and then some by now......
 

Tia

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 January 2004
Messages
26,100
Visit site
I think we can be pretty much sure that he isn't being given Legal Aid. He will be paying his (very expensive) way through these court proceedings. If he wins then he will likely be awarded costs, if he loses he will receive nothing financial along with the punishment deemed worthy of the crime.
 

Paddywhack

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 January 2008
Messages
656
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
MYJACK COULD BE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO EXPRESS THEIR STRONG VIEWS ABOUT JG ON THE BASIS THAT IF TOO MUCH NEGATIVE IS WRITTEN AND SAID, IT WILL PREDUDICE A FAIR TRIAL AND THE CASE COULD BE DISMISSED.

I THINK WE SHOULD STOP RISING TO THE BAIT
shocked.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
Very good point Stella..And he is loaded and does not need legal aid,legal aid is given to poor people,not people that live in Hyde Heath with a £000 000 house and a farm with loads of land worth £0 000's per Acre !
 

myjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2008
Messages
933
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
MYJACK COULD BE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO EXPRESS THEIR STRONG VIEWS ABOUT JG ON THE BASIS THAT IF TOO MUCH NEGATIVE IS WRITTEN AND SAID, IT WILL PREDUDICE A FAIR TRIAL AND THE CASE COULD BE DISMISSED.

I THINK WE SHOULD STOP RISING TO THE BAIT
shocked.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone needs to be encouraged to do anything. They are expressing their strong views themselves. But if you believe so then maybe people should just stick to topic. See OP for details.
 

myjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2008
Messages
933
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
It isn't a post MJ, it is a new thread which JM has posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I wasn't aware amymay was speaking about a different thread.
 

AmyMay

Situation normal
Joined
1 July 2004
Messages
65,903
Location
South
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It isn't a post MJ, it is a new thread which JM has posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I wasn't aware amymay was speaking about a different thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't...........
crazy.gif
 

myjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2008
Messages
933
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
MYJACK COULD BE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO EXPRESS THEIR STRONG VIEWS ABOUT JG ON THE BASIS THAT IF TOO MUCH NEGATIVE IS WRITTEN AND SAID, IT WILL PREDUDICE A FAIR TRIAL AND THE CASE COULD BE DISMISSED.

I THINK WE SHOULD STOP RISING TO THE BAIT
shocked.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
Very good point Stella..And he is loaded and does not need legal aid,legal aid is given to poor people,not people that live in Hyde Heath with a £000 000 house and a farm with loads of land worth £0 000's per Acre !

[/ QUOTE ]

.....and apparently he has all this money and property by buying nice, well built, healthy horses and starving them almost to death - and sometimes actual death? Get a grip PW.

I told you that you no sense to think.
 

myjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2008
Messages
933
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It isn't a post MJ, it is a new thread which JM has posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I wasn't aware amymay was speaking about a different thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't...........
crazy.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

So whee is it then?
confused.gif
 

gloster_image

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 August 2007
Messages
1,421
Visit site
Why on earth would the people in question have gone out of their way to show me the wrong horses disguised as amersham horses? come on this isn't a flipping conspiracy theory!!! The quarantine procedures to see those horses were thick and took a long time! So i don't somehow think they woudl do that just for show!
No i don't know the history of their ownership as they came without passports, do you? Thought not.
This isn't some kind of government conspiracy mate, the facts are clear and simple to those of us who have SEEN the facts, not just read about them!

There are some photos...dated...of spindles farm that are not released to the press you know....those are the photos being used in the court case...FACT.
 

myjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2008
Messages
933
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
Why on earth would the people in question have gone out of their way to show me the wrong horses disguised as amersham horses? come on this isn't a flipping conspiracy theory!!! The quarantine procedures to see those horses were thick and took a long time! So i don't somehow think they woudl do that just for show!
No i don't know the history of their ownership as they came without passports, do you? Thought not.
This isn't some kind of government conspiracy mate, the facts are clear and simple to those of us who have SEEN the facts, not just read about them!

There are some photos...dated...of spindles farm that are not released to the press you know....those are the photos being used in the court case...FACT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know why but no one believes me sobeit.

However, YES I do know the history of those animals and ALL will come out in court.

If people look further than their noses and dig deeper, THINK deeper, the facts becom clear. Anyway, I will not get into the issue of the court case and I'm sure you will understand the reasons why.
 

pinkcatkin

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 November 2007
Messages
1,630
Location
East Anglia
Visit site
I have just read through this entire thread. All I can say is dont bother to continue with this. It is just rerunning all the threads that have gone before with Myjack and previously others defending JG but not able to give any reasons why they are correct.

The truth, hopefully, will come out in the wash. That doesn't mean to say that all of us who worked so hard to get those equines to a better life will be pleased by the outcome. The law is, sometimes, an ass, and yes, there are many people out there in this country who are still allowed to own animals even after a conviction.

Let's be philosophical about this and await the outcome.
 

myjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2008
Messages
933
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
The truth, hopefully, will come out in the wash. That doesn't mean to say that all of us who worked so hard to get those equines to a better life will be pleased by the outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

.....and what if THE TRUTH comes out in the wash and that TRUTH see's that Mr Gray is innocent? will that not please you that the animals had not suffered as they have said to have?
 

Tia

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 January 2004
Messages
26,100
Visit site
JGs solicitor is this lady;

Jacqui is a Solicitor Advocate and is head of the Equine Department. Her interest in this area of law has developed due to Jacqui’s many years of experience with competition horses and in yard and livery business management.


Jacqui is passionate about horses and enjoys training and competing her own dressage horses. She has owned her more experienced horse for 8 years. He is currently competing at Prix St Georges level and Jacqui’s aim is to train him to Grand Prix. Her other horse has been with Jacqui for 3 years and is competing at Advanced Medium level.


As well as riding, Jacqui has considerable experience of veterinary procedures, competition and prohibited substance restrictions, yard and livery business management, all of which are relevant to many topics arising within the area of equine law.


Jacqui has a detailed knowledge of the rules of British Dressage, British Eventing and the British Show Jumping Association and has experience in handling rider disciplinary cases and appeal cases to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
 

spaniel

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 March 2002
Messages
8,277
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some of us saw these horses face to face and there was nothing kind about it. They had been malnourished and mistreated and not for a few days,, for a large period of time. There was a foal who couldn't have been older than a month with no mother as well as other horror stories. Don't assume all of us go on what the press says.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I believe you do believe you saw the animals which were taken from spindles farm. I for good reasons don't beleve you were shown the amersham horses but rather others being portrayed as those. ........


[/ QUOTE ]


Ok now I have it. I was prepared to at least read your posts with a semi open mind and try and look at things from the other viewpoint but this comment has reduced me to hysterics.

You are now consigned to the Nut Job Conspiracy Theorists file.

None of us had even considered that thr RSPCA has a pool of emaciated stand ins for use in these circumstances.....how silly of us not to think of that.

Am PMS here.
 

dozzie

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 November 2006
Messages
8,671
Location
Hampshire
Visit site
Surely the only person who actually knows the truth is Jamie Gray.

Why did the original judge order the horses to be returned? Why was there insufficient evidence to show they would be in danger?

Surely a photograph of 30+ dead horses, with live horses all around them would have been enough? Horses so emaciated they couldn't stand up?

Surely photographs would have been presented in court to substantiate the claims of the RSPCA and the media? Surely if they had that sort of evidence they would have presented it?

If not, why not?

Puzzles me!
 

jacks_mum

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 March 2006
Messages
17,503
Location
Somewhere else
Visit site
Maybe that's what was presented yesterday and that is why the original decision has been stayed? I wouldn't have thought a hearing to decide if the horses went back or stayed where they were was the place to present pics/evidence of dead horses. That is more suited to the cruelty/neglect charges.
 

myjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 January 2008
Messages
933
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe that's what was presented yesterday and that is why the original decision has been stayed? I wouldn't have thought a hearing to decide if the horses went back or stayed where they were was the place to present pics/evidence of dead horses. That is more suited to the cruelty/neglect charges.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surly to god if the rspca were correct in that the animals were neglected by the Grays and would be in danger if returned to them - I'm sure without doubt, on day ONE, that they would have pulled out every shred of evidence they had to stop these animals returning.

THINK THINK THINK.
 
Top