Cannot believe what I just saw on BBC1

I am essentially sympathetic towards the students, for their demonstration. However, throwing fireworks at poor animals is despicable and by behaving like this, people will soon become unsympathetic towards them and their yobbish behaviour. The police officer was trying to make his horse go forwards, a police horse that runs away and is out of control, is no good, and he couldn't let it get away with it or it could kill someone.
 
JanetGeorge said:
Can't agree - having seen police horses used in front of a line of officers on more than one occasion! MOST people are somewhat intimidated by even a single large horse - whereas a police officer on foot is just a person! MOST demo crowds will hold back faced with even 2-3 police horses.

The other advantage is that the officers on horseback have a vantage point that the officers on foot don't have. They can see where pockets of trouble-makers are gathering - and see what they're doing - and warn other officers accordingly.



Yes these are valid points but once you have lost the intimidation factor and ride at a packed crowd, you are in big trouble. If the crowd cannot move back you create a crush situation and turn your protestors (protesting is legal) into a riot as people who would not normaly turn to violence,try to defend themselves. The first result is that a lot of people get badly hurt. The next result is that the horses get stopped in their tracks,isolated and then the riders get attacked by a now angry mob. A lone rider ,stationary ,even with his big batton is no match for a crowd. If you dont believe me ,look at the old footage of the Grosvenor Square riot! It seems that so many of the hard lessons of 1968 have been forgoten. The Met dont seem to have forgoten though. At the CA protest the Mounted officers were kept back away from the cordon ,in a tight rank ready to move forward as a concerted body . Had they been used they would have moved slowly as a rank using every ounce of their intimidtion factor .Compare that with this video and you will see why I think the horses shouldnt have been there.
Click to expand...
 
Mike007 said:
JanetGeorge said:
Can't agree - having seen police horses used in front of a line of officers on more than one occasion! MOST people are somewhat intimidated by even a single large horse - whereas a police officer on foot is just a person! MOST demo crowds will hold back faced with even 2-3 police horses.

The other advantage is that the officers on horseback have a vantage point that the officers on foot don't have. They can see where pockets of trouble-makers are gathering - and see what they're doing - and warn other officers accordingly.
Click to expand...

Yes these are valid points but once you have lost the intimidation factor and ride at a packed crowd, you are in big trouble. If the crowd cannot move back you create a crush situation and turn your protestors (protesting is legal) into a riot as people who would not normaly turn to violence,try to defend themselves. The first result is that a lot of people get badly hurt. The next result is that the horses get stopped in their tracks,isolated and then the riders get attacked by a now angry mob. A lone rider ,stationary ,even with his big batton is no match for a crowd. If you dont believe me ,look at the old footage of the Grosvenor Square riot! It seems that so many of the hard lessons of 1968 have been forgoten. The Met dont seem to have forgoten though. At the CA protest the Mounted officers were kept back away from the cordon ,in a tight rank ready to move forward as a concerted body . Had they been used they would have moved slowly as a rank using every ounce of their intimidtion factor .Compare that with this video and you will see why I think the horses shouldnt have been there.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with you Mike. Let's hope that lessons are learned from this incident.
 
Mike007 said:
The Met dont seem to have forgoten though. At the CA protest the Mounted officers were kept back away from the cordon ,in a tight rank ready to move forward as a concerted body . Had they been used they would have moved slowly as a rank using every ounce of their intimidtion factor .Compare that with this video and you will see why I think the horses shouldnt have been there.
Click to expand...

Actually, there were parts of the CA protest where they DID try to use police horses. A couple of them had their girths undone and I think one was unbridled! It was silly to use police horses against hunting people as there was NO intimidation factor at all!

The main problem with the policing of THIS protest was that the police under-estimated the trouble there was likely to be. There weren't enough police horses at the trouble spots!
 
Is this still raging on??

They showed the horse on Points West. He's fiiiiine. I'm sure they won't make that mistake again seeing as this thread was top in H&H this week....
 
JanetGeorge said:
Actually, there were parts of the CA protest where they DID try to use police horses. A couple of them had their girths undone and I think one was unbridled! It was silly to use police horses against hunting people as there was NO intimidation factor at all!

The main problem with the policing of THIS protest was that the police under-estimated the trouble there was likely to be. There weren't enough police horses at the trouble spots!
Click to expand...

AAAH,JanetGeorge ,you have just explained a mystery to me!. I have been concerned about a perceived over reaction by a certain officer concerning a lad who patted his horse, and had his arm broken. Possibly the officer thought he was going to slip the bridle off. Explains a lot ,and yes those battons are lethal.
 
mymare said:
You said it was illegal to whip a horse in Scotland, which, quite frankly, is a load of b****cks. I asked you to provide evidence and you couldn't. If you can't back up your airy fairy farty comments then I suggest you keep schtum.
Click to expand...

I said it was an offence to whip horses as a punishment.

I listed the Act. I quoted the guidance to the Act (which you edited in your response. That you don't choose to believe it and can't be a**ed to look it up is your problem, not mine. If you can't make a civil response then I suggest it is you who should keep schtum.

However, for the hard of understanding, the Act is The Animal Welfare (Scotland) Act as I previously advised. The guidance note is Code of Practice for the Welfare od Equidae, and the unedited paragraph (58, just to help you along) states:

It is an offence to cause an animal unnecessary suffering; therefore, any discipline should be
appropriate, timely, reasonable and proportionate. A whip or a stick should only be used as
an additional aid, not as a means of punishment. Similarly any restraint method used to assist
normal management or treatment of the animal should be the most mild and effective
method available and should be applied by a competent person only for the minimum
period necessary. Sedatives must only be used under veterinary advice. Roundpens and
small electrified fenced areas should not be used to discipline animals and are not suitable
for keeping them in for long periods of time.

So if you feel like calling me a liar again, can I suggest you check your facts. And I would also suggest you stop beating your horses. It is now an offence.

Of course I could have made all this up. Maybe you should check it out.:rolleyes:
 
Mike pokes head over trench, This is law ,the key words are should and must. They are very different. Should does not imply an imperative whereas "must " does.So no, it is not illegal to whip a horse as punnishment , whereas to use sedatives other than under veterinary guidance is.Mike dives back into trench and starts digging.
 
Mike007 said:
Mike pokes head over trench, This is law ,the key words are should and must. They are very different. Should does not imply an imperative whereas "must " does.So no, it is not illegal to whip a horse as punnishment , whereas to use sedatives other than under veterinary guidance is.Mike dives back into trench and starts digging.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike.
 
mymare said:
"A whip or a stick should be used as an additional aid.." .
Click to expand...

Think you forgot the only didn't you? Kinda changes the emphasis somewhat.

Sorry about your horse, but your apparent defense of the pactice and implying I was lying seemed to point in that direction. Apologies for any offense.

And Mike, semantics. The guidance is there to inform how the Act should be interpreted.
 
I can't believe they underestimated the interest the protest would generate! And that there would be people in amongst the genuine ranks of peaceful protesters who were there simply to cause trouble.

I'm seeing daily the results of giving too much voice and power to people who really don't know how to manage it - silly them for also not guessing that their purely unantagonistic intentions would be disrupted by riot-pro's such as turn up to football matches abroad with just the same idea to cause mindless trouble...

And whichever methods are chosen to control crowds, I trust the mounted police to manage their horse utterly professionally. The firework thrower wants scaring half to death like the horse who needed to be persuaded to overcome his natural fear and then punished for following his instincts. T055er, quite literally.
 
Unbeliever said:
Think you forgot the only didn't you? Kinda changes the emphasis somewhat.

Sorry about your horse, but your apparent defense of the pactice and implying I was lying seemed to point in that direction. Apologies for any offense.

And Mike, semantics. The guidance is there to inform how the Act should be interpreted.
Click to expand...

Law and acts have been my bread and butter for a long time but thanks for your input.It is not semantics, law is what is written nothing else.That is how it works.Mike returns to trench....
 
Always amazes me when people who weren't there, are only leisure rather than professional riders, go off on a foot stamping tantrum of righteous indignation

These are working horses, that is their job, backing into a line of officers is not on, a good sharp smack on the but was maybe necessary to bring him back "into his head" and focussed on the job in hand - as much for his own safety as others.

I would have absolutely done the same with my own horse when he was into spin around and run away mode in that crowded situation.

I have absolutely no time for these people who cry abuse every time a horse is smacked - and don't see that sometimes it is necessary.

Should smack the a***hole who threw the firework at the horse - let's see a thread on identifying and punishing him. A year mucking out at an RDA school in just his underpants would do it.

P.S> I love my guys to biits, and almost never smack them, but there are times when a good sharp reprimand is for the good of the horse and safety of the rider.
 
Mike007 said:
Oh B****r,mike dives into trench clutching his tin hat!
Click to expand...

Budge over in there!
n040.gif


Although, with people misquoting legislation round here, I may not stay in the trench long...
 
No Mike - not American, Scottish, maybe that's worse

Today I have...

Taken my son to TaeKwonDo practice
Gone to the feed shop
Shovelled snow
Changed a wheel on the truck
Cooked lunch
Fed all four boys
Cleaned a couple of stables
Ridden two of the boys
Taken my daughter out for a long hack in the woods in the snow with her 3 year old
Shovelled more snow
Gone to Tesco
Cooked prawn & egg & chilli stir fried rice for tea
Made soup for tomorrow
Made a batch of bread
Got kids off to bed

And now having 10 -20 minuites for meself!!!

And this thread, with lots of pratiness caught my eye!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top