Channel 4 8.30 tonight

VOM said:
Didn't he start with about 50? Then got got to 22, then unbeknown to the lady he took ten for a friend then those went back, so down to 22 again. They seemed to be concentrating on removing the colts, therefore showing attempts to control the breeding.
Click to expand...

i think from what moomin wrote i watched a different programme
 
brighteyes said:
I for one would like the full and unexpurgated version. This was not it.
Click to expand...

It did give a feel for want it's like in these situations trying to find a way through that's gives the best result for the horses on the ground in complicated and difficult messy real life situations and trying to get people to be 'sensible ' and worm not breed more when they singing from a completly different hymn sheet the truth is often many people will probally have tried to influence to stop thebreeding etc and many welfare organisations will have been tearing their hair out over the breeding and lack of worming.
 
whats really sad is that anyone who is feeling out of their depth, due to having taken on too many animals of any kind are now even less likely to ask for help. from what the programme showed non of the horses were 'suffering' or obviously 'ill', the RSPCA offered no help or assistance they just waded in with a we know best attitude and rather than help prosecuted a and who did not stand in their way.

poor fellow and amazinglg kind woman
 
Jools1234 said:
whats really sad is that anyone who is feeling out of their depth, due to having taken on too many animals of any kind are now even less likely to ask for help. from what the programme showed non of the horses were 'suffering' or obviously 'ill', the RSPCA offered no help or assistance they just waded in with a we know best attitude and rather than help prosecuted a and who did not stand in their way.

poor fellow and amazinglg kind woman
Click to expand...

Well a qualified vet seemed to think that some horses were suffering, so did a court of law. So did that Michelle, by her own words in the footage! :rolleyes:

Again, how do you KNOW that no help had been given over many months prior to this being filmed? You don't.

What makes me laugh about this forum at times is, that if somebody posted on here about a similar situation, and the RSPCA had purportedly 'done nothing' and somebody found a dead foal, amongst suffering horses who do not recieve up to standard care, then people would be all too quick to shout about it and say it's the RSPCA's fault that those horses have suffered and died because they didn't step in sooner! :rolleyes:
 
Moomin1 said:
Well a qualified vet seemed to think that some horses were suffering, so did a court of law. So did that Michelle, by her own words in the footage! :rolleyes:

Again, how do you KNOW that no help had been given over many months prior to this being filmed? You don't.

What makes me laugh about this forum at times is, that if somebody posted on here about a similar situation, and the RSPCA had purportedly 'done nothing' and somebody found a dead foal, amongst suffering horses who do not recieve up to standard care, then people would be all too quick to shout about it and say it's the RSPCA's fault that those horses have suffered and died because they didn't step in sooner! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

try reading my post properly moomin i said...'from what the programme showed.....'
 
Moomin1 said:
Well a qualified vet seemed to think that some horses were suffering, so did a court of law. So did that Michelle, by her own words in the footage! :rolleyes:

Again, how do you KNOW that no help had been given over many months prior to this being filmed? You don't.

What makes me laugh about this forum at times is, that if somebody posted on here about a similar situation, and the RSPCA had purportedly 'done nothing' and somebody found a dead foal, amongst suffering horses who do not recieve up to standard care, then people would be all too quick to shout about it and say it's the RSPCA's fault that those horses have suffered and died because they didn't step in sooner! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Haven't read this thread but
A Court of Law only goes on the evidence presented before it............
 
I've not read all the recent posts, although I really do not agree with how the RSPCA chose to deal with this, from how its been portrayed, at least they are paying attention, if his horses started to suffer more and more and they'd been reports and nothing was done I'm sure we'd all be in a rage that they ignored it.

I just wish there was a in between way to deal with these situations you either hear of cases where they go in all guns blazing or not at all. I'm sure they do good work but they need to look at their policies, how matters are dealt with on an individual basis and if there are better options available, as well as staff training for wild ponies, or at least be able to call in another organisation who are much note trained and knowledgeable in such situations.

The joys of TV too its portrayed how a production team want it to be, it really did feel like an unfinished programme.
 
Perhaps it is the manner in which the RSPCA get involved which causes the problem. If they were ever shown, on the TV programmes which they agree to be filmed in, offering help, rather than issuing threats and 'cautions', while pretending to have powers that they do not, then people would perhaps be more understanding of their stand point. If the prosecution were left to the CPS, then one important factor, which does not appear to be considered by the RSPCA, would be, is the prosecution in the public interest? If the public interest tes thad been applied in this case, then this man would never have been prosecuted. The RSPCA actively prosecuted one petshop owner three times, each time resulting in the petshop owner being found not guilty. This was at a time when the RSPCA were publicly calling for the end of petshops selling animals. The RSPCA did gain their closure of the pet shop, as the owner could not face them putting him through the same scenario for the fourth time.
 
Moomin1 said:
And the defence presented before it...

Therefore coming to a conclusion of balance of probability.;)
Click to expand...

What I meant was an actual Court of Law doesn't look at something like a horse & decide if it is being ill treated. Some Judges are wayyyyyyyyy out of touch with reality.
 
singlefarmer said:
What I meant was an actual Court of Law doesn't look at something like a horse & decide if it is being ill treated. Some Judges are wayyyyyyyyy out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

Its usually magistrates that deal with RSPCA cases and IME they where very sensible in cases I was involved in.
 
singlefarmer said:
What I meant was an actual Court of Law doesn't look at something like a horse & decide if it is being ill treated. Some Judges are wayyyyyyyyy out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

The vet who gives an opinion is the expert witness. The magistrates make a decision as to a guilty verdict or not based on the balance of probability taking into account both the prosecutor's and the defendant's evidence. The RSPCA actually offer to pay for the defendant to have a vet of their choice examine the evidence for their defence too. Whether the defendant takes that offer up is up to them.
 
This reminds me of a case in Animal Cop Houston. Where they say when there is clearly no deliberate cruelty, help and education is better than conviction
 
Leviathan said:
This reminds me of a case in Animal Cop Houston. Where they say when there is clearly no deliberate cruelty, help and education is better than conviction
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But when the defendant has been a prolific breeder in past years, I am quite sure he does not need educating on worming and basic care of horses. Plus, when the continuous offer of support and help falls on deaf ears and horses just keep ending up in the same situations or replaced, there may be no other alternative than conviction.

Hoarders are far more complicated than just somebody who requires a bit of a hand tidying there house up the odd occassion....it is a mental illness, and one which is rarely effectively treated to any great success.

Food for thought.
 
Ok, I am not going to say who is right or wrong and what things should have been done differently because frankly I don't feel that enough information has been presented within the 'documentary' for me to make a fully informed decision.

However, from a psychological perspective I would like to have a little speculation as to why Clwyd behaves the way he does.
Firstly it is worth noting that he was not always like that and in fact led a 'normal' life, that was until the death of his 18 year old daughter. This appears to have been the main factor as to why his life began a downward spiral, and is therefore of great significance. He mentions how he had some stock in the Royal Welsh when showing the pictures, this combined with his knowledge leads me to believe that he has been into horses for many years, even before the death of his daughter. Now, his daughter may have been horsey herself. She could have been horsey because of her father, Clwyd, or she could have been horsey and in fact converted him and sparked his interest in horses, we don't know the cause and effect. Regardless I am willing to bet money on the fact that she was interested in horses, and I speculate that due to her passion/interest/love (phrase it as you will) that after her death Clwyd kept the horses for her.
In layman's terms, I'm speculating that his daughter, Hayley, loved horses and after her death Clwyd clung to her through the horses. He wanted to keep her passion alive and be as close to them as possible because to him it felt like a connection to his daughter, much like how parents of a deceased child may cherish said child's favorite football team or something. Parents deal with the loss of a child in different ways however it is a common occurrence for them to cling to the things which the child loved most.
Personally that is what I believe that Clwyd is doing, he is clinging to the horses because they remind him of his daughter and he feels comforted by that, so much so that he has dedicated his life to caring for them. This would also explain his attachment to Michelle who is referred to as a "surrogate daughter".
I also found it extremely interesting when he was showing the pictures of his horses, notice that most of them (if not all) have 'people names' and not typical pet names.

However I could be wrong, this is only my speculation after all.
 
LollyDolly said:
Ok, I am not going to say who is right or wrong and what things should have been done differently because frankly I don't feel that enough information has been presented within the 'documentary' for me to make a fully informed decision.

However, from a psychological perspective I would like to have a little speculation as to why Clwyd behaves the way he does.
Firstly it is worth noting that he was not always like that and in fact led a 'normal' life, that was until the death of his 18 year old daughter. This appears to have been the main factor as to why his life began a downward spiral, and is therefore of great significance. He mentions how he had some stock in the Royal Welsh when showing the pictures, this combined with his knowledge leads me to believe that he has been into horses for many years, even before the death of his daughter. Now, his daughter may have been horsey herself. She could have been horsey because of her father, Clwyd, or she could have been horsey and in fact converted him and sparked his interest in horses, we don't know the cause and effect. Regardless I am willing to bet money on the fact that she was interested in horses, and I speculate that due to her passion/interest/love (phrase it as you will) that after her death Clwyd kept the horses for her.
In layman's terms, I'm speculating that his daughter, Hayley, loved horses and after her death Clwyd clung to her through the horses. He wanted to keep her passion alive and be as close to them as possible because to him it felt like a connection to his daughter, much like how parents of a deceased child may cherish said child's favorite football team or something. Parents deal with the loss of a child in different ways however it is a common occurrence for them to cling to the things which the child loved most.
Personally that is what I believe that Clwyd is doing, he is clinging to the horses because they remind him of his daughter and he feels comforted by that, so much so that he has dedicated his life to caring for them. This would also explain his attachment to Michelle who is referred to as a "surrogate daughter".
I also found it extremely interesting when he was showing the pictures of his horses, notice that most of them (if not all) have 'people names' and not typical pet names.

However I could be wrong, this is only my speculation after all.
Click to expand...

Very interesting reading , the poor man has clearly suffered, bless him :-(
 
I'm not sure I would always agree with that leviathan. The majority of cruelty is done through lack of knowledge rather than deliberately. Of course there are grey areas, but let's say I buy a piglet cos my daughter thinks they are cute. And I keep it on my patio with insufficient food & no shelter, just concrete. Yes, that could be cos I know sweet fa about pigs, but I would argue its my duty to learn the basics beforehand. Or let's say I take on an infoal mare & keep it in the tiny paddock next to my house cos its cute. Until it dies from starvation leaving its unweaned foal, with no company & the few blades of grass that grow. And a lice problem, & worms. And with the foal in poor condition & no shelter its coat is more rainscald than hair. It has feet that have rotted badly because its never known dry ground. It has nothing but scabs over its legs. It has wounds, some healed, where dogs got in the field regularly & chased it. It's pitifully thin & desperate for company, but the now nervous owners tend to hit it with a broom because in its solitary confinement it races at them when they enter the patch it lives on. Few wounds from getting tangled in loose barbed wire. Owners stop even going into see it. It's socialization is limited to the angry regular dog walker, because foal has taken to defending itself from the dog that chases it. So after a few cracks from the dog walker foal goes for him too. And eventually does the same to owners. End result is a mentally & physically screwed up foal. Deliberate cruelty? No. But that doesn't make it ok. Assuming they are able to live independently, anyone taking on the care of an animal has a duty to ensure they have the basic knowledge to do so without being cruel, & the decency to get an experienced 2nd opinion where there is a flicker of doubt. Imo only in a small minority of cases is cruelty through lack of knowledge 'innocent', I find in most cases they are just as guilty as someone who has done it deliberately.
 
He was apparently a successful breeder of show ponies/horses in his day so I agree with moomin that he doesn't need education, I suspect he has forgotten more than many of us will ever know. I do think the RSPCA went about it in the wrong way, whatever the history hinted at by moomin. The prosecution was pointless, if the welfare of the horses was so poor then they should simply have siezed the lot and that would/should have been an end to it. The film of them trying to catch and load the black pony was not inspiring, they just made themselves look incompetent. I would imagine that he is a difficult man to deal with, the tragedy in his life has made him opt out of society and have his horses as companions instead of people. Whatever the history, background etc his story is a sad one and the man deserves sympathy rather than scorn!
 
The horses give him a reason for living. The ones he "breeds" probably provide him with a bit of cash. He's let everything else go since period of personal tragedy. Needs help not persecution. Yes, he's skipping some basic equine management but those horses looked well to me!
 
Littlelegs said:
It's very hard to form a fully informed opinion, when large chunks of information was missing. Such as why did the foal die, how many others have in his care, why wasn't worming done sooner, what previous involvement has rspca had, what were the details of the charges & many more.
While I can't imagine the pain of losing a child, & don't want to try, I don't think its acceptable to say it excuses neglecting animals 24yrs later. Living in filth, not washing etc all are entirely his decision, & not one I'd criticize. But when you also allow animals to suffer, then I'm afraid people will judge you. Unfortunately many people do lose children, & if society then allowed them to break the law because of that for the rest of their lives then I think we'd be in a mess.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
He pleaded guilty so there wouldn't have been a 'trial' as such. The judge just needed to decide what to do with him, which was give him a suspended sentence dependant on him reducing numbers further (I believe). Probably the right result given the guilty plea.

I thought the programme was quite cleverly done, as it's a very difficult subject matter which by its very nature will provoke extreme emotional reactions on both sides, but I thought it was masses too short with many unanswered questions.
 
I think.the blind hatred people seem to have of the rspca is definately clouding the issue. If i kept a horse at your livery yard and left it out, fed it and made sure it had food and water but nevrr wormed, got the farrier out or otherwise looked after it and put it in foal every year you would say i was mistreating it. but because the rspca are involved here thats different is it? Moomin i agree with absolutely everything youve said im glad the voice of reason has found its way onto this thread!
 
Right, I apologise to those I offended, not my intention.

I was harsh to name call, so to put things straight.
I still hold my opinion that others have put down in a better manner. Forget the RSPCA, in this discussion, I am only giving an opinion on the owner. What annoyed me most was firstly that he sat their very smugly whilst his black horse was chased and darted. If he had helped then things would have been down in a much calmer manner for the horse.
Secondly, he took on ten more horses! He clearly knew he should not have done in when he commented about the way the lady was walking towards him looking angry.

Now to level it out, I truly think he has mental health issues, however the death of a child, no matter how devastating, is not an excuse to end up with 52 horses. Surely someone should have stepped in MANY years ago when things starting deteriorating?

Food for thought.
 
My view on what I saw was that this man is overcome and needs help both with the horses and personal living, horse numbers had to be cut down, better care worming/farrier for horses.
The man was spending all his money on them, the lady Michelle who was helping him was going in the right direction why could the rspca just help along those lines and not take to court.
I would like to see the council help him clean his house up ( think they are more likely to rehome him ) I would like to see a follow up to see how he and michelle are coping now.
 
There's no point in the council clearing the property up, proper hoarders just do it again.

Animals, and even more importantly, though not relevant to this situation, children of hoarders are who really need the help and they are usually the only ones worth helping tbh.
 
guido16 said:
Right, I apologise to those I offended, not my intention.

I was harsh to name call, so to put things straight.
I still hold my opinion that others have put down in a better manner. Forget the RSPCA, in this discussion, I am only giving an opinion on the owner. What annoyed me most was firstly that he sat their very smugly whilst his black horse was chased and darted. If he had helped then things would have been down in a much calmer manner for the horse.
Click to expand...

We do not know that he did not offer to help. If he had offered, would the RSPCA have taken up the offer? I sincerely doubt it. My uncle, who farmed all his life, used to tell the story of the swan with a broken wing that the RSPCA man was trying to kill by sawing at its neck with a blunt pen knife. He was outraged as he had killed many geese over the years. But would the man let him help? Not on your life! The RSPCA inspectors are "experts" and they are trained!:rolleyes:

Secondly, he took on ten more horses! He clearly knew he should not have done in when he commented about the way the lady was walking towards him looking angry.
Click to expand...

No he shouldn't have, but he took them for a short period to help out a friend. They were taken away by the owner in a few days as was made clear on the video.

Now to level it out, I truly think he has mental health issues, however the death of a child, no matter how devastating, is not an excuse to end up with 52 horses. Surely someone should have stepped in MANY years ago when things starting deteriorating?
Click to expand...

Agreed. But not an excuse to whom? The man cannot help being ill.

Food for thought.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. I don't really blame the anonymous person who reported him initially either, but the RSPCA come out of it looking smug and stupid and their credibility has sunk to new levels. Instead of wasting time and money on so many "helpers" and expensive legal actions, perhaps they should have followed Michelle's example and done something positive? Do-gooders really make me mad. They always "know best", yet are always the last to actually make a contribution. "Someone ought to DO something". Well, sometimes that someone is us.
 
how long would it take to end up with 52 horses:confused: he can't have been breeding indescriminately and hoarding for 24 years as he'd have rather more than 52 i would imagine, so he must have been controlling numbers somewhere along the lines.
Whilst i agree that something had to be done i still don't think the RSPCA went about it the right way, i sometimes think they need not only more training in dealing with animals but people too! trying to bully a stubborn old man into working with them is never going to work, he will always give them the finger and carry on regardless!

As for his living conditions, think you'd be surprised at how some people do live even in 'nice' houses in 'nice ' areas. OH watched the programme too ,he used to be a coroners undertaker, he's picked up bodies from houses in similar states in the supposed posh areas of Bristol and Bath, people who have been dead for weeks, unnoticed because no one is involved in their lives. A whole section of society forgotten or ignored because they are too difficult to deal with, not worth the effort:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top