SilverLinings
Well-Known Member
There is an H&H article on the outcome of a case of extreme neglect of 10 horses; they were in filthy stables several feet deep, had no water, light or adequate ventilation and in at least one case hadn't left the stable for two years (according to the owner). Four were subsequently PTS but the others have been/are being rehomed.
Sadly the owner 'feels no particular remorse', but even so their age (70) was accepted as mitigation. There are plenty of posters on here who are 68 (the age this woman would have been when the neglect had already started) or over who look after their horses just as well - and possibly even better - than those under 68, so why do courts accept that as mitigation? I can't claim a state pension until I'm 68 so are they saying that one day you are expected to be fit and responsible enough to hold down a job, but the day you turn 68 you can't be expected to look after an animal properly?
There is no mention in the article of the woman having health or mobility problems, but para riders look after their horses adequately so that IMO shouldn't be an excuse either. If you truly can't look after your animal for physical or financial reasons then isn't it your responsibility to rehome them (or PTS)?
With the exception of psychological illnesses where someone cannot understand the impact of their actions on the animals in their care, is it acceptable for any personal circumstances to be accepted in mitigation in a court case for extreme animal cruelty?
The article in full:
Sadly the owner 'feels no particular remorse', but even so their age (70) was accepted as mitigation. There are plenty of posters on here who are 68 (the age this woman would have been when the neglect had already started) or over who look after their horses just as well - and possibly even better - than those under 68, so why do courts accept that as mitigation? I can't claim a state pension until I'm 68 so are they saying that one day you are expected to be fit and responsible enough to hold down a job, but the day you turn 68 you can't be expected to look after an animal properly?
There is no mention in the article of the woman having health or mobility problems, but para riders look after their horses adequately so that IMO shouldn't be an excuse either. If you truly can't look after your animal for physical or financial reasons then isn't it your responsibility to rehome them (or PTS)?
With the exception of psychological illnesses where someone cannot understand the impact of their actions on the animals in their care, is it acceptable for any personal circumstances to be accepted in mitigation in a court case for extreme animal cruelty?
The article in full:
‘A really sad case’: horses had to be dug free from stables – one had not been out for two years - Horse & Hound
The owner of horses who had to be dug out of their “cramped and dirty” stables – including one who had not been outside for two years – has been banned from keeping equids indefinitely. Dianne Pearson, 70, of Sowerby Bridge, West Yorkshire, was sentenced at Kirklees Magistrates’ Court on 16...
www.horseandhound.co.uk