EXPOSED

I know Finn quite well. the express are only interested in this story cos of the Guiness connection. And as I hear it, there was no proof, despite these are the days of phones with cameras etc. it ended up being one persons word against another and so droping the allegation was the only course particularly as the colt was shown the next day and won, without a sign of a beating. No welts, no fear etc.
It could wel have happened exactly as the OP said but without firm proof dropping it was the only possible outcome. Whitewashing had nothing to do with it.
 
Actually there was a degree of whitewashing.

When the abuse was reported, members were asked to submit statements and any evidence to support the allegation.

The problem with whitewashing arose in the way that evidence was then subsequently dealt with.

It was not a transparent investigation - certain statements and evidence were "mislaid" and not sent on to all members of the Council who were undertaking the assessment of abuse.

So, the "not guilty" verdict was based on an incomplete set of evidence. Whether the verdict would have been the same had the Council had access to all the evidence is something no-one can say. Since no-one knows what was omitted, how can a fair judgement have been made?

Having said that, trial by internet forum and the press has only inflamed the situation and, as you have said chistinao, there will be additional interest purely because of the name of the Chairman of the AHS.

This whole episode has done untold damage to the Breed Society, and possibly, to the continued existence of the British Arabian horse as it is known today.

None of us supports or should tolerate abuse. All of us should support open and fair analysis of evidence. But all of us should make sure evidence is available before condemning individuals and organisations in such a public manner.

Just as the AHS has made a mistake by dealing with this "under cover", so have their detractors made a mistake by dealing with this by "trial by publicity". Neither achieves the desired result - welfare and justice.
 
I believe it was in response to the way things happened.

The abuse was reported on an internet forum. It was unclear if there was any supporting photographic or video evidence. But those who did witness the incident, which happened during the evening after showing classes had concluded, raised it as a welfare issue with the show organisers. It was stated at the time that no further action was taken against the alleged perpetrator because of lack of supporting evidence and the fact that the horse at the centre of the allegation went on to win his class the following day and did not bear any marks of the alleged abuse.

Those who were upset at the incident, and who witnessed the alleged incident first hand, then reported what they had seen on several internet forums and named all the parties they allege were involved.

For several weeks, the whole topic became very heated and emotional and people who weren't at the show and who couldn't possibly have even seen what happened took up the cause and kept the publicity angle going.

As a result, the AHS stepped in to try and calm things down - inviting people to submit whatever evidence did exist so that a decision could be made. The handling of the evidence is where, sadly, the AHS made a mistake.

Suffice to say that neither side has come out of this with any honour or glory.

So, to answer the original question - why didn't they go to the police or the RSPCA, or Trading Standards rather than the internet and the tabloids - heaven only knows! The simple phrase "personal agenda" comes to mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top