Facebook - Horse shot by livery owner

[cptrayes]

Cptrayes, do you have a link to the petition you started?

It's not live yet, they said it would take a week to process it. I'll post a thread when I get it.

 

[fburton]

Mmmmmm. You could probably get him on 'behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress', but it still would only be a fairly minor public order offence with not much of a penalty.

Thanks, cpt - that's what I thought it might be. Oh well.

ETA: I wonder how many horses one would have to kill in that way to "outrage public decency". :frown3:

 

[Overread]

As a matter of interest... If someone took a horse into the middle of a crowded shopping precinct (say) and proceeded to kill the horse using a captive bolt in front of the crowds, would that be a criminal offence?

Slaughter/killing in public places would likely get you hit with health and safety from the angle of infection or contamination. At least when you purposefully brought the animal to that location for the purpose of killing.




Also a big problem in trying to tighten up the laws protecting animals is that on the one count we want to protect pets - but on the other we still want animals for industry (food etc...). The dividing point is often only our relationship with the animal at a personal level - which potentially could be tricky to pin down on paper.

 

[diamonddogs]

That's why I said he was a psychopath a couple of times on this thread. Many people assume psychopaths are insane murderers. Not so. Most are 'normal' members of society.

Exactly. Most wouldn't stick out in a crowd unless you were a mental health expert.

 

[Goldenstar]

Thanks, cpt - that's what I thought it might be. Oh well.

ETA: I wonder how many horses one would have to kill in that way to "outrage public decency". :frown3:

Well this public is pretty outraged .

 

[brucea]

My horse objects to being considered "property"

After all I do invest years of my life and many thousands of pounds in training, caring for, boarding...... I guess it is the difference between value and worth.

 

[Goldenstar]

I think this may never come to court. It seems true that he had a verbal contract that he would shoot any horse where livery fees were not paid. And that the horse was shot humanely. In that case, the dumping aside, no criminal offence has been committed.

In a civil case, he may owe the owner for the value of her horse, but actually I think the loaner will owe it, because she willingly entered into that contract and it was her lack of payment which resulted in the contract term being applied.

There is a possibility of prosecution by DEFRA for the way the horse's body was disposed of, but even if there are grounds it is doubtful that they would consider it in the public interest to prosecute a one off case like this.

So don't hold your breath folks. He's likely to walk away from this scot free, unless liveries desert him in droves and stay away for good, but people have short memories.

You cannot make a contract outside the law .
The law has a process for non payment of livery and abandonment of animals you could sign a contract in blood and it would mean nothing if it's conditions where outside the constraints of English law .

 

[ozpoz]

Psychopaths get away with acts of cruelty because ordinary people waste lots of energy trying to find some justification for their behaviour. In reality, there is no reason for it, other than the fact that they are psychopaths.
I hope the other liveries can understand this and leave.

 

[YorksG]

Exactly. Most wouldn't stick out in a crowd unless you were a mental health expert.

Modern psychiatry does not use the classification of 'psychopathy'. It is more usual to use the ICD10 catagory of Personality Disorder, usually with the sub-type 'anti-social'

 

[rockysmum]

Just random thoughts, I assume Kit was insured as its usually a standard loan condition.

Will the insurance pay out for this? If the person responsible is being changed with a criminal offence then I assume they will.

Perhaps they will be prepared to take legal action against those responsible to recover their costs. They will have the resources to do do so.

 

[Goldenstar]

Just random thoughts, I assume Kit was insured as its usually a standard loan condition.

Will the insurance pay out for this? If the person responsible is being changed with a criminal offence then I assume they will.

Perhaps they will be prepared to take legal action against those responsible to recover their costs. They will have the resources to do do

Interesting thought .

 

[Regandal]

Modern psychiatry does not use the classification of 'psychopathy'. It is more usual to use the ICD10 catagory of Personality Disorder, usually with the sub-type 'anti-social'

They do in Scotland. I visited someone who was classed as having a psycopathic personality disorder, by their consultant psychiatrist. That was less than a year ago. They are however, not classed as mentally ill. It's a very grey area, the more outrageous ones tend to get bounced between custody and psychiatry. No one wants them, strangely enough.

 

[Clara Mo 3]

Just random thoughts, I assume Kit was insured as its usually a standard loan condition.

Will the insurance pay out for this? If the person responsible is being changed with a criminal offence then I assume they will.

Perhaps they will be prepared to take legal action against those responsible to recover their costs. They will have the resources to do do

Interesting thought .

Insurance companies aren't in the business of paying out as a rule, so I guess they will worm their way out of paying - maybe on the basis (if its true, but since when did truth get in the way of a good insurance non-payout) that the YO and loaner had a verbal agreement that if the loaner didn't pay debt the horse would be destroyed.

 

[YorksG]

They do in Scotland. I visited someone who was classed as having a psycopathic personality disorder, by their consultant psychiatrist. That was less than a year ago. They are however, not classed as mentally ill. It's a very grey area, the more outrageous ones tend to get bounced between custody and psychiatry. No one wants them, strangely enough.

Indeed, but Scottish Mental Health Law is not the same as England and Wales, we lost the 'treatability' clause in 2007, still a grey area Mad or Bad? I think the easiest rule of thumb is do they know that the rest of the world would not condone their behaviour, if they know but behave that way anyway, then they are bad.

 

[Clara Mo 3]

It seems crazy in my opinion that the Government of the time (heavily supported by the RSPCA) went to an enormous amount of effort, time and public money spent on changing the law to ban hunting foxes/hares with hounds yet it appears likely that anyone can shoot someone's horse on a whim and get away scot free. So they appear to be placing a much higher value on the life of a wild fox or hare than someone's treasured (never mind the monetary value of said animal) pet ??

 

[cptrayes]

You cannot make a contract outside the law .
The law has a process for non payment of livery and abandonment of animals you could sign a contract in blood and it would mean nothing if it's conditions where outside the constraints of English law .

Is it outside the law, though? If he wants his money back then there is a legal process for him to have to go through. I don't see that it's necessarily outside the law for her to agree to a contract where if she does not pay, the horse is shot? I'm not sure if you are English law qualified Goldenstar, can you say? It would obviously make quite a difference if so. And if so, can you identify what criminal law might he have broken by humanely shooting the horse?

 

[Goldenstar]

Is it outside the law, though? If he wants his money back then there is a legal process for him to have to go through. I don't see that it's necessarily outside the law for her to agree to a contract where if she does not pay, the horse is shot? I'm not sure if you are English law qualified Goldenstar, can you say? It would obviously make quite a difference if so. And if so, can you identify what criminal law might he have broken by humanely shooting the horse?

I think as I said pages ago it's likely to around the criminal damage of the owners property and behaving in an intimidating way to recover a debt .
I am not legally qualified ( my father was a solicitor until he retired ) but anyone who has been trained to run an equine business ought to know how English law works you can't sign away the rights the law gives you you could get a client to sign in blood a contract saying we shoot horses if you don't pay but if that was outside the procedure laid down by the law ,proper abandonment notices etc it would not matter because the law takes precedence over any agreement made .
In the equine industry this is most commonly seen in disclaimers for injury if a yard is negligent a disclaimer is useless because the injured party can't give up the rights the law gives them you can however as a business use a injury disclaimer to prove the client knew the activity was risky and this protects you against people who might claim they had not been warned injury might be caused by falling off a horse , don't laugh but it has been done people suing because they said they did not know riding could result in a fall and injury .

 

[Alec Swan]

Is it outside the law, though? …….. , can you identify what criminal law might he have broken by humanely shooting the horse?

It would be unlikely that any Law, enwrapped within the Statutes of our legal system, has been broken, but I suspect that the owner, or the person responsible for the animal, would have recourse to apply to the Courts for restitution or recompense of their rights.

I'll say it again, the man who's responsible can thank his lucky stars that I'm not the owner. …….. …….. that said, there are those who would judge me for sending my horses off to heaven when they can no longer serve a useful purpose. This frightful man, and it would seem the loaner and probably the owner too, should all consider their positions.

Alec.

 

[Holly Hocks]

I think this may never come to court. It seems true that he had a verbal contract that he would shoot any horse where livery fees were not paid. And that the horse was shot humanely. In that case, the dumping aside, no criminal offence has been committed.

In a civil case, he may owe the owner for the value of her horse, but actually I think the loaner will owe it, because she willingly entered into that contract and it was her lack of payment which resulted in the contract term being applied.

There is a possibility of prosecution by DEFRA for the way the horse's body was disposed of, but even if there are grounds it is doubtful that they would consider it in the public interest to prosecute a one off case like this.

So don't hold your breath folks. He's likely to walk away from this scot free, unless liveries desert him in droves and stay away for good, but people have short memories.

I agree with this. I take it the CPS would be the prosecutor and unless they are pretty sure to get a conviction they are unlikely to take the case any further.

 

[Goldenstar]

I agree with this. I take it the CPS would be the prosecutor and unless they are pretty sure to get a conviction they are unlikely to take the case any further.

The horses owner could certainly take action if they had the means and the will .

 

[Smurf's Gran]

It seems crazy in my opinion that the Government of the time (heavily supported by the RSPCA) went to an enormous amount of effort, time and public money spent on changing the law to ban hunting foxes/hares with hounds yet it appears likely that anyone can shoot someone's horse on a whim and get away scot free. So they appear to be placing a much higher value on the life of a wild fox or hare than someone's treasured (never mind the monetary value of said animal) pet ??

Please don't start a debate on Fox hunting. People are very polarised in their views, with a solid majority not wanting it back (country folk too) and my last word on it is that two wrongs don't make a right

 

[Clara Mo 3]

Please don't start a debate on Fox hunting. People are very polarised in their views, with a solid majority not wanting it back (country folk too) and my last word on it is that two wrongs don't make a right

Not starting a debate ! Just saying it seems rather unfair on pet owners that their pets are placed as so unimportant and lacking in value in this country. Wasn't saying whether hunting was right or wrong in my view.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Not starting a debate ! Just saying it seems rather unfair on pet owners that their pets are placed as so unimportant and lacking in value in this country. Wasn't saying whether hunting was right or wrong in my view.

Best not to mention then

 

[Clara Mo 3]

Best not to mention then

Very sorry indeed. Thought there was perhaps a freedom of thought/consideration. clearly not.

 

[Holly Hocks]

The horses owner could certainly take action if they had the means and the will .

Oh I totally agree, but if it were to get recompense for the loss of the animal, then it would only be civil law. If there were any possibility of getting a criminal conviction and the CPS wouldn't run it, then it's unlikely that the owner would be any more successful at getting a conviction.
Whatever the full story, Kit has been an innocent victim.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Very sorry indeed. Thought there was perhaps a freedom of thought/consideration. clearly not.

There is, but hunting is a subject that gets people cross ( whichever side you are on) bit like politics (and religion)

 

[Clara Mo 3]

There is, but hunting is a subject that gets people cross ( whichever side you are on) bit like politics (and religion)

...And the fact that your horse can simply be shot by some weirdo and there is no law to prevent that makes me cross. So, you can only express a statement of fact if its not to do with politics, hunting or religion...OK, that's fine.

 

[Emma_H]

The RSPCA have made their comment...

R S P C A York and District Branch
3 hrs ·
We have received the following information from the RSPCA Press Office:
"The RSPCA can confirm that it has removed the 12 horses which had been kept at the GG centre.
There are more than 700 horses in the RSPCA's care throughout England and Wales and it is never easy to find new accommodation for them, but these horses were removed as soon as we had new premises for them to go to.
Whilst the horse involved in the dispute was not an RSPCA horse and was put to sleep humanely, meaning no animal cruelty prosecution can be taken, the RSPCA does not condone the euthanasia of a horse for reasons other than to safeguard its welfare."

 

[Smurf's Gran]

...And the fact that your horse can simply be shot by some weirdo and there is no law to prevent that makes me cross. So, you can only express a statement of fact if its not to do with politics, hunting or religion...OK, that's fine.

Not at all, but I think the picture is more complex than that. Debate on here has been strong as it is without muddying the waters making comparisons with topics that get people going.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

The RSPCA have made their comment...

R S P C A York and District Branch
3 hrs ·
We have received the following information from the RSPCA Press Office:
"The RSPCA can confirm that it has removed the 12 horses which had been kept at the GG centre.
There are more than 700 horses in the RSPCA's care throughout England and Wales and it is never easy to find new accommodation for them, but these horses were removed as soon as we had new premises for them to go to.
Whilst the horse involved in the dispute was not an RSPCA horse and was put to sleep humanely, meaning no animal cruelty prosecution can be taken, the RSPCA does not condone the euthanasia of a horse for reasons other than to safeguard its welfare."

Thanks Emma_ H that's good info to have