Clara Mo 3
Active Member
If the person in question doesn't come forward, PM me and I may be able to bring you together so to speak.
Facebook - Horse shot by livery owner
- Thread starter rockysmum
- Start date
If the person in question doesn't come forward, PM me and I may be able to bring you together so to speak.
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
Well, the facts did not actually pan out as you suggest they should have. The SSPCA knew all about it and did not prosecute. And I very much doubt the thief would have returned the dog to a life of hell.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
So was the 'thief' prosecuted? And of so, what was the penalty, because I doubt that there would have been much of a punishment for that 'theft'. Clearly the value of the dog to the owner was no more than its cash value, if that, so the punishment would be the same if higher penalties were allowed.
I really don't understand why you are continuing this discussion. You don't agree, I get that. Are you going to keep coming up with one example after another to try to get me to agree with you? That'll be a bit tiresome for us all.
Last edited:
MerrySherryRider
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I haven't kept up to date with this thread, but just caught these latest posts. If the rescuer claimed that they owned the dog, the abuser would then have to prove ownership, which is not so simple and would be costly. A friend had a cat that visited a neighbour, who then claimed it belonged to her. The police weren't interested and unless he was prepared to take legal action at his own (prohibitive) expense, there was nothing he could do.
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
You don't seem to like people disagreeing with you, do you? I'm afraid that's what happens in a discussion! My example explained a real life situation where we have an uncaring owner (except as regards possession of what she clearly sees as an inanimate object without feelings) and a very caring thief. I was interested to hear how your proposals would cover that situation which is a complete opposite to the case cited in the header.
I thought your petition was to initiate a discussion in Parliament? I have noticed that you don't seem to want discussion on this forum, especially when it does not further your case. A suggestion that the law of tort already covered the problem was dismissed pretty quickly with an "I don't know". How do you test a theory without questioning?
No, the thief was not prosecuted as he/she was not caught and the owner regards her animals as possessions that she owns, no more. Her ponies graze in a sea of ragwort with barely any grass so feeding has to be supplemented with hay all the year round to appease the welfare organisations. Would you like photos? Yet she will not part with the animals.
It is possible to become emotionally attached to possessions without being concerned about things like welfare, except the minimum required by law as that introduces other factors. If the animals appear physically healthy, there is not much the welfare organisations can do. She is known locally as a hoarder who won't part with anything and her animals are "things" that come into that category.
Patterdale
Well-Known Member
*surfaces from multiple pages of hypothetical pedantism*
Sooooo.......has anything happened to the man?
Sooooo.......has anything happened to the man?
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
I don't have any problem with being disagreed with Dry Rot. What I have a problem with is people who go on and on posting the same things that don't move a discussion forward as if in some attempt to make me change my mind.
If you raised something new, I would be happy to discuss, but you aren't raising any new points.
Why are YOU so unhappy simply to agree that we disagree?
If you raised something new, I would be happy to discuss, but you aren't raising any new points.
Why are YOU so unhappy simply to agree that we disagree?
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
Smurf's Gran
Well-Known Member
Dry Rot - who is the dog..is it in need of rescuing ?
Clara Mo 3
Active Member
No, not a thing I understand.
Overread
Well-Known Member
Although the RSPCA have left the site and it sounds like some of the livery people also left; although there's been no update in a long while as to if more have left the site. So at least in the short term business must be down on the site. We also have to wait and see if this remains the case long term - or if this is only a short term change the centre will resume normal operation once the frenzy over this case has died down.
cowgirl10
Member
hi Dan can you pm me plz as I have a number for you... and do not no how to p m on hear thanks
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Please make sure Dan is who he says he is before you hand over someone's phone number!
cowgirl10
Member
it will be my phone number!
Clara Mo 3
Active Member
he has kit's owners number already.
Dry Rot
Well-Known Member
While I was taking the photograph, a couple appeared and I asked if they were taking care of the dog for the owner. I did intend giving the case some publicity because, amongst other things, both my neighbour and myself were fed up with the dog's nightly howling. Yes, I could have taken the dog but my grandfather was a very senior police officer and I was brought up to work within the law, not break it.
The couple said they were nothing to do with the dog and had only stopped to get some water for their car from a water trough as it was over heating. We got chatting and they were told the story about the dog. I then left but had to go a few hundred yards up the road to turn the car. When I passed the site on my return, one of the couple was walking towards the dog with what looked like some food in a paper bag.
Next day, the carer had turned up as usual to feed and water to find no dog. Then all hell broke loose. The owner knows how to use the Press! I got a call from the police and I told them what I have written here. (They already knew the background). The dog has not been seen since -- thank God! The owner is not right in the head. But as the animals always appear to be in good physical condition, nothing can be done. She used to have several dogs but I never saw one of them being walked in all the 12 years she has lived on the site. I am tempted to put up a web site as I have photographs, witness statements, and there is a lot more. In my opinion, the authorities have let the animals down badly but what they can do is limited.
Sorry, CPT, to hijack the thread. But it does go to show that not all owners are caring, in the conventional sense of the word anyway, nor are all thieves cold blooded criminals out for a quick buck.
YorksG
Over the hill and far awa
The problem with using unusual circumstances like the one outlined, is that they are unusual and there will always be anomalous situations, this does not negate the principal of the need for the majority to be protected by the law.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
I hope you get some proper answers to this situation and will be able to put the whole dreadful thing behind you.
Smurf's Gran
Well-Known Member
Jojoc8
New User
He was wanting the number of the lady's number who's horse it was and who's garden it was dumped in...she was halfway through buying the horse
Clara Mo 3
Active Member
That may be the case but he has been in touch with me and said he has what he needs. just trying to stop people wasting their time when he is satisfied he has what he needs already.
cowgirl10
Member
got in touch with him all is well
mrswad
Well-Known Member
All is not as it seems. There was only one innocent party in all of this and that was the horse.
cowgirl10
Member
this morning Leighton got charged with criminal damage. it's going to trial
Clara Mo 3
Active Member
Good !
EstherYoung
Well-Known Member
And if that's the case, then everyone needs to stop commenting their opinion on t'interweb until the trial is over, or we risk the trial falling over.
Goldenstar
Well-Known Member
This is ridiculous of course people don't have to stop commenting .
People directly involved ought not of course .
Very very good news about the criminal damage charge .
Merrymoles
Well-Known Member
Once someone is charged with an offence, the case becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions come into force. A good defence lawyer could argue that those judging the matter, whether magistrates or jury, could be influenced by reading about it, whether in the traditional media or on the internet and some high profile cases have ground to a halt because of this.
Anyone who publishes information about the case - which includes posting on the internet - may found to be in contempt of court.
It doesn't prevent debate of the bigger issue generally but anyone who posts specific information, whether true or false, about the details of the case should be very careful.
Dolcé
Well-Known Member
You said it all really, it isn't about the money/value, it is about the penalty given by the Courts. CPT started the petition following the shock and upset at the beginning of the thread, and the total disbelief of so many that criminal damage would be the only avenue open to the police if cruelty couldn't be proven. I am shocked at the petty arguments being put forward by some, if you don't want to sign it then don't sign it but don't keep blathering on about how wrong it is. It would seem that some have to 'have a go' at every chance they get and knock people, say your piece and just leave it there.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
That'll be interesting. If it goes to a Magistrates Court, the maximum sentence possible, for a spree of severe damage is six months, of which he would serve three. I think he's unlikely to get anything like that for a first conviction, probably a community penalty. So don't get your hopes up for a penalty that you think he deserves, guys, even if he is found guilty, which may be a challenge.