Farrier causing deliberate lameless

O

OFG

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 July 2011
Messages
541
Location
South West
Visit site
I hope that the media coverage of Mark Wellfair's actions means that more of his clients leave him and his business suffers as I too think a 3 month ban by the FRC is too leinent. (although would people be worried that if they changed farriers he would take revenge in a simlar way to their horses?)

I am surprised that animal cruelty charges were not brought too, rather than just criminal. The damage and pain he has caused to those horses was deliberate and whether he showed remorse or not he knew what he was doing and the consequences of his actions :mad:

Ironic too that his name is 'wellfair'
 
The Farriers Registration Council are an absolute disgrace imposing such leniency.

A Farrier is entrusted with the wellbeing of horses, it should be second nature to them to use their knowledge in a skilled way to help our horses stay sound and comfotable. This man used his knowledge to deliberately cause great suffering over a lengthy period for those horses and it wasn't an isolated incident.

In all honesty, he should be forced to seek a new career. If he valued the time he spent training and his client base, he wouldn't have done what he did.

I truely hope that in the 3 months he's banned, his customers find themselves new farriers.
 
I'm afraid nothing less than a lifetime ban would have done.

And as for the compensation - I'd be undertaking a private prosecution for thousands, rather than a couple of hundred.

What a disgusting human being this person is.

And I totally agree, the Farriers Registration Council are an absolute disgrace imposing such leniency.
 
Well he certainly didn't show any remorse for injuring the first horse in the week before he went and injured the 2nd. I am appalled by the FRC's ruling.
 
Will anyone who feels strongly enough about this, as I did, please email your disgust to the FRC at this address. Their answer to me was even more disturbing, but they have forbidden me from copying it. The main point I am horrified by is that they said that 3 months is a long ban and one they have very rarely ever given. What does it take to get a year ban - hack a horse's foot right off? Or a lifetime ban - kill the owner?

frc@farrier-reg.gov.uk
 
Last edited:
I am also appalled by the lenient treatment of this lunatic. It is nothing short of a disgrace and I will be writing to the FRC to express my disgust. They say he showed remorse, hence the leniency - but it didn't stop him from doing it in the first place to animals he is supposed to have a duty of care to, so what if someone else with another horse upsets him in the future?

I would urge everyone to give him a wide berth, hopefully putting him out of business that way - and write to complain about the outcome :mad:
 
Last edited:
Unless you signed a confidentiality document no one can forbid you from publishing a document that has been sent to you personally. I'd be publishing that letter if it shows that the ruling body are failing those they are meant to protect.
 
horseloaner said:
Unless you signed a confidentiality document no one can forbid you from publishing a document that has been sent to you personally. I'd be publishing that letter if it shows that the ruling body are failing those they are meant to protect.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this is true, I thought it remained their copyright. Do we have any copyright lawyers on here who can advise because I would love to print it?
 
Technique said:
I am also appalled by the lenient treatment of this lunatic. It is nothing short of a disgrace and I will be writing to the FRC to express my disgust. They say he showed remorse, hence the leniency - but it didn't stop him from doing it in the first place to animals he is supposed to have a duty of care to, so what if someone else with another horse upsets him in the future?

I would urge everyone to give him a wide berth, hopefully putting him out of business that way - and write to complain about the outcome :mad:
Click to expand...
No hopefully someone will
have him "to shoe my horses" just as some rough mates happen to be visiting and he will leave the yard more than a little lame ......
 
Had a reply from FRC which looks like a standard letter. I've replied expressing my concern about his 'punishment' for animal cruelty
 
I to have written expressing my horror at the leniency of the sentence, how come no welfare organisation has been involved in prosecuting him, does anyone know?
 
I initially thought this as disgraceful that he wasn't banned. I still think what he did was disgraceful for whatever reason he did it.

I believe though that the FRCs logic and I can concur with it in allowing him to practice after a 3 month ban is that they are convinced that he is remorseful and disgusted himself at what he did and they felt it was something he would never ever repeat so he was of no danger to horses in general.

I suppose if someone beats someone up very badly for a reason and they get a prison sentence say for GBH - they will be released because they will have been deemed to be safe in the public and to have paid for their crime.
That said his business will of course suffer, I am sure most of his clients will walk - the FRC probably see the 3 month ban as part of that punsihment - the fact his business will be in tatters.

I wonder if anyone on here had him as their farrier?
 
Last edited:
Do you think a Doctor who deliberately hurt someone should be allowed to practise again after 3 months? An Accountant who steals from his client allowed to do his books again after 3 months? A teacher who deliberately marks a child's coursework down so that they fail an exam and have to resit a year should teach again next term? I could go on.

In the context of what happens in other professional organisations the ban is ridiculously lenient. He didn't do it once, he did it a second time in total cold blood a couple of weeks later.
 
zaminda said:
I to have written expressing my horror at the leniency of the sentence, how come no welfare organisation has been involved in prosecuting him, does anyone know?
Click to expand...

The choice was between the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuting him for Criminal Damage and the RSPCA prosecuting him for animal cruelty. Unfortunately in this country at the moment the RSPCA are the animal case prosecutors.

Since the CPS were willing to take a case of CD and get an easy guilty plea, presumably the RSPCA did not want to use charity funds for a heavier prosecution.

I think the decision was totally incorrect. The penalty for Criminal Damage (to the value he did it) ranges from a discharge (what he got) to a fine, while the penalty for cruelty to an animal for what he did ranges from a Community Penalty to Custody.

I have no doubt that the leniency of the criminal prosecution encouraged the decision made by the FRC, and I feel that both are badly out of touch and that horse people have been very let down.
 
cptrayes said:
The choice was between the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuting him for Criminal Damage and the RSPCA prosecuting him for animal cruelty. Unfortunately in this country at the moment the RSPCA are the animal case prosecutors.

Since the CPS were willing to take a case of CD and get an easy guilty plea, presumably the RSPCA did not want to use charity funds for a heavier prosecution.

I think the decision was totally incorrect. The penalty for Criminal Damage (to the value he did it) ranges from a discharge (what he got) to a fine, while the penalty for cruelty to an animal for what he did ranges from a Community Penalty to Custody.

I have no doubt that the leniency of the criminal prosecution encouraged the decision made by the FRC, and I feel that both are badly out of touch and that horse people have been very let down.
Click to expand...
yes the RSPSA are too busy upseting there core suporters and buggering round with the trendy lefty anti hunt bussiness
to take on anything remotely important , and re the FRC they are there to represent the interests of farriers !!!go figure???
 
Apparently a copy of my email will be sent to the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee. I asked for his/her name and have heard nothing back.

I think the FRC may be a closed shop in that they protect their own although I hope not?
 
I have also recieved the standard reply, and have responded again. I must admit I am surprised the rspca didn't go after him, he would have made a very good story for them with the wilful professional misconduct angle!
I will now be contacting my MP, to ask that this is looked into further.(cue morestandard letters methinks)
 
Same here, I replied and heard nothing else.

They seem pretty sure he won't do it again. I think when someone takes their dislike of the owner out on the animal, then they have the kind of mentality that shouldn't be in a position to treat animals. They've brought the profession into disrespect, it gives the impression that they care very little what their farriers do and dish out token punishments to appease the public
 
I had a response to my reply, very basic. Will def be speaking to my MP, it just shows a complete lack of regard for the public, and animal welfare. It basically tells all farriers they will only get a slap on the wrist if they do something serious.
 
Got reply to my second email yesterday as follows.....

Thank you for your further email. I will of course pass on your additional comments to the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee.

I can also confirm that the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee is Mr A Fox OBE, as listed on our website.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top