FairyLights
Well-Known Member
bump
Fosse Park Leicester horses
- Thread starter Ladyinred
- Start date
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
[=0+-=============================================================000--QUOTE=Honey08;12325763]Interesting Moomin1. I don/'t think that AM was saying one charity would turn a blind eye, I read it as one charity not getting involved if the other was already involved to save tripping over each other's work and both charities wasting money doing the same jobs.. Its nice to know they do work together though.[/QUOTE]
Yes you are right there Honey08 - it is very much a case of not wasting each other's resources and money on the same job, but there is no way on earth that WHW would just back away and allow a neglectful situation not to be dealt with properly by the RSPCA. Like I say, both charities work extremely closely, a lot more than people realise, and the 'plan of action' is usually drawn up by both working together. Unfortunately, where people then misinterpret the situation is because only one of the two charities is seen 'in the public eye' dealing with that situation, and the public won't know that both charities have liaised.
Yes you are right there Honey08 - it is very much a case of not wasting each other's resources and money on the same job, but there is no way on earth that WHW would just back away and allow a neglectful situation not to be dealt with properly by the RSPCA. Like I say, both charities work extremely closely, a lot more than people realise, and the 'plan of action' is usually drawn up by both working together. Unfortunately, where people then misinterpret the situation is because only one of the two charities is seen 'in the public eye' dealing with that situation, and the public won't know that both charities have liaised.
LaMooch
Well-Known Member
The hear-say/truth I don't which is The Sun has offered to buy the horses and find them homes. If true it is bloody stupid idea give the cruel money to buy more horses
Ladyinred
Well-Known Member
Sounds mad. But otoh the Sun bought a spanish donkey many years ago. Anything for publicity.
AmyMay
Situation normal
I have not said the WHW are turning a blind eye. I have said that in this case they are taking no action (currently). This will change very quickly if asked to assist by the RSPCA.
Cinnamontoast
Fais pas chier!
But if they're meat horses, they were destined to be slaughtered anyway so I don't think they should be re-homed by well meaning members of the public (gonna see them in whatsherfaces' living room, are we? :rolleyes3
They are the same as cattle, which would admittedly have caused far less of an outcry had they been discovered in poor conditions. The point, surely, is not to re-home these horses, but rather to improve conditions and make it a prosecutable offence if livestock is left to rot, literally. The animals have the right to be treated decently and to be fed correctly with vet treatment as needed. If this means seizing the animals and removing ownership and banning the owner from owning in future, then good.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
But if they're meat horses, they were destined to be slaughtered anyway so I don't think they should be re-homed by well meaning members of the public (gonna see them in whatsherfaces' living room, are we? :rolleyes3
The point, surely, is not to re-home these horses, but rather to improve conditions and make it a prosecutable offence if livestock is left to rot, literally. The animals have the right to be treated decently and to be fed correctly with vet treatment as needed. If this means seizing the animals and removing ownership and banning the owner from owning in future, then good.
It's already a prosecutable offence to leave carcasses to rot - one which trading standards or DEFRA should follow up.
It's also law to provide an adequate diet and veterinary treatment where necessary, however it is not always black and white. If, for instance, a horse suddenly went down with colic in the night, and was found down in the morning, or whenever, and the owner was unaware of it, then it is not reasonable to prosecute (unless of course the horse has colicked as a result of neglect or intentional means). If it cannot be proven that the cause of it is through neglect, and that the neglect is DEFINATELY caused by that person, rather than, let's say long term ragwort ingestion which may have occurred prior to that owner having that horse, then it is extremely difficult (and would be pretty unreasonable really) to prosecute. So whilst a situation may look dire (and it may well be), it is not always cut and dried when it comes to the law and proceedings unfortunately, because as with any other law, there are definitions and clauses to be adhered to. If no offence can be proven to fit into that category, then sadly not much can be done. It is not whether it 'actually did happen' - it's whether it can be proven in a court of law.
YorksG
Over the hill and far awa
Moomin1 is absolutely right, the law insists on proof and evidence, not what "everybody knows" and the "something must be done" school of thought. The laws are there to protect the majority of law abiding citizens, their rights and property. If the law is broken and there is evidence of this, action can be taken.
Cinnamontoast
Fais pas chier!
The removing of animals from someone's 'care' is the bit I'm focused on. I think this should be made less complicated.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
An animal can only be removed under either Section 19 of PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) or Section 18 of the Animal Welfare Act (subsections 5 and 6). Under the prior, the animal can only be removed if it is deemed 'evidence' of an offence. So therefore there would have to be evidence of that offence in order for the police to seize the animal and hand over to the RSPCA. Under Section 18 of the AWA, a vet has to certify that the animal is suffering, or likely to suffer, if it's circumstances do not change in order for it to be taken into possession by a police officer. The only time where a vet would not be consulted or needed is if the situation is such that it is not practicable to await for a vet to attend (so in immediate danger and needs moving instantly).
ETA - It can't really be made any less complicated because as YorksG says, the law is set out to provide a certain amount of protection to law abiding citizens also. As the law stands, it basically means that an expert witness, ie mostly a qualified vet, has to certify that the animal is suffering or likely to, or provide 'support' towards a prosecution. And this is where sometimes situations differ - not all vets will agree for instance on 'mental suffering and distress'.
Last edited:
be positive
Well-Known Member
I think it is the fact that horses are more complicated to remove, it seems so much easier to go to someones home see a neglected or untreated dog, cat or other small animal make a few suggestions of taking further action so that the owner takes the "easy" option and signs the animal over, paperwork done, animal loaded into van taken to vets and assessed, on to next stage whatever that may be.
For a group of horses it is so much more complicated, locate the owner, if that is even possible, try and arrange for things to improve, if nothing is done back in contact, get police involved then transport required and numerous people to assist especially if dealing with semi feral horses in a huge area, it is also far more difficult to intimidate the type of person that keeps such horses, they do not bow down as easily as a pet owner may do when faced with the threat of court action. It should be easier but to seize a group of 10 horses is logistically far more difficult that 10 dogs or cats and I think that is why horses get left in conditions beyond what most of us would consider acceptable.
YorksG
Over the hill and far awa
I do not agree that the law and due process should ever be circumvented by people being intimidated into signing their animals over. It is never correct to misuse or break the law to reach the end you want, if the end justifies the means in this case, when do we say that the end does not justify the means?
ester
Not slacking multitasking
were they PTS yesterday?
Cinnamontoast
Fais pas chier!
According to the Facebook page, no.
Amaranta
Well-Known Member
Assume makes an ass out of you and me.
And before you ask - yes I do have knowledge and NO it is not heresay
For someone who professes to be for equine welfare you sure do have a peculiar way of showing it.
Amaranta
Well-Known Member
In THIS instance WHW say they cannot get involved unless invited to do so by the RSPCA, again not hearsay but from the horse's mouth so to speak. I suspect your information is outdated, as this is not the first time I have heard it said, although to be fair it is the first time I have had first hand information on it.
The RSPCA cannot just go in and take these horses, there is no argument there and is one of the reasons the laws need changing, although having said that, the RSPCA also need to ensure that more of their operatives have a better understanding of horses and their needs, this is especially pertinent at the moment.
LaMooch
Well-Known Member
Has the owner agreed to sell them to The Sun newspaper yet?
FionaM12
Well-Known Member
If that's really happening, it's bonkers. Rewarding a neglectful horsemeat breeder in order to make a trashy newspaper look "good".
The owner of the poor horses must be delighted.
LaMooch
Well-Known Member
yep and give him funds to by some more horses and do the same again
FionaM12
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. What a businessman. He'll be on Dragon's Den next.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
..Oh dear....
You do realise what hearsay is don't you?...
The information that every single person gives on here, and FB, is hearsay, unless THEY are the people dealing FIRST HAND with the situation.
Last edited:
Ladyinred
Well-Known Member
Oh Moomin, every single welfare related thread you appear making negative comments, deflecting from the issue and patronising other posters. Could you possibly give it a break and let us get on with what we are doing? You stated earlier that you haven't read the page and didn't intend to so your opinion, in this instance, is more ill-informed than others.. yet you still preach the gospel of Moomin at every opportunity. It's getting wearing, we know the legalities and we know the facts.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
Clearly...
Ibblebibble
Well-Known Member
pffft is that the best you can come up with, what exactly have you done for horse welfare lately, what causes have you put your time and effort into? I know for a fact that at least 2 of the posters on this thread are giving their time freely and willingly to help the farrier involved with this case, what have you done Moomin apart from try to pick to pieces every effort made by others?
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
I haven't 'picked apart' anybody's efforts whatsoever. I have pointed out the law, and the fact that you cannot believe everything that is said on 'facebook groups' which concern themselves over highly emotive subjects and create hype, hysteria, and a hell of a lot of hearsay. That is all.
I have just had a brief look at the facebook page now - and within a few seconds had spotted numerous posts which are completely factually incorrect, but are written with such authority and 'knowledge' that anybody would believe it to be completely true.
Where have I been personal to any individual poster on this thread? Where have I 'knocked' any efforts to help?! Nowhere....I think it's fantastic people are doing what they can, but where I don't find it fantastic is when you get so many rumours and hype which are created by social media.
Ibblebibble
Well-Known Member
and is this forum not a form of social media where you yourself write posts with 'such authority and knowledge' under a name which hides your identity? how do any of us know that you actually know anything about animal welfare and the law, you could be a balding 50 yr old who hasn't left his house in 5 years who has never owned more than a hamster! yes you do get some over passionate hysterical types on the facebook pages, but when you've been dealing with those types for the last year like some of us have, you get to spot them pretty quick and also work out which people are genuine and worth listening to and engaging with.
Amaranta
Well-Known Member
Well said Ibblebibble, personally I am sick to death of people (and yes I do mean you Moomin) who DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS, castigate others, calling their efforts 'hearsay' yet at the same time, making their assumptions whilst listening to 'hearsay'.
I cannot put here what I would like to as I would probably get banned but Moomin, please forgive me if we do not take any notice of your negativity but let me also assure you, we have a perfect understanding of the law concerning welfare, you do not have the monopoly on knowledge and have NO idea what we do and do not know.
I cannot put here what I would like to as I would probably get banned but Moomin, please forgive me if we do not take any notice of your negativity but let me also assure you, we have a perfect understanding of the law concerning welfare, you do not have the monopoly on knowledge and have NO idea what we do and do not know.
piebaldsparkle
Well-Known Member
THIS IS COMPLETE HEARSAY and HAS NO BEARING ON THIS THREAD AT ALL -
I hear Moonmin1 is really a fat balding 50 year old man, who wears a string vest with breakfast stains on that hasn't left the house in 5 years and lives life though the internet probably called Brian and still lives with his mum who he is scared of!
Of course there could be no truth in the above at all...............................but could explain a lot!
I hear Moonmin1 is really a fat balding 50 year old man, who wears a string vest with breakfast stains on that hasn't left the house in 5 years and lives life though the internet probably called Brian and still lives with his mum who he is scared of!
Of course there could be no truth in the above at all...............................but could explain a lot!
YorksG
Over the hill and far awa
I have often disagreed with Moomin1 on this forum, however on this occasion I am in complete agreement with her. Links to petitions, which in essence would potentially trample on law abiding citizens riights, which are diametrically opesed to the way British law works, does nothing to further the cause of these horses. Would the people who would like to see horses removed on the say so of a charity, like to see children removed with the same level of evidence, or the mentally ill removed from their homes against their will by a chharity?
Ibblebibble
Well-Known Member
as someone who suffers MH problems i find being used in a comparison to animal welfare an insult!! are you saying children and the mentally ill have the same level of rights as animals?! if not wtf do people continually use them in their arguments about welfare?