How is this vet allowed to conduct themselves like this online?

[JenJ]

Why do people bother following this tiresome woman?

I look at her posts when they are mentioned on here, and Facebook sometimes decides that is reason enough to suggest that I might want to follow her. Though Facebook also suggests I might want to follow all kinds of random stuff, so I find myself wanting to follow Facebook itself less and less these days...

 

[BigRedDog]

If you had a serious and ongoing dispute with neighbours why on earth would you put a post on Facebook mocking them?

 

[Apizz2019]

I saw the post and, without context at the time, I wasn't sure what she was trying to achieve aside from ridiculing someone who couldn't open a gate. I must say, I wanted to shout at the screen as the person at the gate was being ridiculous.

I think SV may be on the wrong side of the law re her CCTV if the track she is filming is considered public. She is definetly on the wrong side of law sharing footage of others who are identifiable, whether on private or public land.

I do have some sympathy with the ongoing harassment but I don't think she is doing herself any favours with the self serving attitude.

 

[meleeka]

Her yard is her business premises, so I imagine the CCTV goes through her business too. Therefore it can't be classed as personal. The rules posted previously would apply and she's not allowed to use the images for any old purpose, including ridiculing people on social media.

I'm sure if she was a genuine victim of harassment she'd be singing it from the rooftops on a daily basis. My guess is she's been her usual arrogant self and the neighbours are doing what they think they can get away with, legally, to retaliate. I think it's playground nonsense and they should all grow up, including SV.

 

[teapot]

If the CCTV comes under business use, plus monitoring of the track, I’m 99.9% sure even as a sole trader she’ll need to be registered (and appear on a searchable register I may add) with the IPO, and there are strict rules to abide by about usage and sharing.

Once again the blurring of personal and professional lines may cause further issues.

 

[Peglo]

I saw the post and, without context at the time, I wasn't sure what she was trying to achieve aside from ridiculing someone who couldn't open a gate. I must say, I wanted to shout at the screen as the person at the gate was being ridiculous.

I agree, I didn’t see it as a post trying to shame her harassing neighbours, more ridiculing folk not using the gate properly. Maybe those who follow her closely knew the intent behind it or maybe FB made her take it down after it being reported and this was a way to spin a sob story her way. Who knows.

 

[JenJ]

If the CCTV comes under business use, plus monitoring of the track, I’m 99.9% sure even as a sole trader she’ll need to be registered (and appear on a searchable register I may add) with the IPO, and there are strict rules to abide by about usage and sharing.

Once again the blurring of personal and professional lines may cause further issues.

It is very blurring.

If her business is as a vet, she doesn't conduct that on the premises, does she? The premises is for keeping/riding her own horses.

But then, if she monetises her own horses by being an 'influencer' (I'm fairly certain she would absolutely despise being called that!!! ) then does it become her business...

 

[nutjob]

It is very blurring.

If her business is as a vet, she doesn't conduct that on the premises, does she? The premises is for keeping/riding her own horses.

But then, if she monetises her own horses by being an 'influencer' (I'm fairly certain she would absolutely despise being called that!!! ) then does it become her business...

The fb page is clearly her business page. The people in the video are people she knows and she is aware that one is a child. Whether she has committed a crime here is is not the reason the footage has been removed, fb don't need to wait for proof that it's a crime, they have their own rules about what's acceptable, bullying, harassing and ridiculing children is against their guidelines whether it reaches a level of criminal behaviour or not.

I would expect most parents wouldn't want to have adults posting video footage of their children purely in order that they can be ridiculed by other adults. I've never seen this happen on any other professional business page.

 

[Apizz2019]

I agree, I didn’t see it as a post trying to shame her harassing neighbours, more ridiculing folk not using the gate properly. Maybe those who follow her closely knew the intent behind it or maybe FB made her take it down after it being reported and this was a way to spin a sob story her way. Who knows.

Facebook rarely remove posts, even seriousy messed up posts and despite multiple reports, so I'd go with the latter.

Like I said, self serving.

 

[teapot]

It is very blurring.

If her business is as a vet, she doesn't conduct that on the premises, does she? The premises is for keeping/riding her own horses.

But then, if she monetises her own horses by being an 'influencer' (I'm fairly certain she would absolutely despise being called that!!! ) then does it become her business...

If you look at the planning permissioned documents (which were shared publicly at the time) the yard was designed to be somewhere other people's horses would be treated at... The paper trail doesn't quite match what's depicted online/reality. It wouldn't be the first time anyone's done that, but you do have to be careful when it comes to CCTV usage, IPO regs and social media, and the personal spats really should not be on any form of business page.

 

[JenJ]

If you look at the planning permissioned documents (which were shared publicly at the time) the yard was designed to be somewhere other people's horses would be treated at...

The paper trail doesn't quite match what's depicted online/reality. It wouldn't be the first time anyone's done that, but you do have to be careful when it comes to CCTV usage, IPO regs and social media, and the personal spats really should not be on any form of business page.

Definitely. And if it's an ongoing issue that has potential to hit the courts (even if she doesn't have thousands of pounds for a solicitor), or if you have any shred of decency, it should not be on any form of public page, personal or business. Ideally not even private personal pages. But

 

[PurpleSpots]

If you look at the planning permissioned documents (which were shared publicly at the time) the yard was designed to be somewhere other people's horses would be treated at...

Hmmm, that's a good point - I wonder how frequently, if at all, there have been any horses visiting for veterinary purposes... . I wonder what weight was given to the planning being passed based on it being in part for business purposes.

(Given that a follower and then SV alluded to knowledge of some 'forum' recently, I wonder how long it will be before there is a post up about all the hundreds of horses who have visited the place for veterinary purposes now that this has been brought up on here... But of course if she did that she would be doing it because of something someone else had written, and it would grate on her to realise she had been influenced or controlled like that... And equally, the number may be 0.)

 

[PurpleSpots]

Oh, and back to today's post - SV and her followers are STILL discussing a minor in a very negative/potentially damaging way.

PLEASE stop it.

 

[GT_02]

If you look at the planning permissioned documents (which were shared publicly at the time) the yard was designed to be somewhere other people's horses would be treated at...

Publicly available company accounts would also suggest that the yard is a company asset....

 

[meleeka]

Publicly available company accounts would also suggest that the yard is a company asset....

I wonder if her horses care is also put through her company?

 

[JenJ]

Oooh, can anyone else hear the creak of a potential can of worms opening...

 

[HopOnTrot]

Out of context the gate clip is quite funny, I would assume passenger was winding the driver up.

With the context of it being an ongoing dispute with a neighbour, I’d say you have to be a special kind of crazy to post that.

 

[Jenko109]

I want to hear the other side of the story.

 

[lizziebell]

Sooooo, how long before a gofundme is set up for the “house of dreams”

 

[ElleSkywalkingintheair]

Sooooo, how long before a gofundme is set up for the “house of dreams”

I particularly liked the 'so clients horses can stay overnight' Didn't we establish that the planning was obtained as it was supposed to be for her to use for clients horses?

 

[PurpleSpots]

Given that there wasn't enough money for vet bills a few weeks ago, but that there has now been a holiday booked to the USA to what looks like a not inexpensive destination, I'd imagine some of the previous Go Fund Me is still in use as it is. Or at least the knock-on effect of that Go Fund Me is.

 

[teapot]

Given that there wasn't enough money for vet bills a few weeks ago, but there has now been a holiday booked to the USA to what looks like a not inexpensive destination, I'd imagine some of the previous Go Fund Me is still in use as it is.

Tbf the post said staying with a friend, and you can fly BA to that destination for under £500 depending on dates.

 

[rara007]

That’s still £300- £500 that should be covering bills rather than donations!

 

[jhoward]

I want to hear the other side of the story.

She already has the house of dreams her previous one went up in flames ....arson as I recall

 

[PurpleSpots]

Ah, I read the first holiday-related post as a way to guage the reaction to the idea, and that she had been invited there at the same time as her friend to stay there 'with' her, not that her friend owned the place she was staying at. I didn't get the sense that it's a free holiday, less flights. Perfectly happy to be corrected on that if I've got it wrong as I don't have the inclination to re-read it just now.

The 'house of dreams' comment is because SV has posted to say she's considering putting planning in for a residential place on her land now - as some predicted she would on here quite a while back IIRC!

I wonder if it is a way to try to save money in the long run - sell her house and live on site at the yard instead, freeing up some capital. It seems an odd move to make when she claims she is being constantly videod by others using the track when she and others are on site. Surely it would be even worse to be there 24/7 except when working etc - unless she truly does just enjoy the drama of it all. The security camera system is quite substantial enough. And it doesn't seem that many - if any - horses have visited the yard for veterinary purposes, so quite why overnight stays would be necessary especially with a fully equipped 24hr equine hospital not that far away (Liphook)... It's a little unclear.

The arson was never proven to be by anyone, and I have heard that there were similar arsons in the local area around that time, so it is entirely possible that it had nothing to do with anyone who is known to SV. Sadly, sometimes people just like setting random places on fire. But of course pointing fingers and stirring the situation up is much more 'exciting'.

 

[meleeka]

. And it doesn't seem that many - if any - horses have visited the yard for veterinary purposes, so quite why overnight stays would be necessary especially with a fully equipped 24hr equine hospital not that far away (Liphook)... It's a little unclear.

She wouldn't send any of her clients to Liphook, I think she fell out with them some years ago.

I know of a farrier that did the same thing, got planning for a yard to have remedial cases and then to live on his yard because they were going to have clients in overnight, but of course there's never been any there.

 

[PurpleSpots]

She wouldn't send any of her clients to Liphook, I think she fell out with them some years ago.

I know of a farrier that did the same thing, got planning for a yard to have remedial cases and then to live on his yard because they were going to have clients in overnight, but of course there's never been any there.

Ah yes about Liphook... Is there anywhere local to her she's not fallen out with?!

I think a report can be made if conditions relating to planning being granted aren't met - and with the negativity towards her from people going down the track I think they'd likely be keeping quite a keen eye on things? It's not a stress and pressure I'd want, inventing a side of the business to encourage planning to be granted then living with the worry that I'd be found out .

 

[HopOnTrot]

If you can justify having to have someone on site for the safety of a business it would probably assist with planning… a static clearly won’t cut it

 

[PurpleSpots]

If you can justify having to have someone on site for the safety of a business it would probably assist with planning… a static clearly won’t cut it

But as far as anyone can see, the extent of the business being run from there is just a desk, and there's been no crime (other than personal irritation from the people who use the track which the police have deemed a civil matter, not crime as such) on site, and the whole place is covered by a robust CCTV setup. It's hard to see where the necessity to live on site lies .

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

I suspect the need for someone to live on site is more for her to have a groom tied down to her and the job rather than anywhere for her to live herself. Plus of course, a residential property on it would increase the value dramatically no matter who she has living in it.