Is this woman being hounded unfairly?

paddi22

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 December 2010
Messages
5,800
Even if she had paid her dues, i think it shows her as someone who is morally and ethically unfit to work with animals, and especially in a welfare role, its actually laughable.The fact that she is on the welfare committee is even worse as she has proven repeatedly she has no empathy for animals. I haven't a breeze what the sji were thinking. If that happened on any of the horse committees i am on i would step down in disgust
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,082
Location
Norfolk.
The decision to appoint Roulston was made, presumably with the full knowledge of her conviction of 14 years ago. We aren't in possession of the decision making process or the appointee's thought processes, she has paid her debt to society, presumably cleaned up her act and so yes, there could well be good reason why she was offered the post.

We can only imagine that her progress will be monitored, as it should be, and I hope that she silences her critics by being a positive force in her new role.

And yes, it would seem that she's being hounded.

Alec.
 
Last edited:

tristar

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 August 2010
Messages
5,034
while ithink she should have a second chance at first thought, on reading the story someone who has a basic disregard for the welfare of baby animals to that point is not to be relied on, puppy farming and travelling puppies about the country is a very bad thing.


and horses probably take more looking after than dogs, they are a highly specialized area, could you rely on her sense of judgement.
 

ester

Not slacking-multitasking
Joined
31 December 2008
Messages
56,871
Location
Cambridge
You don't get to score out your history when it comes to employment, it has nothing to do with having 'done your time' etc it's about having a history and a record which will quite rightly imo have an impact on you and your opportunities in your future.

I'm amazed there wasn't a suitable applicant without such a record, or didn't think that others would think it an issue.
 

Overread

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 October 2014
Messages
515
One could argue that, having been one partaking in abuse, she might be more aware of the "tricks of the trade" in how an abuser might hide such abuses when presenting animals to the public - even if her experiences were with dogs/cats and not with horses.

She has done her time, paid her due to society*. Furthermore there was no long lasting requirements to her release to society after her trial. It also appears that her abuse was not linked to psychological reasons; nor any long term impositions beyond the period of her punishment.



In all rights she should be allowed for this position if we are to trust our legal system.
Of course such an appointment is one that comes charged with baggage already for anyone appointed; so for someone with a less than ideal history behind her she is likely getting a lot of flak.

I would think barring her position would have been very easy choice for those in charge considering how easily she can be targeted. As a result we can only assume that her appointment is either the result of internal bias and politics or the result of a serious show of commitment and duty on her behalf. One thus has to consider the panel that appointed her - the reflection of a lack of trust in her shows a lack of trust in them and thus the institution behind her more than a lack of faith in her alone.










*one can, however, argue that our punishments toward animal abusers can be rather lenient and thus more open to allowing repeat offences than in other areas - eg childcare. So whilst the concept of punishment ending is valid; one has to consider if it actually has solved the problem.
 

ester

Not slacking-multitasking
Joined
31 December 2008
Messages
56,871
Location
Cambridge
But if that was how it worked you pay your debt and carry on why would anyone be given a criminal record? You'd just be sent on your way saying well done debt paid off you go.

Yes some go from cyber crime to working in prevention etc but that doesn't involve responsibility for beings, would we say it were ok if the original convinction had involved children, and someone then went on to be a child welfare officer for
an organisation?
 

Overread

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 October 2014
Messages
515
Yes some go from cyber crime to working in prevention etc but that doesn't involve responsibility for beings, would we say it were ok if the original convinction had involved children, and someone then went on to be a child welfare officer for
an organisation?
Indeed, I added an edit after reading your post. Our system might well not be perfect when it comes to animal care. The other angle is the line between correction and punishment and how much our legal system punishes as opposed to corrects behaviour.
 

View

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 March 2014
Messages
2,497
Location
exiled Glaswegian
You don't get to score out your history when it comes to employment, it has nothing to do with having 'done your time' etc it's about having a history and a record which will quite rightly imo have an impact on you and your opportunities in your future.

I'm amazed there wasn't a suitable applicant without such a record, or didn't think that others would think it an issue.

I don't know Irish law, but I would be surprised if they didn't have some legislation similar to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. So basically, apart from specified circumstances and roles, once an offence is spent so far as an employer is concerned there is no need to declare it.

However, in this situation, she should have made the panel aware of her past conviction.

We'll never know the deliberations that occurred behind closed doors prior to this appointment so we will just have to watch quietly from the sidelines.

But I'm with Alec on this one. From the information in the public domain, yes, she is being hounded.

It goes without saying that I abhor cruelty to animals and that her past offence is unforgivable. But she does deserve a chance to show that she has learnt.
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,082
Location
Norfolk.
What speaks of double standards are the SPCAs who are up in arms and indignant, and then we look at how they themselves conduct their affairs. It's laughable.

Alec.
 

D66

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 June 2010
Messages
7,924
Location
down a hole
It isn't a job, she's a volunteer. It is hard to find people who will give up their time for nothing, and she may well have learnt her lesson and reformed. I'll leave judgement on her to those who know her better and who have to deal with her.
 

alainax

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 April 2010
Messages
4,503
Location
Lanarkshire
I'm all for rehabilitation of offenders if at all possible and encouraging people to contribute to society, to make right their wrongs so to speak. However, she has went about this the wrong way. Instead of saying that is "old and recycled news from people who have it in from me", she could have said her past is the precise reason that she will be able to contribute to the board. Not only does she have a unique insight into the motivation of animal abusers, but also truly regrets what she did and lives with the guilt. She wants to make amends for her past in ensuring the welfare of these horses. That might have been a bit more credible...
 

ester

Not slacking-multitasking
Joined
31 December 2008
Messages
56,871
Location
Cambridge
I agree Alaina, it definitely matters how you handle stuff like this and saying it is old news/sweeping it under the carpet is not a great idea, I will say I didn't realise it was an unpaid position so they were perhaps shorter of candidates.
 

Damnation

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 February 2008
Messages
9,663
Location
North Cumbria
No.

People of authority in any form of welfare position whether human or animal need to be squeaky clean.

E.g I wouldn't be happy with someone with a history of abusing the Elderly to be in charge of the welfare of a care home...

The other side of it I suppose is she is likely to not re-offend as she is under such scrutiny...
 

Snowy Celandine

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 April 2010
Messages
20,845
If she were working as a shop assistant, for example, then this would be unfair hounding but since she will be working in animal welfare then, no, I do not believe her past cruelty to animals should be dismissed. The nature of her offences show that she was deliberately cruel, it was not something she could have done accidentally and been sorry for.
 

Nicnaclaus

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 May 2007
Messages
6,845
No - as Damnation said the Criminal Record relates to the role - doesn't matter if it's paid or not. I put both paid and volunteer staff through DBS checks as they work with vulnerable adults - if they had a caution for shoplifting at 16 then it's not a big deal if it were 14 years ago, but if they have a conviction for GBH, theft, breaking and entering etc. I wouldn't touch them as won't put my clients at risk. And am perfectly entitled to do so under the Rehabilitation of Offenders laws.

I would not have appointed her to any role, paid or voluntary, where animals are involved (or people for that matter) whether she's paid her 'dues' or not with that conviction.
 

Cecile

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 September 2016
Messages
1,283
Assuming this article is written truthfully and not holding back vital facts, based on it being an honest account and no fiction thrown in to make it more newsworthy

Would I allow and be comfortable with this person being around any of my animals, alone or supervised?
Not a cat in h*ll's chance would she be anywhere near any of my animals, she wouldn't even make it through my gate!

Other people can give her a second chance and as long as they are fully informed they can make their own decisions, it sounds as if there will be plenty of people waiting in the wings to say I told you so if things don't work out well
 

ozpoz

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 August 2010
Messages
2,578
No. You need to demonstrate having a moral compass before being considered for a position which will assess welfare.
She clearly doesn't, given a conviction for cruelty and I am not sure this can be learned - you either have it or you don't.
 

Asha

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 February 2012
Messages
4,617
Location
Cheshire
Assuming all the facts are on there, then no.

Positions involving welfare should be given amongst other requirements, on the persons morals. She didn't just make a simple mistake, she sold puppies/kittens from the boot of a car. She clearly thought this was acceptable. On that basis, no.
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,082
Location
Norfolk.
Well blow my old boots, it's now a question of morality I see!

Those who've never been given the wrong change and said nothing, those who've never lied to a partner or parent, those who've never found a tenner and picked it up saying nothing, and those who've never farted in church can form an orderly queue.

Lily white are we all? :D

Alec.
 

ester

Not slacking-multitasking
Joined
31 December 2008
Messages
56,871
Location
Cambridge
Well I am not quite sure how that list of things is in anyway comparable, and no I have done none of them, helped by the fact that you won't find me in Church

Alec I am curious of your posting on this and on the case of the girl who barged someone with her horse, in that instance you seem to suggest any justice the courts hand out would be insufficient, but in this case it is fine, she has done her time and should be permitted to be involved in they very thing she was prosecuted for? So which is it, the courts do their job and we forgive and forget or they aren't giving out justice?

Assuming that what we read is unequivocal, the brat can thank her lucky stars that she isn't my daughter. The wrath of the Court was nothing compared with what would have happened when she arrived home. Even were she provoked, the sentencing hands down a degree of acceptance and understanding, and that isn't justice, in my opinion.

Alec.
 

Asha

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 February 2012
Messages
4,617
Location
Cheshire
Well blow my old boots, it's now a question of morality I see!

Those who've never been given the wrong change and said nothing, those who've never lied to a partner or parent, those who've never found a tenner and picked it up saying nothing, and those who've never farted in church can form an orderly queue.

Lily white are we all? :D

Alec.
Alec, no I'm far from lily white, ive made mistakes and done things wrong. But ive never sold animals from the back of car, with scant regard for their current/ future well being. the comment from the trial sums it up for me ' a callous disregard' for animal welfare.
 
Top