Parelli Demo on robert Whittakers stallion Stonleigh Friday 9th...Anybody else bside

shysmum said:
I feel this thread should only wrap up when we have the answers we are all looking for ;

- an outcome from the BHS
- an outcome from the RSPCA
- a statement from Robert Whitaker
- a statement from Pat Parelli
- possible proceedings under the Animal Welfare Act 1996

This was a serious incident, and I feel we owe it to the horse world to chase this up, if only to prevent it from happening in the UK again. Until we know what is/isn't being done, a lot of people will still be very uneasy.

sm x
Click to expand...

I haven't been following the entirety of this thread but I am very confused.

- Only Pat/Linda/2 Parelli Professionals/Robert and the Vet were at the examination, nobody else...
- No mention was made by the vet as regards lesions to the gum-line...
- The vet determined the horse was fit to compete, which it did...

Why on earth would Parelli bother putting out a public statement when it is evident from the hysterical posts on this forum that truth is of little value here...

There is some insidious manipulation going on in this thread by a few individuals who have been less than honest with the truth.

Goodbye and good riddance to this forum and to all the fearful, evil-natured goblins that dwell within. Here be dragons....
 
shysmum said:
vandypip, I think it's time you just stopped logging into this thread now. This is of serious concern for a huge number of people, and to be insulting to them is just - words fail me. I hope that your comments are removed. I am determined to know what is going to happen, as are most of the people on this forum. Who are you to tell us what we should/should not do ? This forum is being read internationally, and it is you who looks the complete ****.

Itsmylife - please don't leave !! There are only a few who are showing their age. The vast majority of people are interested in everyone else's views - and that includes yours. Btw, welcome to the forum :D
Click to expand...

Thanks shysmum, it just made me angry to read such silly comments!
Everyone is intitled to a view but name calling etc lowers the tone of what is a serious issue.
 
vandypip said:
Dragonslayer, you are an even bigger a******e. The rest of the world has moved on!! Little miss brain cell follow suit and astound everybody with your astute wisdom to end this now boring debate!!! bet you are not even capable.
Click to expand...

itsmylife said:
Surely,anyone who is not interested in this thread does not need to read it or add to it. I only joined today but may well not bother anymore if this is what happens. There seem to be some very silly, childish and rude comments.
A forum like this is supposed to be for debate and peoples views, not rude name calling.
Click to expand...

Yes, please don't leave! I've lurked for years and only recently started posting again - hence the 'foal' status (I'm actually an old biddy :-)). I quite agree about the rudeness and name calling, but sadly you get that on a lot of forums. Don't let it put you off! Just feel sorry for those who are too immature to be able to contribute sensibly. Your input is valued!
 
zareeba said:
Yes, please don't leave! I've lurked for years and only recently started posting again - hence the 'foal' status (I'm actually an old biddy :-)). I quite agree about the rudeness and name calling, but sadly you get that on a lot of forums. Don't let it put you off! Just feel sorry for those who are too immature to be able to contribute sensibly. Your input is valued!
Click to expand...

Thanks, I have been a lurker for ages but thought it was about time I joined to have my say!
(im quite old too!)
 
TrecInWales said:
There is some insidious manipulation going on in this thread by a few individuals who have been less than honest with the truth.

Goodbye and good riddance to this forum and to all the fearful, evil-natured goblins that dwell within. Here be dragons....
Click to expand...

Bye-bye! Don't let the door hit your a*se as you leave! ;) Funny how - whenever there is a 'contentious' thread here - all sorts of goblins JOIN the forum! Usually disagreeing with majority opinion and insulting all the forum members with whom they disagree! Generally they disappear up their own a*ses fairly quickly! But some join because they want to debate the issue in a sensible manner - and hopefully they will stay!

It's been happening for the 9 years I have been posting here - and will no doubt continue for at LEAST as many years again!

But this forum HAS made changes for the better in the horse world: ill-treated and neglected horses have been saved, the various organisations dealing with welfare and other equine issues DO read this forum and take note of anything that crosses their remit!

I WOULD like to see some posters moderate their tone and be more courteous to posters with whom they disagree: a reasoned and polite response is more effective in presenting a view than an abusive tirade - even if it's saying the same thing. But people DO feel strongly about cruelty issues - I certainly feel PP's treatment of Catwalk bordered on cruelty, as well as showing a prima facie case of trainer arrogance and stupidity! But it does have an upside - hopefully, a LOT of novice horse owners who might have been lured in by the PP marketing exercise may now think twice!
 
Shaklana said:
I think we need to be realistic here about what constitute's 'cruelty' in the eyes of the law.

If you could be prosecuted for restraining a horse by a limb, why not by head, mouth(via reins & bit) or nose?

Likewise, if you could be prosecuted for tack causing a minor lesion on the horse, a lot of us would be very worried - my own horse has a small girth gall AND a rub from a brushing boot currently!

It boils down to you either would or wouldn't apply these techniques to your horse. Nothing more. Chillax!
Click to expand...

If it could be proved that you restrained your animal (any animal) with unreasonable force, against it's will, causing fear or unnecessary distress to that animal (ie not for it's own welfare) then yes, you can be prosecuted. I wouldn't call putting a bridle on necessary for it's welfare.

If you continued to use tack that caused rubs/ sores/ abrasions then again you can be prosecuted with causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.

The RSPCA and Police can prosecute for this separately.
 
TrecInWales said:
I haven't been following the entirety of this thread but I am very confused.

- Only Pat/Linda/2 Parelli Professionals/Robert and the Vet were at the examination, nobody else...
- No mention was made by the vet as regards lesions to the gum-line...
- The vet determined the horse was fit to compete, which it did...
Click to expand...
Meh,contact the BHS.
A few people have said the same thing(BHS asked for a vet to look at Catwalk,when this happened the vet found a wound.)
Catwalk may well have been fit to compete(bridle and bit will not touch the upper gum so would cause no further distress) while being unfit to continue with another demo given what had been done to cause the wound.



TrecInWales said:
Why on earth would Parelli bother putting out a public statement when it is evident from the hysterical posts on this forum that truth is of little value here...

There is some insidious manipulation going on in this thread by a few individuals who have been less than honest with the truth.

Goodbye and good riddance to this forum and to all the fearful, evil-natured goblins that dwell within. Here be dragons....
Click to expand...
Truth is,by and large of no matter to me personaly in things like this-it changes with perspective.
Fact on the other hand is a wonderfull thing ;)

I would like to know if RW WAS there for the whole demo.
I would like to know what Catwalk did when his groom tried to put the bridle on before the demo.
I would like to know what he does now.....
 
JanetGeorge said:
Bye-bye! Don't let the door hit your a*se as you leave! ;) Funny how - whenever there is a 'contentious' thread here - all sorts of goblins JOIN the forum! Usually disagreeing with majority opinion and insulting all the forum members with whom they disagree! Generally they disappear up their own a*ses fairly quickly! But some join because they want to debate the issue in a sensible manner - and hopefully they will stay!
Click to expand...

...witchhunt, there is no 'sensible' debate here, don't fool yourself, the evidence is in the last XXX pages...

I'm sure this forum has been instrumental in many a good discussion and deed in the past (in fact Janet, I know you have been instrumental in some of them), this forum thread is not such a discussion.

I hold to my initial comment, this forum should have a public health warning "here be dragons!"
 
Last edited:
I've had a thought - might be a bit incendiary but here goes...

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the definition of abuse and whether what happened was abuse. I think a large proportion of people feel it was "inappropriate" to say the least.

Thre are then arguments about this type of thing being allowed to happen again.

It has been reported on here that the welfare organisations "may" be investigating.

But what if another tack is taken.

Just for one moment, put the emotional aspect of the behaviour on one side (and no, I don't mean forget it or belittle it).

What if the people who witnessed it and were affected by it decided to sue FOTH because what they saw was not what was advertised. Under Trades Description or Trading Standards or whatever it is now, what was actually demonstrated does not reflect what was advertised. In evidence, the FOTH advertisements can be used, coupled with the actual wording from the site of the people who performed the demonstration.

So, not only did customers not get the entertainment they were expecting but they found it so distressing that their enjoyment of the event was curtailed to such an extent that they had to leave.

Further, that left a bitter taste and affected their enjoyment of the whole day, not just the event that was not as advertised.

If (and it's a big if), the case(s) is/are successful, it should attract a lot of publicity and make other venues think twice before offering this particular entertainer a slot on their schedule.

Let's take the heat out of it and litigate. Cold hard fact - no mention of abuse. The advertisements and publicity material led the audience to believe they would be seeing something very different.

And I'm sure there are enough people who didn't actually go but who feel strongly that we could start a fund to help the actual eye witnesses if they chose to litigate. And if the case(s) is/are successful, any compensation could be donated to charity (maybe the welfare charity that was most proactive in this case??)


Like I said, just a thought after being stuck on the motorway for 7 hours
 
Tannis said:
I've had a thought - might be a bit incendiary but here goes...

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the definition of abuse and whether what happened was abuse. I think a large proportion of people feel it was "inappropriate" to say the least.

Thre are then arguments about this type of thing being allowed to happen again.

It has been reported on here that the welfare organisations "may" be investigating.

But what if another tack is taken.

Just for one moment, put the emotional aspect of the behaviour on one side (and no, I don't mean forget it or belittle it).

What if the people who witnessed it and were affected by it decided to sue FOTH because what they saw was not what was advertised. Under Trades Description or Trading Standards or whatever it is now, what was actually demonstrated does not reflect what was advertised. In evidence, the FOTH advertisements can be used, coupled with the actual wording from the site of the people who performed the demonstration.

So, not only did customers not get the entertainment they were expecting but they found it so distressing that their enjoyment of the event was curtailed to such an extent that they had to leave.

Further, that left a bitter taste and affected their enjoyment of the whole day, not just the event that was not as advertised.

If (and it's a big if), the case(s) is/are successful, it should attract a lot of publicity and make other venues think twice before offering this particular entertainer a slot on their schedule.

Let's take the heat out of it and litigate. Cold hard fact - no mention of abuse. The advertisements and publicity material led the audience to believe they would be seeing something very different.

And I'm sure there are enough people who didn't actually go but who feel strongly that we could start a fund to help the actual eye witnesses if they chose to litigate. And if the case(s) is/are successful, any compensation could be donated to charity (maybe the welfare charity that was most proactive in this case??)


Like I said, just a thought after being stuck on the motorway for 7 hours
Click to expand...

:D:D:D
 
TrecInWales said:
There was/is no legion/wound. What are you talking about? the lies posted by a certain individual earlier in this forum...?
Click to expand...

The statement made by several people on here and elswhere,yes ;)
It would not be unexpected that the methods used would result in a wound to the mouth so there is no reason to assume it is a lie.
Given the clear amount of force excerted and the position of the line,it would indeed be ilogical to thnk it did no harm.

So we have a problem(once again)-some say it caused a wound,others that ti did not.Without proof from the powers that be(and no,you don't count) it won't be settled to everyones satisfaction.
Perhaps since the BHS is reported to have knowledge on this matter,BHS_Lee could pop on the thread to confirm,would save them answering 1001 emails about the same topic too.

And for f**ks sake,would someone please answer the question instead of moaning about he said she said- WHAT did Catwalk do when his groom tried to put his bridle on,and what does he do now?


ETS- Some of the people who have commented on this thread are friends with the Whitakers,we "know" them and have no reason to disbelive what they say.
You are a new user so we ahve no idea who you are.Do you really expect people to belive your (rather rude) word over trusted long standing members of the forum?
 
Last edited:
Tannis said:
I've had a thought - might be a bit incendiary but here goes...

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the definition of abuse and whether what happened was abuse. I think a large proportion of people feel it was "inappropriate" to say the least.

Thre are then arguments about this type of thing being allowed to happen again.

It has been reported on here that the welfare organisations "may" be investigating.

But what if another tack is taken.

Just for one moment, put the emotional aspect of the behaviour on one side (and no, I don't mean forget it or belittle it).

What if the people who witnessed it and were affected by it decided to sue FOTH because what they saw was not what was advertised. Under Trades Description or Trading Standards or whatever it is now, what was actually demonstrated does not reflect what was advertised. In evidence, the FOTH advertisements can be used, coupled with the actual wording from the site of the people who performed the demonstration.

So, not only did customers not get the entertainment they were expecting but they found it so distressing that their enjoyment of the event was curtailed to such an extent that they had to leave.

Further, that left a bitter taste and affected their enjoyment of the whole day, not just the event that was not as advertised.

If (and it's a big if), the case(s) is/are successful, it should attract a lot of publicity and make other venues think twice before offering this particular entertainer a slot on their schedule.

Let's take the heat out of it and litigate. Cold hard fact - no mention of abuse. The advertisements and publicity material led the audience to believe they would be seeing something very different.

And I'm sure there are enough people who didn't actually go but who feel strongly that we could start a fund to help the actual eye witnesses if they chose to litigate. And if the case(s) is/are successful, any compensation could be donated to charity (maybe the welfare charity that was most proactive in this case??)


Like I said, just a thought after being stuck on the motorway for 7 hours
Click to expand...

Hummm on those grounds I think there is no case to answer: you freely bought a ticket to see a demo of PNH which was billed to say that PP would be working with a problem/difficult horse, that in its self is mitigating evidence, if you then found out that the problem horse required handling in a way that you found distressing but was quite an accepted way of doing things within the realms of horse handling, I think you would still be on shaky ground. Mitigating evidence would also be that there was no anger or aggression from the perpetrator to the horse, there was no intent to harm the horse in the slightest. He had full authority to handle the horse from its owner who as an experienced horseman himself, and did not make any attempt to stop the way it was handled, also the owner allow the horse to continue to be handled for a further 7 hours the following day.
Ah then there would be the eyewitnesses, I bet they could match every one of your witnesses with one favourable to them
Nahh can't see it happening.
 
B U T

the general premise of co-operation, partnership, no force etc etc - as advertised - is not what happened.

In the realms of reality, we all know that force may be used. But the big difference is that most people don't advertise it and then go on to use it in full knowledge that it is not what was advertised.

That's the difference.

It's not a matter of horsemanship or knowledge - there was a threshold that was reached and the person in question was in full knowledge that he was crossing it - at least according to his own publicity he has that knowledge.

This is where the horseman and the business man separate. The horseman knew he had a battle to win. The business man forgot that he used techniques contrary to what he had advertised.

There is an argument to be made.

And a court of non horsey people would watch this in the cold light of objectivity and see a man forcing his will on a horse and then they would look at the printed statements that clearly say no force will be used.
 
TrecInWales said:
I haven't been following the entirety of this thread but I am very confused.

- Only Pat/Linda/2 Parelli Professionals/Robert and the Vet were at the examination, nobody else...
- No mention was made by the vet as regards lesions to the gum-line...
- The vet determined the horse was fit to compete, which it did...

Why on earth would Parelli bother putting out a public statement when it is evident from the hysterical posts on this forum that truth is of little value here...

There is some insidious manipulation going on in this thread by a few individuals who have been less than honest with the truth.
Click to expand...



They don't want the truth, they have made up their minds, twisted the facts and are now looking for blood!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by siennamum
So does PP ever hire women who are um... plain, or overweight??
anima said:
No,they would not look so good on the TV :p
Click to expand...

I know! See 40 seconds in when Pat catches a good look at the girl's bum at face height :D

Jesting aside, I'm going to repeat myself for one last time for TrecInWales' benefit - look at the BHS' letter. Email them yourself asking for confirmation. But for gods sake stop saying there was no wound when you don't know that, and the most well thought of horsey organisation in the country begs to differ with you. :rolleyes:
 
Not sure if this has been posted allready, but....

STATEMENT FROM BRITISH SHOWJUMING ON THE PARELLI/CATWALK TRAINING

Friday 16 July 2010



Following the Parelli training session at the Royal Festival of the Horse event (10th July 2010), British Showjumping understand a complaint was made as to Catwalk's welfare and that as a result a veterinary inspection took place where he was found to be fit and well.
 
dany said:
Not sure if this has been posted allready, but....

STATEMENT FROM BRITISH SHOWJUMING ON THE PARELLI/CATWALK TRAINING

Friday 16 July 2010



Following the Parelli training session at the Royal Festival of the Horse event (10th July 2010), British Showjumping understand a complaint was made as to Catwalk's welfare and that as a result a veterinary inspection took place where he was found to be fit and well.
Click to expand...


It won't matter. Someone posted an email, that can't verified, maybe created or made up, that there were injuries. The facts are secondary. They don't care... they have an agenda.
 
7HL said:

It won't matter. Someone posted an email, that can't verified, maybe created or made up, that there were injuries. The facts are secondary. They don't care... they have an agenda.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should email the BHS yourself?
 
Your guess was right Tannis, your post was so incendiary, I had to stop lurking and register so that I could respond!

Playing devil's advocate and assuming that you won your court case, the following would be likely to happen:

The organisers' liability insurance for all events featuring horses would rise dramatically. This would apply to any event as there is risk of horses being injured and therefore spectators becoming distressed - show jumping, Monty demos, team chasing, racing, eventing, express eventing, right down to your local show. Insurance premiums are not calculated by horse people who would differentiate between Parelli and the possibility of a horse breaking its neck in a rotational fall across country

The Festival of the Horse would certainly fold with those increase costs, along with many other shows that are hanging on by the skin of their teeth in the current economic climate. Horse shows are already unprofitable, as shown by The British Open SJ.

Venues would consider their own liability and increase costs to cover their perceived risks, or decline to take bookings from horse events.

Events that continued to host demonstrations would not arrange any demos featuring problem horses or unstarted horses. "Bye bye Monty, Kelly Marks and Richard Maxwell"

Welcome to Utopia, are you proud of what you have achieved?

Tannis, I appreciate that you feel strongly about this, but your idea of a legal course of action has consequences that you have clearly not even considered.

From an event organiser.
 
7HL said:
Why??
Click to expand...

To get hold of an original copy of the document that you claim can't be verified, and may be fabricated or in some way doctored. I quote again your previous post:

7HL said:
Someone posted an email, that can't verified, maybe created or made up
Click to expand...


7HL said:
By the way, what is a horsey?
Click to expand...

Well, you could either see Fumanchu's post about horsies and ponios (spelling may vary) and judge for yourself, or you could use common sense to interpret my post.

If it saves you the hassle, I meant an organisation which is related to horses. I was using what I assumed was a commonly known slang word.

I hope that clarifies things for you.
 
Last edited:
7HL You are clearly right here. Big mistakes have been made but this forum is now made up or NH "disciples" and those baying for blood. Its rubbish and H & H should intervene and close this thread now.
 
you pro parelli people really dont like it when you dont get you way or your not being agreed with ,i can almost see you stamping your feet and chucking your toys out the pram ! everyone is allowed an opinion so deal with it !!! of course you can have your say but dont get a sh*t on when people dont agree with u !!!
 
vandypip said:
7HL You are clearly right here. Big mistakes have been made but this forum is now made up or NH "disciples" and those baying for blood. Its rubbish and H & H should intervene and close this thread now.
Click to expand...

On the contary - I think with the overwhelming interest in this thread H&H should (probably already are) go out and do some nice investigative journalism and run a nice, big article on the whole fiasco and what really went on! (as I have the gist of it from this thread and from a friend, but really do not wish to look through all 40+ pages for the small details!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top