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

DragonSlayer said:
It takes a big man to admit he made a mistake. IF all the facts are true, IF indeed a grave error of judgement was made, then he needs to stand up and admit that. The public will respond to that in a much better way than saying nothing at all and carrying on as if nothing has ever happened.....
Click to expand...
Very well said DS :)

It does not look like that will happen,but it should have been the first thing done.
I do think PP himself is on some level ashamed of what he did,or why choose to show so little of the demo in his own video? Out of a 2 min video posted by Parelli,they show 9 or 10 seconds of Friday and in the clips from the next day only show the bridle ON ,not how they get it there(which if you are trying to educate is a bloody big omission!).

People who don't see any wrong in their actions don't care who is watching.
 
From your perspective, it may not illustrate the whole 3 hours but in that case a defence would be required and the defence should be a video of the other 2 hours 48 minutes (or whatever it is).
Click to expand...

Maybe there you are guilty untill proven innocent, but in the US it is innocent until proven guilty. We put the burden, so to speak on the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond the shaddow of a doubt.


I have seen the three or four minute video clips from a cell phone. Not abuse. You may feel you want a refund for your ticket purchase, but it doesn't sound like many went there to see Parelli anyway. You should have asked for a refund at the door.



It's a simple matter that what was advertised is not what was delivered.
Click to expand...

Many other that went to the event / demo believe it was. I think it just boils down to a differing opinion.
 
vandypip said:
Well, I will say again, and yes, there have been a lot of a*******s on this thread, and anyway, how do you know what word I'm using???? Parelli have falled short, their mistake, their responsibility to make up. They do have training methods, ie., western philosophy, that is good and relevant. What they have done is recognise a business venture. Can you blame them??? I'd like to make money this way!!! although I hasten to add not quite how they've done it. They will survive because there are enough people out there that need them. The marketing is the big problem here. That is now the issue.
Click to expand...

It's easy to know what word you are using, by the power of deduction...

It's too strong a word I'm afraid, to expect a sensible response I would suggest 'mis-guided'.....'lacking in sufficent knowledge' and the like..bet you get better results.

Yes, it's good they make money, it's perfectly ok, BUT as I've never seen the need to change what I do, I've never been swayed to pay huge amounts of cash to 'experience' it.

AND I bought a horse that had 'apparently done all the Parelli stuff'....a vicious, nasty and basically dangerous horse that TBH should probably have been destroyed, because whatever he had been subjected to, there was zero-trust to humans...

Now, I'm willing to bet that IF he had been 'Parelli-Trained', then it must have been a pretty poor advocate who 'parellied' him....and was a very bad example of someone who was meant to 'be an expert' in the technique....which of course, already gives Parelli a bad name....

The said horse now is on loan with view to buy, at my yard (woman saving up as she loves him to bits) and she has 3 young kids, ALL of whom now help with the grooming, and day to day care.

I put down his change of character to once more learning to trust humans again. Love, patience, care and a willingness to accept he went through bad times. If he didn't respond to me, I left it, and we tried another day. We have owned him getting on for 5 years now, for the first year and a half, he hated us.....for the remaining years he has been a joy to own.....
 
Act in haste, repent at leisure springs to mind. Give Parelli a chance. Big mistakes for the sake of business. Even bigger mistake. Now we will see the dedication of the man. After all he can't possibly need the money so give him the opportunity. After all thats what NH should be about.
 
vandypip said:
The sad thing is this has always been my argument!!!!! and if people don't like being called A*******s then maybe they should consider what they post themselves!!!!
Click to expand...

Or maybe the name callers should go back to their mothers for a while ;)
If you need to resort to insults to try and get your point across,you have lost before you start.

Do not mistake similar words for similar thinking- IF PP had remained calm and workmanlike he would not have run over the session by so long(or is it normal for Parelli to work horses for so long? Basic principle,the more intense the session the shorter the time acceptable).
It seems very clear that being unable to produce the goods on what aparently an "extreme case" (although there is no evidence of that) made PP lose his sense of judgement.
A couple of days later,rather then publish a full or even fully representative video a TINY clip of the horse simply saying "no thanks" and pulling away when he touches it's head is shown.
Putting on the bridle is NOT.
Some shots of PP fiddling with it (and an unhappy horse again saying no thanks) is.


Simple version-
Should it have bene done the way it was? NO.
Was there another option? YES.
Was there a better option? YES.

As I have said before,a good horseman thinks there is always another day,while a bad one thinks there is always another horse.
 
Last edited:
vandypip said:
Act in haste, repent at leisure springs to mind. Give Parelli a chance. Big mistakes for the sake of business. Even bigger mistake. Now we will see the dedication of the man. After all he can't possibly need the money so give him the opportunity. After all thats what NH should be about.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought it was about people wanting to move away from out dated abusive training methods to kinder ones the horse is better able to understand what is asked of him.
i thought it was about giving the horse the respect the animal deserves.
Silly me ;)
 
7HL said:
Maybe there you are guilty untill proven innocent, but in the US it is innocent until proven guilty. We put the burden, so to speak on the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond the shaddow of a doubt.


I have seen the three or four minute video clips from a cell phone. Not abuse. You may feel you want a refund for your ticket purchase, but it doesn't sound like many went there to see Parelli anyway. You should have asked for a refund at the door.





Many other that went to the event / demo believe it was. I think it just boils down to a differing opinion.
Click to expand...


You're missing the point completely.

Many people on here have stated that they never want to see anything like this again. The arguments to stop that have been about abuse. That's difficult to prove.

However, under Sales of Goods, there is an argument.

Under UK law, if someone brings a case against someone and submits evidence in support of their claim then it is up the the opposition to prove that the claim is unfounded. It's Civil Law not Criminal Law. Civil Law is based on the degree of "reasonableness".

So, if somone brings a claim under Civil Law and submits evidence (video) to support their claim and the "other side" isn't able to provide evidence to refute that claim (video), then obviously the Court would have to rule on what was presented before them.

My opinion is that at the moment if someone were to bring a claim under Sales of Goods that what they saw is not what was advertised, they are entitled to submit the video evidence that is available to support their claim. They can also provide the wording of the publicity material that support their reason for purchase of a ticket. They would be The Claimant. If The Defendant could produce evidence of a similar nature to refute the claim, then the Court would assess the merits of both sides.

All I have pointed out is that there is evidence available to support an allegation about of failure to comply with Sales of Goods, and as of today, there has been no evidence offered to present an alternative view.
 
anima said:
*Sticks head round door*
So....no one would like to tell us what exactly Catwalk did when someone attempted to bridle him? Why am I not suprised..... *sigh* ;)
Click to expand...

No, that would involve giving a straight reply to a straight question.

:rolleyes:
 
Many people on here have stated that they never want to see anything like this again. The arguments to stop that have been about abuse. That's difficult to prove.
Click to expand...

Maybe because it didn't happen.

"Under UK law, if someone brings a case against someone and submits evidence in support of their claim then it is up the the opposition to prove that the claim is unfounded. It's Civil Law not Criminal Law. Civil Law is based on the degree of "reasonableness"."
Click to expand...

So if I subscibe to Horse and Hound and I don't like what they print, publish I can sue them for failure to produce what I perseve what they advertised they would deliver?

Does that go for Movies, Music, Play Books etc? If I don't think a Movie presents what is advertised I can sue them? Why not just get your money back? Or better yet, leave and don't go again.
 
anima said:
........I do think PP himself is on some level ashamed of what he did,or why choose to show so little of the demo in his own video? Out of a 2 min video posted by Parelli,they show 9 or 10 seconds of Friday and in the clips from the next day only show the bridle ON ,not how they get it there(which if you are trying to educate is a bloody big omission!).

People who don't see any wrong in their actions don't care who is watching.
Click to expand...
I would like to make a couple of points here.
I think the video put out by PNH was not necessarily made and broadcast for the benefit of people that were not there, but for the people who were there and were concerned how the demo might have affected Catwalk. it didn't have to show the demo just how the horse was after and the next day for anyone that might have worried or was concerned for the horse.
Can I please ask why I feel that no-one has answered my questions or perhaps I'm being to polite, or can I take it that my comments might just be worthy or on the other hand not worth replying to.
 
7HL, will you, in the interests of objectivity, email the BHS (I believe lee hackett is the man) and ask them to confirm if a vet saw catwalk and if there was an injury of any kind?

If not then why not?

Thank you in advance for answering my questions.
 
Naturally said:
7HL, will you, in the interests of objectivity, email the BHS (I believe lee hackett is the man) and ask them to confirm if a vet saw catwalk and if there was an injury of any kind?

If not then why not?

Thank you in advance for answering my questions.
Click to expand...

Don't have the email address, but you can PM me with if you want.

Not sure it's really any of my business or others.

I truly believe the issue is in Mr Whittakers court. And he doesn't owe anyone any explanation.



going to attend to my horse....
 
This will happen again. Not necessarily with Parelli, but it will. It is going on every day, just not in the public eye and not out of your pocket. Attacking Parelli will not eradicate the true problem.
 
7HL said:
Maybe because it didn't happen.



So if I subscibe to Horse and Hound and I don't like what they print, publish I can sue them for failure to produce what I perseve what they advertised they would deliver?

Does that go for Movies, Music, Play Books etc? If I don't think a Movie presents what is advertised I can sue them? Why not just get your money back? Or better yet, leave and don't go again.
Click to expand...





Your choice.

The law is there if you want to use it.


And as for your questions, ask any corporate legal team - the answer is yes, if something is advertised, it has to deliver what it has advertised.

In this case, the publicity material was very specific and the use of the words that were used means that the event was obliged to deliver what it set out in its publicity. Had it just said something general such as "come along and see Person x with problem horses" then no-one could complain. But the wording used in this specific case said no force, no dominance, sharing of experience. Some members of the audience felt that wasn't delivered. And so long as "some" members didn't agree and they can compile evidence to support their argument then, yes, they have a claim. They may not win but there is nothing to stop them submitting a claim. And if that person feels very strongly, and was emotionally distressed or had their "enjoyment of their purchase" compromised then they are entitled to ask for compensation. That's the law, not me putting a spin on it.

The simple matter of fact is that the people who were distressed will struggle to prove abuse but they have a much better chance of bringing a claim under Sales of Goods and that will, effectively have the same end if what they perceive as abuse is penalised.

It's so clear cut - this demonstration was not what was advertised. Just look at the words that were used and look at the evidence that has been put forward. So far, the evidence that has been provided - even if it is wrong and is taken completely out of context - supports that allegation. If someone wants to challenge the allegation - then put forward evidence ie the whole 3 hours (or however long it was). Opinion, argument and vitriole are not evidence.



Sales of Goods Act (1979)
 
Last edited:
vandypip said:
Think you are right. Parelli's message being the horse is ok, which of course he would be after such a short session.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply, thats is if it was aimed at my last post.
When you (one) hears something repeated over and over you start to think that there is only one explanation, sometimes you have to think laterally to see any other possible explanations, but so many have jumped to only one explanation which fits in with their opinion.
 
Tannis said:
Your choice.

The law is there if you want to use it.


And as for your questions, ask any corporate legal team - the answer is yes, if something is advertised, it has to deliver what it has advertised.

In this case, the publicity material was very specific and the use of the words that were used means that the event was obliged to deliver what it set out in its publicity. Had it just said something general such as "come along and see Person x with problem horses" then no-one could complain. But the wording used in this specific case said no force, no dominance, sharing of experience. Some members of the audience felt that wasn't delivered. And so long as "some" members didn't agree and they can compile evidence to support their argument then, yes, they have a claim. They may not win but there is nothing to stop them submitting a claim. And if that person feels very strongly, and was emotionally distressed or had their "enjoyment of their purchase" compromised then they are entitled to ask for compensation. That's the law, not me putting a spin on it.

The simple matter of fact is that the people who were distressed will struggle to prove abuse but they have a much better chance of bringing a claim under Sales of Goods and that will, effectively have the same end if what they perceive as abuse is penalised.

It's so clear cut - this demonstration was not what was advertised. Just look at the words that were used and look at the evidence that has been put forward. So far, the evidence that has been provided - even if it is wrong and is taken completely out of context - supports that allegation. If someone wants to challenge the allegation - then put forward evidence ie the whole 3 hours (or however long it was). Opinion, argument and vitriole are not evidence.



Sales of Goods Act (1979)
Click to expand...
Basically this appears to be the problem. A case of buyer beware!!!!
 
vandypip said:
This will happen again. Not necessarily with Parelli, but it will. It is going on every day, just not in the public eye and not out of your pocket. Attacking Parelli will not eradicate the true problem.
Click to expand...

Yes it is-and whoever is doing it is disgusting.
There is no way any yard I have been on would tolorate someone acting in the way PP did. End of story.We stop the people who would do this sort of thing at home by making it clear is it not accetable.

However,those people are NOT at a demo either showing off their "uber skills" or atempting to teach.THAT is why someone in PP's position doing it has an extra kick.
Pro's riding in over tight draw reins don't get a nice time either,H&H is a discussion board and pretty much everything gets discussed-when we are talking about bad practise no-one is left out because of who they are or jumped on for the same reason.
There are trainers I am not keen on and would never go to watch or have a lesson with IRL but I would never say a bad word about that because while I personaly do not like their methods they are not wrong.
PP's at that time,in that place WERE.

Once again(and I think I will ask every time I come back to post on this thread from now on :p ) what did Catwalk do when his groom tried to put the bridle on before PP's demo and what is his reaction to it now? .
The only possable "excuse" for the rough treatment is that he was a violent danger to anyone putting a bridle on.
There has been nothing to show that,only PP saying he was an extreme case.
I have known horses that really were(ears flat back,charging kicking biting at the sight of a bridle) and we as the staff overcame it with kindness and good old fashioned time.
If we as normal people can do it ,the self proclaimed "greatest horseman in the world" shoudl be able to as well!
 
**** Does mega dance*****

made it to the end of the thread. it took me 2 days ad its v late but 'I read it all, well mostly apart from the last few posts as got confused and eyes went blurred and had so much to say all the way through but had to get to the end.

Well I have been interested in this and I have to Say T n C has opened my eyes and even though some other parellians have tried to 'Show me the light' what she has said has stuck in my mind. I got confused and I am still not sure if Robert was there all the way through or not. but the way i see it he wasnt, but was there at the end, probs came back to pick his horse up as didnt relaise it would be going on for so long. I think Catwalk did have a cut on his lip but if there was a show sat, I just dont know.

How i see it, is Pat's mistake in his lack of communication and ability to explain what he as doing, his also arrogance that he has not educated all his "staff" to the same level he has so they also seem clueless on why he did what he did. He has also preached and preached abut how he is for the horse and keeps it natural and doesn't want to bully the horse and on that night he did just that in front of a crowd. We will NEVER see the film, it will never become available and we will unlikely ever get a statement from Pat as that would mean he would have to admit he was wrong and went against his mission statement.

I have seen a gum line used my Kelly Marks years ago and you know what it achieved, BS, the horse was scared and I have NEVER got my respect back for Kelly Marks since and I was 8/9 at the time (now 24) and I was treated to it for my birthday and I, at the time stood up and said she was being cruel, through tears I may say, and got laughed at.
However I have witnessed crueler stuff happen to horses in front of me since, and been better able to defend my point.

Any way I am going off topic. I hope Catwalk is Ok, he is all I care about. Pat Parelli will NEVER take over the UK as he has done in the US an you know why, we have a brilliant relationship with our horses already and most dont need Parelli to show us how to get what we what out of our horses. That's why we get so upset with Parellites who are arrogant. There is more than one way to skin a cat!!!. I have met just as arrogant non parellians who are adament there way is the only way too, both sides are just as guilty. I just dont want animals to be harmed unneccesarily. But I am afraid there is not enough evidence to make a serious investigation into this particular case, I may be wrong.

This is all I have to say. I am very tired and need to go to bed and I am sorry if I have made a lot of spelling mistakes.
 
bay_beasty said:
****

Well I have been interested in this and I have to Say T n C has opened my eyes and even though some other parellians have tried to 'Show me the light' what she has said has stuck in my mind.....

Pat Parelli will NEVER take over the UK as he has done in the US an you know why, we have a brilliant relationship with our horses already and most dont need Parelli to show us how to get what we what out of our horses. That's why we get so upset with Parellites who are arrogant. There is more than one way to skin a cat!!!. I have met just as arrogant non parellians who are adament there way is the only way too, both sides are just as guilty.
Click to expand...


Thank You and I agree. You are a special person to go from, hating parelli and anyone who stood near him, being so mad at me and my stupid joke, to becoming a trusted friend. I would honestly do anything to come over there and give you a big hug. your wonderful words, both on the thread and in PM, have brought nothing but tears to my eyes. you have been part of making a 10yo dream come true. that with the right attitude, we can not only get along peacefully, but come come to understand the other sides point of view with out hatred, and ultimately become friends, and if nothing else to peacefully agree to disagree. I cannot thank you enough.

I have not read any part of this thread since sunday, so I have no idea what all is going on. Just a thank you, to those who have contributed and those that have signed the petition.
:cool:
 
7HL said:
Don't have the email address, but you can PM me with if you want.

Not sure it's really any of my business or others.

I truly believe the issue is in Mr Whittakers court. And he doesn't owe anyone any explanation.



going to attend to my horse....
Click to expand...

Its freely available on the internet - l.hackett@bhs.org.uk.

The reason I encourage you to speak to the BHS is so that then you will have all information to hand, since you appear to wish to defend the claims that catwalk gained an injury.
 
I can answer one question for everyone. By now, it will be easy to bridle Catwalk. Much as we may be attracted to the idea of the noble stallion that "won't put up with" things, what Pat did, and the work he's been doing since, will work and the horse will be bridled. I think for many of us it's the "how" that we are questioning, not whether or not it will work.
 
Over the past week I have had many letters from people disgusted at what they saw. I have read virtually every blog on this website and having been around what they call Natural Horsemanship for a decade - nothing surprises me - the blind devotion of the faithful - or the animosity of the PNH haters! However if one cuts through this and looks sensibly at what should be the main focus of concern of everyone - the horse. What is the missing element from the equation? Pain! - whether it be emotional, physical, or imbedded memory. In general a vet does not check minutely for these things and I have never known a Parelli Instructor to either - especially not Pat the ultimate cowboy. Perhaps if the horse had been examined by a dentist - or a person trained to locate and address pain in the horse, especially around the head and ears - a different result may have been achieved. Or perhaps Pat told - 'this horse is not suitable for a demonstration'. Unfortunately for Pat this exhibition ended up being an excellent demonstration to the intelligent horsemen of UK just how much show business bull**** he has been spouting to his adoring fans for years.
 
Just read PP's response - dear god is he up his own arse!!! - what a crock - he is going on about passive techniques - I don't know what he classes as passive but a lip chain in my book is not passive!!!
The Whittikars have only had the poor horse for 8 weeks - so he's not even had much of a chance to settle into his new home yet - let alone his handlers having time to work with him little and often to overcome this problem. And by the sounds of it he was not that bad before - just sounds like he was awkward, didn't trust his new handlers, and is basically taking up time they don't have on a busy yard. I have seen screwed up horses that have gone over backwards when you try and go near their heads, so to do the extreme techniques on a horse that isn't really that bad on a horse for hours at a demo just to put on a show and prove a point is shameful!!!!

I am all for natural horsemanship ie common sense, and am a big fan of Claus Hempfling but this is far from natural - this is just using force and wearing a horse down to the point of mental and physical exhaustion over a long period of time to "solve" a problem in front of an audience!! Makes me angry I can't even watch most of the Parelli **** as it is just cringeworthy!!!!!:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top