"Rescuing" horses from auctions

Up to 13k now, ridiculously, why on earth are people donating. These things rely on gullible people being suckers.

The entitlement of people to use this platform for unworthy causes makes you cynical about anything on there which compromises the people that actually genuinely need help e.g those who've suffered a massive house fire and lost everything. Not to finance a luxury hobby.

Don't buy the damn horses if you dont have the money for their immediate care. Wonder if people will be refunded when theyre earning their keep in the trekking centre, one suspects not!!

Didn't Emily King have the audacity to do it to get people to buy a horse just so she could continue to compete it? Major abuse of the platform imo, likewise SV one for Harry, especially when she had other assets she could sell if she was actually desperate for funds for his treatment

Its basically a begging platform for the majority, which as I said, then makes you cynical about anything on there
 
FieldOrnaments said:
Out of interest how would declaring this income work? It's listed as dissolved in 2010 on companies house
Click to expand...
In an attempt at a very brief nutshell overview:

It may be that they are now running as a sole trader/partnership/private company and are not registered at companies house. (Though they could be registered under a different name). Quite legitimate and not a cause for concern in itself. It would mean that they could be personally held liable for any debts of the company, which doesn't happen with a registered (Limited) company, which is why companies generally get registered, for that protection.

In terms of the income, (whether it's a registered company or not) all money they collect/charge and all money they spend in the course of the business will need to be documented and submitted to HMRC annually for tax purposes at the very least. If their income is greater than their expenses, the balance (profit) belongs to the company/individuals to do whatever they want with.

I hope this makes some sense, and I also hope I haven't 'talked down' to you!

(If anyone has seen any glaring errors/omissions in what I've said please, please do correct me!)
 
JenJ said:
In an attempt at a very brief nutshell overview:

It may be that they are now running as a sole trader/partnership/private company and are not registered at companies house. (Though they could be registered under a different name). Quite legitimate and not a cause for concern in itself. It would mean that they could be personally held liable for any debts of the company, which doesn't happen with a registered (Limited) company, which is why companies generally get registered, for that protection.

In terms of the income, (whether it's a registered company or not) all money they collect/charge and all money they spend in the course of the business will need to be documented and submitted to HMRC annually for tax purposes at the very least. If their income is greater than their expenses, the balance (profit) belongs to the company/individuals to do whatever they want with.

I hope this makes some sense, and I also hope I haven't 'talked down' to you!

(If anyone has seen any glaring errors/omissions in what I've said please, please do correct me!)
Click to expand...
Ahhhh this makes sense thank you so much
 
I’ve just read a Facebook post where someone has commented that the vet should treat them for free!!
Someone has responded saying why should they - & has pointed out that the horses were bought at auction, not rescued.

Another person has asked if they have been abused. The owner says “…they were bought at auction and yes in a way they have been but her, much more so. Him, no he's trusting, but remember that abuse can have various forms and she in my opinion has been. Untreated long term nasal infection, and psychologically too. He needs some expert farriery care and will get full health checks, gutteral pouch wash, equine dentistry etc at Oakhill Veterinary Centre on 12th. The GoFundMe is to help those costs and daily care, which is pricey!!”

Personally I would be very careful about using the term ‘abuse’ without very secure evidence. Having a nasal infection & poor hooves is not necessarily ’abuse.’ And I wouldn’t have been happy for a newspaper to report that no-one wanted the horses when this is obviously not true- as well as the claim that the mare was underweight.
 
the field video at least is old footage, in a comment they said it was a few weeks ago. It does really seem like this is 'oops haven't budgeted for these, better concoct a sob sorry to cover the bills' seeing as the auction was 26th and the first post on them didn't appear until June 2 and was followed by more normal probably scheduled posts
 
Sorry I'm really irritated by it all.
There was another GFM for a "rescued dachshund" to have surgery for IVDD at Fitzpatrick referrals on my local community page this morning.
Just fed up of seeing people being fundamentally irresponsible (and I think not having back up plans for unexpected costs with animals is definitely that).
 
FieldOrnaments said:
Sorry I'm really irritated by it all.
There was another GFM for a "rescued dachshund" to have surgery for IVDD at Fitzpatrick referrals on my local community page this morning.
Just fed up of seeing people being fundamentally irresponsible (and I think not having back up plans for unexpected costs with animals is definitely that).
Click to expand...
You're not the only one. I'm finding it so infuriating 🙈 I'm surprised they've not got a lot more flack. I'd love the previous owners to come forward.
 
Bellaboo18 said:
I'd love the previous owners to come forward.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about this…if I had owned one of these horses I would probably feel conflicted because as much as I’d want to be vindicated of ‘abuse’, it probably wouldn’t be worth the inevitable outpouring of hate from all the fans.

The more I find out, the more I’m convinced that some people are parting with their money on the basis of info that is not entirely accurate.
 
JenJ said:
Not usually, unless it's a registered charity
Click to expand...
A quick Google suggests that you do not have to declare cash gifts.... Very clever...so the outgoings will of be declared against tax, but the go fund me income doesn't need to be...

Bank account (business) lots of out goings. Tax deducted.
Gfm withdrawn into a personal account (maybe) no tax paid...

As I say it was a quick Google and read.
 
jhoward said:
A quick Google suggests that you do not have to declare cash gifts.... Very clever...so the outgoings will of be declared against tax, but the go fund me income doesn't need to be...

Bank account (business) lots of out goings. Tax deducted.
Gfm withdrawn into a personal account (maybe) no tax paid...

As I say it was a quick Google and read.
Click to expand...
It can be a grey area - strictly speaking, if a donation is made with no expectation of anything in return, then it could be considered a genuine gift. That should be a rare exception for any business though, so I don't know what the view would be on this, especially as GFM are becoming more common and less exceptional.

I'm sure they will be able to find plenty of accountants who can make it work on paper though 🤷‍♂️
 
This thread is not helping my ambition to run my own business.
It's a bloody minefield and I wish it was taught in schools.

Fundamentally a business effectively misleading people with very emotive language into raising a substantial sum of money feels incredibly wrong. But proving it would be really hard, considering it's even currently still on the auction report that they purchased the horses, so they could argue they were not misleading anybody and the information was out there for those who wanted to look.
I have tried to find previous adverts for the horses but not got anywhere, it would be very interested to see what is actually on their passports.
 
They don't seem to be in poor condition. One had a snotty nose.

One video said they wormed them as soon as they bought them. I find that weird. Surely you need to check if they need worming before doing that.

They say the Clyde has been a show horse, based on the shoeing, tail being shaved and mane trimmed. They are guessing he wasn't turned out because he was a show horse. It seems unlikely that a quality young show horse would end up as an anonymous auction lot, but I suppose it's possible. If that's the case, why the assumption that he's been abused? He doesn't look abused. He's a fine weight, no scars, no tell tale signs of neglect. He's pushy while they handle him but not scared. He needs his feet trimming, but they aren't dramatically long.

I find the Go Fund Me a bit disingenuous. They are hoping people will skim read as well; dropping in the RSPCA as if this was a rescue they assisted in, when instead they've paid thousands for horses that others were bidding on (so they weren't unwanted or undesirable).
 
I find it quite interesting and a little amusing to read their supporters comments. The latter fuel themselves and make the horses more and more abused before the auction without the owners having to do anything and the supporters start defending those who don:t gush and agree. Like some weird kind of pack behaviour

There must be a name for this kind of social media phenomenon. I've seen it recently in couple of other weird sm horse accounts, one being a chaotic stallion and it's owner, and at least one or two of the accounts with parents touting their kids on ponies for the world to see.
 
Also the Go Fund Me spiel says they had the money for their barn roof in the bank account and they've spent that on horses. On their Facebook they said NFU were paying them for the damage to the barn caused in the storms, so is it that money they have spent? that doesn't seem right. They seem to accept this wasn't spare money, so they were sacrificing the welfare of the existing horses because they wanted to buy these two (and admit they had to bid to their limit for them, so they weren't at risk of being slaughtered). People are absolute nutters to donate to this "cause".
 
mariew said:
I find it quite interesting and a little amusing to read their supporters comments. The latter fuel themselves and make the horses more and more abused before the auction without the owners having to do anything and the supporters start defending those who don:t gush and agree. Like some weird kind of pack behaviour

There must be a name for this kind of social media phenomenon. I've seen it recently in couple of other weird sm horse accounts, one being a chaotic stallion and it's owner, and at least one or two of the accounts with parents touting their kids on ponies for the world to see.
Click to expand...
They do have a bit of a cultish following. A few times a year they will do a post about how heavy horses are not designed to carry heavy people, which always gets thousands of likes and lots of comments, and it brings in more people to their following. Same when they do their posts about horses living naturally and getting turnout. They play the social media game pretty well.
 
The whole tax thing is interesting…I would think that the horses count as assets in this business - so presumably they’d be able to offset the purchase price against tax. The ‘donations’ are for upkeep including vets’ bills - also tax deductible? They are a business, not a charity; my understanding is that there are rules about fundraising in this context.

And I know that I’ve mentioned it before, but the costs they’re quoting for bedding, feed, hoof trimming etc are excessive. In terms of claiming expenses, if I told HMRC that I’d paid £x for something when it was actually less, I would be in big trouble.

Overall, the whole thing is incredibly disingenuous.
 
DressageCob said:
Also the Go Fund Me spiel says they had the money for their barn roof in the bank account and they've spent that on horses. On their Facebook they said NFU were paying them for the damage to the barn caused in the storms, so is it that money they have spent? that doesn't seem right. They seem to accept this wasn't spare money, so they were sacrificing the welfare of the existing horses because they wanted to buy these two (and admit they had to bid to their limit for them, so they weren't at risk of being slaughtered). People are absolute nutters to donate to this "cause".
Click to expand...
Thing is, they went to the auction hoping to buy one or two Suffolk fillies for their breeding programme, so they must have had the budget to buy at least one. This is why I couldn’t understand the whole barn roof thing as they (presumably) went to an auction with the intention of buying; it just so happened that they ended up ‘rescuing’ these two ‘abused’ horses that no-one else wanted (even though other people were bidding on them).

Let’s face it, had they got the Suffolks for a bargain price at the auction, they wouldn’t be fundraising. When I realised this it made me even more annoyed! It’s like they couldn’t get the Suffolks so they looked for horses that might be useful to the business as ridden horses, only to paint them as poor abused rescues and get the public to pay.

Ironically, in the long run the Suffolk fillies could have ended up costing more in vets’ fees - especially as the two horses they’ve bought could well be earning their keep as trekking horses in the not too distant future!
 
mariew said:
I find it quite interesting and a little amusing to read their supporters comments. The latter fuel themselves and make the horses more and more abused before the auction without the owners having to do anything and the supporters start defending those who don:t gush and agree. Like some weird kind of pack behaviour

There must be a name for this kind of social media phenomenon. I've seen it recently in couple of other weird sm horse accounts, one being a chaotic stallion and it's owner, and at least one or two of the accounts with parents touting their kids on ponies for the world to see.
Click to expand...
It's that whole Echo Chamber thing again.
 
Nancykitt said:
Thing is, they went to the auction hoping to buy one or two Suffolk fillies for their breeding programme, so they must have had the budget to buy at least one. This is why I couldn’t understand the whole barn roof thing as they (presumably) went to an auction with the intention of buying; it just so happened that they ended up ‘rescuing’ these two ‘abused’ horses that no-one else wanted (even though other people were bidding on them).

Let’s face it, had they got the Suffolks for a bargain price at the auction, they wouldn’t be fundraising. When I realised this it made me even more annoyed! It’s like they couldn’t get the Suffolks so they looked for horses that might be useful to the business as ridden horses, only to paint them as poor abused rescues and get the public to pay.

Ironically, in the long run the Suffolk fillies could have ended up costing more in vets’ fees - especially as the two horses they’ve bought could well be earning their keep as trekking horses in the not too distant future!
Click to expand...
Sadly, you might be on to something here
 
"For our usual Beach Riding Experience we expect you to be capable of all paces in full control, light seat, confident, fit, regular riders. The Private Beach Riding Experience enables us to be inclusive!
How much?
Including all equipment, transfer to the beach, assessment, and the experience (with amateur photography if you wish!)
Private: One person £400
Two persons £375pp
Three persons £350pp
More £325pp
Normal Beach Riding Experience £250pp"

Sounds extortionate for a few hours (?) hacking on the beach? To compare I and my daughter rode for four hours in Norway last summer up in the mountains, I paid about 120 pounds including a lovely restaurant lunch. And Norway is not a cheap country!
 
Nancykitt said:
Thing is, they went to the auction hoping to buy one or two Suffolk fillies for their breeding programme, so they must have had the budget to buy at least one. This is why I couldn’t understand the whole barn roof thing as they (presumably) went to an auction with the intention of buying; it just so happened that they ended up ‘rescuing’ these two ‘abused’ horses that no-one else wanted (even though other people were bidding on them).

Let’s face it, had they got the Suffolks for a bargain price at the auction, they wouldn’t be fundraising. When I realised this it made me even more annoyed! It’s like they couldn’t get the Suffolks so they looked for horses that might be useful to the business as ridden horses, only to paint them as poor abused rescues and get the public to pay.

Ironically, in the long run the Suffolk fillies could have ended up costing more in vets’ fees - especially as the two horses they’ve bought could well be earning their keep as trekking horses in the not too distant future!
Click to expand...
And if they had been successful in buying the Suffolk fillies they were after would they still have 'rescued' these poor 'abused' horses?
Of course not, someone else would have bought them and been pleased to have them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top