RESPONSE TO URGENT HELP NEEDED

Who mentioned no kill policy? I think original post stated welfare being a fuzzy area. Where did you deduce that the particular charity had a no kill policy. Lets be honest on here: all rescue/welfare charities are in the business of saving lives not taking them. They obviously do give advice regarding euthanasia as it is a welfare tool. Who cares what bloody charity ... they are all the same and rely on public funds. They are not going to get any money if they openly promote euthanasia!
 
Tillytree said:
Who mentioned no kill policy? I think original post stated welfare being a fuzzy area. Where did you deduce that the particular charity had a no kill policy. Lets be honest on here: all rescue/welfare charities are in the business of saving lives not taking them. They obviously do give advice regarding euthanasia as it is a welfare tool. Who cares what bloody charity ... they are all the same and rely on public funds. They are not going to get any money if they openly promote euthanasia!
Click to expand...

Most reputable charities are nowadays recommending euthanasia as there simply isn't the room to take any more equines in. It's an unfortunate indication of the harsh economic climate we're in.

As for mentioning a no kill policy - I simply made an assumption based on the wording of the original post, and of course could have taken their words totally out of context.
 
Spring Feather said:
There really is no need for vindictiveness :confused: A brand new poster came here telling us her sorry story. After being named online another brand new poster comes on and tells us her version of the same sorry story. How some of you can all sit in full belief of either of them is quite beyond me and how some can be so spiteful is really beyond me! :o NONE of us know the real story so how about calling off the public lynching?
Click to expand...
Here Here, it amazes me how people do not read the posts correctly and start making it up as they go along. Who said a charity gave support to this post? How do we know this animal was put to sleep at side of road? One can only assume some of these cyber bullies know more than originally posted!
 
Well that has obviously got to be the truth!! And the other post fictitious! How do you work that one out. I try to be neutral on such things because people always want others to be on their side so are perhaps economical with the truth.
 
Tillytree said:
Here Here, it amazes me how people do not read the posts correctly and start making it up as they go along. Who said a charity gave support to this post? How do we know this animal was put to sleep at side of road? One can only assume some of these cyber bullies know more than originally posted!
Click to expand...

In regards to your question about making it up as you go along...

We were making the point that the charity probably wouldn't support her post ;) Try re-reading the thread...
 
I've personally not made any comment on the location of where the horse was put to sleep.

However, as the facts seem to be corroborated by this OP that the YO was against destruction, and the reason for the initial post by the person whose horse it was was because of this, I don't see why a few of you are up in arms about people's reaction to the YO. They've acted appallingly.

Regardless of the location. The girl was prevented from putting her horse down on the yard. That is grossly unfair. The rest is almost irrelevant.

However, I think you need to have read the whole history to understand fully - and as most of it is now gone, it will be difficult for you to do so.
 
Last edited:
Tillytree said:
Well that has obviously got to be the truth!! And the other post fictitious! How do you work that one out. I try to be neutral on such things because people always want others to be on their side so are perhaps economical with the truth.
Click to expand...

Really, because you appeared rather conveniently to back up the OP who has now disappeared.
 
How utterly ridiculous. I could say the same about several of the posts above. Think what you like ... I am just airing an opinion the same as everyone else and have not had the benefit of seeing the previous posts from person who had horse pts.
 
Wow its amazing how friends jump out of the woodwork when people don't agree with an OP ;)

At the end of the day the YO acted disgracefully, if they are not willing for horses to be PTS on their yards they shouldn't have liveries or horses for that matter.

As for the charity stuff I agree that charities just cannot take in anymore animals that don't have a chance to be rehomed, most charities work on that basis of rehoming not keeping til the year dot its just not feasable now with the cost of living rising and people not able to give charitable donations as much anymore :(
 
Tillytree said:
How utterly ridiculous. I could say the same about several of the posts above. Think what you like ... I am just airing an opinion the same as everyone else and have not had the benefit of seeing the previous posts from person who had horse pts.
Click to expand...

I think its odd that you have joined just to support the OP on this thread.

No other posts, no introduction.

On here its known as trolling.
 
rockysmum said:
I think its odd that you have joined just to support the OP on this thread.

No other posts, no introduction.

On here its known as trolling.
Click to expand...

Hmm is this one rule for one and another rule for others? I may be mistaken but I thought that the owner of the horse made her initial post telling us of her predicament. And AFAIK has only ever posted in relation to her situation. I don't believe she's made any other posts and the only introduction she gave was telling us her story. Does that mean she had an agenda also for joining? Thus, she must be a troll too if we use your analogy?

PS. I think you and your other couple of sidekicks are seriously lacking in manners but that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to post on this forum because this forum is open to anyone ;)
 
Spring Feather said:
Hmm is this one rule for one and another rule for others? I may be mistaken but I thought that the owner of the horse made her initial post telling us of her predicament. And AFAIK has only ever posted in relation to her situation. I don't believe she's made any other posts and the only introduction she gave was telling us her story. Does that mean she had an agenda also for joining? Thus, she must be a troll too if we use your analogy?

PS. I think you and your other couple of sidekicks are seriously lacking in manners but that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to post on this forum because this forum is open to anyone ;)
Click to expand...

Jeez is it the wrong time of the month or something?!! :confused::D;)
 
It's all quite straightforward in my mind. If the yo's actions resulted in the horse having to be taken off site to pts, then that's despicable.
Just for the record, the minute anyone starts making references to groups of bullies, sidekicks etc because several posters share an opinion that opposes their own, I immediately assume they don't have a valid argument to put across.
 
Spring Feather said:
There really is no need for vindictiveness :confused: A brand new poster came here telling us her sorry story. After being named online another brand new poster comes on and tells us her version of the same sorry story. How some of you can all sit in full belief of either of them is quite beyond me and how some can be so spiteful is really beyond me! :o NONE of us know the real story so how about calling off the public lynching?
Click to expand...

Agree 100% But then how could people have so much fun getting on their high horse with their pitch forks, lit torches and mob of angry villagers ready to 'go round and sort 'em aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaart.' :rolleyes:
 
I see this is another thread that has gone to pot :(

Can I ask a question? Its probably already been dealt with but I could only get through 9 pages before thinking any more of this tosh and I'll have a headache.

Was the knacker booked to pick up the horse after it had been pts or was there going to be a delay in collection?

I know it sounds a harsh question and perhaps a little unfeeling but all this nonsense about the side of the road in some countries is pretty standard practise simply because the horse has to be where the knacker can get to them with the lorry and they don't drive across fields or down driveways. I've dealt with horses in France for example where side of the road and then cover is the only option.

If the knacker wasn't booked then I take a little pity not just on the YO but also on the other people at the yard, no one wants to see a body of any animal and the other horses are not keen either. The smell is horrendous even after a short period of time and of course there are the inevitable losses from the body that can take a while to disperse.

Maybe there is more to the decision than just about the feeling of the horse and owner????
 
Spring Feather said:
Hmm is this one rule for one and another rule for others? I may be mistaken but I thought that the owner of the horse made her initial post telling us of her predicament. And AFAIK has only ever posted in relation to her situation. I don't believe she's made any other posts and the only introduction she gave was telling us her story. Does that mean she had an agenda also for joining? Thus, she must be a troll too if we use your analogy?

PS. I think you and your other couple of sidekicks are seriously lacking in manners but that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to post on this forum because this forum is open to anyone ;)
Click to expand...

Thank you, I will that as a compliment, given its source

The OP in the first thread came on for advice. The new poster on this one joined to cause trouble. That would make them trolls on any other thread.

I am sorry if you dont like the fact that people are upset by this subject. However it had been forgotten about until one of the yards supporters started it again. If you come on here looking for an argument you are likely to get one.
 
rockysmum said:
Thank you, I will that as a compliment, given its source

The OP in the first thread came on for advice. The new poster on this one joined to cause trouble. That would make them trolls on any other thread.

I am sorry if you dont like the fact that people are upset by this subject. However it had been forgotten about until one of the yards supporters started it again. If you come on here looking for an argument you are likely to get one.
Click to expand...


Depends which way you look at it. It could equally be said that the orginal poster joined to defame the YO and her business by giving a very subjective account.
The YO on hearing of the thread then joined to give her version of the story and to protect her reputation.
It does seem strange that the owner was prepared to walk the horse to fields that weren't its normal grazing paddocks rather than box it to the vets.
The whole situation must have been very stressful for the horse when the owner and vet were looking for a suitable spot.
Many people on here find it preferable to box a horse to the hunt, so the actions of the owner seemed a bit bloody minded and maybe that is really part of the problem.
Strange how the orginal poster has never returned even when this thread began.
 
As you will all be able to tell this my first post on this site. After reading this i just had to jump on the bandwagon to set the record straight.

The YO was indeed unhappy for the horse to be pts in full view of everyone, it was discusssted other liveries also unhappy, therefore YO offered alternative field. The YO HAD opened a gate to field unfortatly the owner went to wrong gate and then failed to comuicate with YO.

YO was horrified and upset to find the horse had been pts on side of road! and even questioned vet as to why.

There is a lot more to the story than has been portraed here but i will leave it there..

ps. if you could all coment on my spelling/grammer i,d be eternally greatfull.
 
Last edited:
horserider said:
Many people on here find it preferable to box a horse to the hunt, so the actions of the owner seemed a bit bloody minded and maybe that is really part of the problem.
Click to expand...

I'd never personally do this. I always want mine to go at home, and OH always let liveries do it on site. The last thing I'd expect to do to a horse about to be pts is to box off somewhere it doesn't know. Especially as mine are not boxed out for competitions etc and it's not something they are used to.
I'd be happy with hunt doing it and would always rather a horse go to the hunt. But their last moments would be where they know.
 
horserider said:
Depends which way you look at it. It could equally be said that the orginal poster joined to defame the YO and her business by giving a very subjective account.
The YO on hearing of the thread then joined to give her version of the story and to protect her reputation.
It does seem strange that the owner was prepared to walk the horse to fields that weren't its normal grazing paddocks rather than box it to the vets.
The whole situation must have been very stressful for the horse when the owner and vet were looking for a suitable spot.
Many people on here find it preferable to box a horse to the hunt, so the actions of the owner seemed a bit bloody minded and maybe that is really part of the problem.
Strange how the orginal poster has never returned even when this thread began.
Click to expand...

Mare my gets stupidly stressy and sweaty travelling, even to the end of the road. That is not the last feeling I would want her to have before being pts. We don't know how good a traveller this horse was.
 
unbeliving!!! said:
As you will all be able to tell this my first post on this site. After reading this i just had to jump on the bandwagon to set the record straight.

The YO was indeed unhappy for the horse to be pts in full view of everyone, it was discusssted other liveries also unhappy, therefore YO offered alternative field. The YO HAD opened a gate to field unfortatly the owner went to wrong gate and then failed to comuicate with YO.

YO was horrified and upset to find the horse had been pts on side of road! and even questioned vet as to why.

There is a lot more to the story than has been portraed here but i will leave it there..

ps. if you could all coment on my spelling/grammer i,d be eternally greatfull.
Click to expand...


That doesn't sound very different from the orginal story, except for the fact that YO only agreed after the story was widely discussed on here.

Not surprised the YO was horrified & upset it was PTS at the side of the road, after all the clients might have seen :eek:

And what on earth can other liveries views have to do with a YOs decision. That should be based on what is right, not pressure from other people.

The more people that come on to defend this, the worse you are making it for the yard.
 
unbeliving!!! said:
As you will all be able to tell this my first post on this site. After reading this i just had to jump on the bandwagon to set the record straight.

The YO was indeed unhappy for the horse to be pts in full view of everyone, it was discusssted other liveries also unhappy, therefore YO offered alternative field. The YO HAD opened a gate to field unfortatly the owner went to wrong gate and then failed to comuicate with YO.

YO was horrified and upset to find the horse had been pts on side of road! and even questioned vet as to why.

There is a lot more to the story than has been portraed here but i will leave it there..

ps. if you could all coment on my spelling/grammer i,d be eternally greatfull.
Click to expand...

Sounds plausible to me and discussing this with their clients is what I would expect from a decently run yard. However be prepared for unkind responses from some people, because you will get them!

ETA - I see you've already received one such response. There will be more *sigh*
 
Last edited:
Spring Feather said:
Sounds plausible to me and discussing this with their clients is what I would expect from a decently run yard. However be prepared for unkind responses from some people, because you will get them!
Click to expand...

Ahh, so THIS poster IS plausible then?!! Thought you blasted other posters earlier on for making judgements on new posters and believing one but not the other?!!:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top