RSPCA officials to report to Charity Officials

[MillyMoomie]

Alec Swan I am happy to be proven wrong if you would kindly re-paste where I have misinterpreted or misread.

 

[Alec Swan]

Alec Swan I am happy to be proven wrong if you would kindly re-paste where I have misinterpreted or misread.

With the most minimal posts, you seem to seek-out argument. You will find none here.

Alec.

 

[MillyMoomie]

Alec I beg to differ. I merely state facts. No opinions, no arguements.
Perhaps it is you who needs "misinterprets" what I have written. Does your sense of justice not allow for a stranger to simply provide information for others to read? !!

 

[Alec Swan]

Alec Swan I find it laughable that you state that the accused including the hunt itself I may add had to plead guilty because they couldn't afford to defend themselves??!!!! Hahahahahahahaha!!

With the most minimal posts, you seem to seek-out argument. You will find none here.

Alec.

Alec I beg to differ. I merely state facts. No opinions, no arguements.
Perhaps it is you who needs "misinterprets" what I have written. Does your sense of justice not allow for a stranger to simply provide information for others to read? !!

Alec.

 

[MillyMoomie]

Thank you Alec, you nicely clarified my point.

 

[Alec Swan]

We've found common ground, spot on.

Alec.

 

[Herne]

Have you forgotten innocent until proven guilty? The fact that the burden of proof lies with the prosecutors not the defense....in laymans terms the accuser has to prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused committed an offence.

What a happy little niave view of the world you have.

The reason why the CPS did not bring the proseutions itself was that the level of evidence was insufficient. If the CPS won't take the case, that itself should demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt.

The second point is that the initial trial will be in a magistrates or county court - and, as has already been demonstrated many times, such courts are very capable of making incorrect judements that then have to be overturned on appeal.

When we get the antis trying to bamboozle courts with supposed "evidence" like university profressors swearing under oath that they can tell from the sound what quarry hounds are hunting in a piece of film - something that very few, if any, hunting people would claim - then you can understand why the Courts do get confused.

So these people have to take the risk of a mis-judgement over inadequate evidence, resulting them facing costs, the only way of avoiding which is to take the case to appeal in a higher court - thus incurring yet more costs, and again running the risk that they might lose and have to go to the Supreme Court at yet more expense and yet more risk.

All of which for for a penalty of a few hundred quid.

If you are saying that you are surprised that people can be frightened out of such risks, when the alternative is just to cop a plea, pay a small fine and move on, then you are either being disingenuous or , as I said, extremely niave.

 

[MillyMoomie]

What a happy little niave view of the world you have.

The reason why the CPS did not bring the proseutions itself was that the level of evidence was insufficient. If the CPS won't take the case, that itself should demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt.

The second point is that the initial trial will be in a magistrates or county court - and, as has already been demonstrated many times, such courts are very capable of making incorrect judements that then have to be overturned on appeal.

When we get the antis trying to bamboozle courts with supposed "evidence" like university profressors swearing under oath that they can tell from the sound what quarry hounds are hunting in a piece of film - something that very few, if any, hunting people would claim - then you can understand why the Courts do get confused.

So these people have to take the risk of a mis-judgement over inadequate evidence, resulting them facing costs, the only way of avoiding which is to take the case to appeal in a higher court - thus incurring yet more costs, and again running the risk that they might lose and have to go to the Supreme Court at yet more expense and yet more risk.

All of which for for a penalty of a few hundred quid.

If you are saying that you are surprised that people can be frightened out of such risks, when the alternative is just to cop a plea, pay a small fine and move on, then you are either being disingenuous or , as I said, extremely niave.

With all due respect i work within the law, and am certainly not niave. rather it is you who sounds niave.

The CPS will regularly ask what it considers the 'animal welfare experts' to proceed with these types of case. Especially since the RSPCA success rate is far higher than the CPS. The RSPCA has been bringing private prosecutions forward since it was founded.
If the level of evidence was insufficent the defendants would not have been found guilty, especially after 'a right to a fair trial'. This stands in a magistrates or any court. My orignal point of the burden of proof still stands, (beyond all reasonable doubt) BUT, lets remember the defendants pleaded guilty before even a trial. You say to avoid further costs for the sake of a few hundred quid, lets look at the fines/costs. £1000/£2000/£1,800/£2,500/£4,000/£15,000. hmmmmm i wouldnt say that was insignificant. Yet if the evidence was so ungenuine and as false as you say why wouldnt a defendant go to trial, produce his own evidence and get HIS costs back? This is after all the system.

One final point, they didnt 'cop a plea'. They pleaded guilty. Regardless of my opnions on hunting or otherwise, of which you have no idea. The excuses are pathetic and feeble and i would have much more respect of the defendants if they held their hands up and accept they were caught in the act. No pun intended.

 

[Herne]

.The CPS will regularly ask what it considers the 'animal welfare experts' to proceed with these types of case.

And are you claiming that this is what happened in this case - or is this merely more disingenuity...?

 

[MillyMoomie]

And are you claiming that this is what happened in this case - or is this merely more disingenuity...?

'Disingenuity'.....Hmmmm not really sure why you are accusing me of being underhand or unfair. I am merely responding to your accuasation of being 'naive'

Obviously not claiming that this what happened in this case. I dont actually know. Simply pointing out that your claim that the CPS doesnt take on all animal welfare prosecutions because of a lack of evidence is not true. Qoute' The reason why the CPS did not bring the prosecution itself was that the level of evidence was insufficient, If the CPS wont take the case, that itself should demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt.' Unqoute.

 

[Herne]

The point being, however, that in this case, as I understand it, neither of these things happened. The CPS did not take it on itself and it did not ask the RSPCA to do so, either.

Had the evidence been as "open and shut" as you seem to wish to portray, then there seems no reason for the CPS not to have done one of those two things - that is, after all, their job.

It is therefore a logical to assume that the "evidence" was ambiguous at best - and therefore it would boil down in court to an argument about the interpretation of inconclusive evidence - and in such cases, money (and the ability to hire expensive lawyers and impresive sounding "experts" that it brings) talks.

And, therefore, my point (and Alec's) is valid.

 

[MillyMoomie]

The point being, however, that in this case, as I understand it, neither of these things happened. The CPS did not take it on itself and it did not ask the RSPCA to do so, either.

Had the evidence been as "open and shut" as you seem to wish to portray, then there seems no reason for the CPS not to have done one of those two things - that is, after all, their job.

It is therefore a logical to assume that the "evidence" was ambiguous at best - and therefore it would boil down in court to an argument about the interpretation of inconclusive evidence - and in such cases, money (and the ability to hire expensive lawyers and impresive sounding "experts" that it brings) talks.

And, therefore, my point (and Alec's) is valid.

I'm sorry Herne but you have simply ignored everything i have written and rephrased your orginal arguement.
It does not matter one iota that the CPS didnt choose to take this case on, as i have pointed out the RSPCA is accepted as the specialist in bringing forward animal welfare private prosecutions and has been for over 100 years, therefore the RSPCA bought forward the prosecution. There is absolutely no 'logical' assumption to be made about the evidence other than that it was sufficent enough for the defendants to plead guilty BEFORE A TRIAL to a criminal offense. Your whole arguement is based on a excuse.

 

[JanetGeorge]

If the level of evidence was insufficent the defendants would not have been found guilty, especially after 'a right to a fair trial'. This stands in a magistrates or any court. My orignal point of the burden of proof still stands, (beyond all reasonable doubt) BUT, lets remember the defendants pleaded guilty before even a trial. You say to avoid further costs for the sake of a few hundred quid, lets look at the fines/costs. £1000/£2000/£1,800/£2,500/£4,000/£15,000. hmmmmm i wouldnt say that was insignificant. Yet if the evidence was so ungenuine and as false as you say why wouldnt a defendant go to trial, produce his own evidence and get HIS costs back? This is after all the system.

One final point, they didnt 'cop a plea'. They pleaded guilty. Regardless of my opnions on hunting or otherwise, of which you have no idea. The excuses are pathetic and feeble and i would have much more respect of the defendants if they held their hands up and accept they were caught in the act. No pun intended.

If you REALLY work "within the law" (don't we all ) then you ARE naive. Innocent people are often found guilty; and guilty people often get off! I don't know if the trial would have been in front of a jury - but if it was - you can bet that ALL the jurors would have been - at best - ambivalent about hunting! There would have been no-one who actually hunts on the jury! So the jury would have started with an element of bias against the defendants.

If a case is before magistrates - or a judge - then any hunting magistrate/judge would have to stand down - but judges/magistrates with strong personal feelings against hunting would still sit on the case (unless he/she actually had a conviction for sabbing or was on the council of the LACS!)

Having seen several of the videos that were 'evidence' they certainly aren't clear-cut - so - with a little bias against hunting - they would convince a judge or a juror of the defendants' guilt. So it could have cost the defendants collectively upwards of £0.25 million for an unsuccessful defence! And that's without taking into account fines/prosecution costs which would have been higher if they'd fought the charges!

As for the CPS - it was NEVER given the chance to prosecute this case. If it had been, it might - or might not have done so based on its view of whether the evidence was 'sufficient'! But the RSPCA wouldn't have cared too much about whether it was a foregone conclusion or not - the headlines they got for prosecuting David Cameron's 'mates' was well worth it - to them!

 

[MillyMoomie]

JanetGeorge ALL your arguements whilst reasonable are beside the point!
I entirely agree many miscarriages of justice happen. Not in this case, I reiterate again, they pleaded guilty before a trial!!!! All other theory's are now fantasy. I personally would not plead guilty to a criminal offence that I had not committed.
I do not wish to keep repeating myself nor do I wish to influence others, I am happy in what I believe. Nonetheless I still think the action of pointing fingers and feeble excuses is pathetic. I would have rejoiced in a respectful and dignified heads held high. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

 

[Springy]

If you REALLY work "within the law" (don't we all ) then you ARE naive. Innocent people are often found guilty; and guilty people often get off! I don't know if the trial would have been in front of a jury - but if it was - you can bet that ALL the jurors would have been - at best - ambivalent about hunting! There would have been no-one who actually hunts on the jury! So the jury would have started with an element of bias against the defendants.

If a case is before magistrates - or a judge - then any hunting magistrate/judge would have to stand down - but judges/magistrates with strong personal feelings against hunting would still sit on the case (unless he/she actually had a conviction for sabbing or was on the council of the LACS!)

Having seen several of the videos that were 'evidence' they certainly aren't clear-cut - so - with a little bias against hunting - they would convince a judge or a juror of the defendants' guilt. So it could have cost the defendants collectively upwards of £0.25 million for an unsuccessful defence! And that's without taking into account fines/prosecution costs which would have been higher if they'd fought the charges!

As for the CPS - it was NEVER given the chance to prosecute this case. If it had been, it might - or might not have done so based on its view of whether the evidence was 'sufficient'! But the RSPCA wouldn't have cared too much about whether it was a foregone conclusion or not - the headlines they got for prosecuting David Cameron's 'mates' was well worth it - to them!

Amen

 

[Alec Swan]

JanetGeorge ALL your arguements whilst reasonable are beside the point!
I entirely agree many miscarriages of justice happen. Not in this case, I reiterate again, they pleaded guilty before a trial!!!! All other theory's are now fantasy. I personally would not plead guilty to a criminal offence that I had not committed.
I do not wish to keep repeating myself nor do I wish to influence others, I am happy in what I believe. Nonetheless I still think the action of pointing fingers and feeble excuses is pathetic. I would have rejoiced in a respectful and dignified heads held high. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

You're right, in that you are entitled to your own opinion. Were you to consider reasoned argument though, you may see things from a different stand point.

"I personally would not plead guilty to a criminal offence that I had not committed".

Would you maintain such a principled stance were you faced with the risk of such crippling costs; Costs I would add, of which the prosecuting body (a worthless charity), would most certainly have made you aware?

The argument all through this thread, has been that neither you nor I may have the spare funds to risk such a case. The Master obviously did have, and considering his world, and his responsibilities, he elected to plead guilty to a charge which others may have defended.

If the above paragraph makes no sense to you, perhaps I can explain it in another way; If I have have nothing to lose, because I have nothing, and I take to myself 3 couple of hounds, and I hunt with them, do you honestly think that the rspca would bother with the risk of a quarter mill costs, for a case where they have no chance of retrieving those costs? Well, do you?

Alec.

 

[MillyMoomie]

You're right, in that you are entitled to your own opinion. Were you to consider reasoned argument though, you may see things from a different stand point.

"I personally would not plead guilty to a criminal offence that I had not committed".

Would you maintain such a principled stance were you faced with the risk of such crippling costs; Costs I would add, of which the prosecuting body (a worthless charity), would most certainly have made you aware?

The argument all through this thread, has been that neither you nor I may have the spare funds to risk such a case. The Master obviously did have, and considering his world, and his responsibilities, he elected to plead guilty to a charge which others may have defended.

If the above paragraph makes no sense to you, perhaps I can explain it in another way; If I have have nothing to lose, because I have nothing, and I take to myself 3 couple of hounds, and I hunt with them, do you honestly think that the rspca would bother with the risk of a quarter mill costs, for a case where they have no chance of retrieving those costs? Well, do you?

Alec.

Alec i cannot listen to your 'reasoned argument' as it is full of unnecessary bias.Eg (worthless charity.)
Yes i believe if you caused an animal to suffer and there was the evidence to prove that then you would be held accountable for that offence by the RSPCA.
I am beginning to enjoy this banter though.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

Yes i believe if you caused an animal to suffer and there was the evidence to prove that then you would be held accountable for that offence by the RSPCA.
.......

I suspect that you may be alone, with that level of logic!

Alec.

 

[MillyMoomie]

I suspect that you may be alone, with that level of logic!

Alec.

Im ok with being alone. I like my logic, i feel it is on a fairly high level based on fact.

 

[Springy]

Yes i believe if you caused an animal to suffer and there was the evidence to prove that then you would be held accountable for that offence by the RSPCA.
.

If this happened there would be far less RSPCA threads as they would be then fulfilling what people expect them to do

however until then the problems people are encountering with them will continue....

 

[JanetGeorge]

JanetGeorge ALL your arguements whilst reasonable are beside the point!
I entirely agree many miscarriages of justice happen. Not in this case, I reiterate again, they pleaded guilty before a trial!!!! All other theory's are now fantasy. I personally would not plead guilty to a criminal offence that I had not committed.
I do not wish to keep repeating myself nor do I wish to influence others, I am happy in what I believe. Nonetheless I still think the action of pointing fingers and feeble excuses is pathetic. I would have rejoiced in a respectful and dignified heads held high. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

No - they're NOT beside the point (just because you don't like them!) I certainly wouldn't plead guilty to murder, or robbery, or assault! I WOULD plead guilty to an offence under the Hunting Act when the risks of being found guilty were only huge costs (it certainly wouldn't hurt my reputation with anyone whose opinion I value!)

The former huntsman of the Heythrop is a man I used to know well although - regretfully - I haven't seen him for some time. He was a top class huntsman, an outstanding horseman, and one of Nature's gentlemen! I worked with him closely during the fight against the Foster Bill in the late '90s - and it was a pleasure and a privilege! His life - over the past few years - has been made a MISERY by the ratbags who hounded the Heythrop and by a myriad of trumped up charges - most of them dropped!!

It would have hurt him VERY much to 'roll over' to the charges laid - but he would not risk hurting his family by bankrupting them - Julian is NOT a 'rich toff'! He has acted - throughout this farce - with considerable dignity!

 

[JanetGeorge]

Yes i believe if you caused an animal to suffer and there was the evidence to prove that then you would be held accountable for that offence by the RSPCA.

Really?? Then you are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land! Do you remember the 'horse on the gate' case? A hunter jumped a gate and muffed it - he came down with front legs one side and back legs the other - and froze. The ONLY way to get him off quickly and safely was to 'encourage' him with a hunting whip! Sadly, it was an MFH who did it, with the help of an amateur whipper-in. There was NO evidence that they actually hit the horse - just a 'photo of the whip raised and the word of a sab. The RSPCA prosecuted the MFHA, the amateur whipper-in AND the MFH's pregnant wife (who was the rider - but took no part in the rescue for obvious reasons.) On the court room steps, after she had nearly miscarried due to the stress and threatening 'phone calls from AR nutters, they dropped the charges against the MFH's wife.

In court, magistrates declared the two guilty of a lesser offence - of 'cruelly terrifying the horse'! The conviction was overturned on appeal with expert witness, Richard Meade OBE, testifying that they had done EXACTLY the right thing to free the horse who suffered no injury. It was an expensive waste of time for everyone concerned!!

And yet - when presented with a video of an idiot horse dealer thrashing a young horse repeatedly for NO reason other than the man didn't have a working brain cell, did the RSPCA prosecute???? Not yet - and don't hold your breath!

 

[MillyMoomie]

JanetGeorge why on earth do you state I'm living in cloud cuckoo land? You don't know me!

If what you state above is true then yes that is ridiculous.However I will go on my many very positive experiences of the RSPCA and wait for a negative one with all the facts to hand before I begin the bashing thank you.
I'm not questioning wether the huntsman you mention is a nice man or not, quite possibly he shouldn't have broken the law. I suggest YOU JanetGeorge are living in cloud cuckoo land if having a criminal record is a reputation booster. If so why don't you all strive to get one and stop whining about the ban. Personally I find following a laid scent exhilarating.

 

[happyhunter123]

OK, OK, calm down please ! And yes, what she says above is true!

if having a criminal record is a reputation booster.

It's not a reputation booster-Mr Barnfield is sadly out of a job now.
By the way, I'm still unsure about the criminal records thing. If found guilty, do you get a criminal record?? I remember being told just after the ban that you wouldn't.

 

[JanetGeorge]

JanetGeorge why on earth do you state I'm living in cloud cuckoo land? You don't know me!

I don't need to KNOW you - you tell me all I need to know with every post!

If what you state above is true then yes that is ridiculous.However I will go on my many very positive experiences of the RSPCA and wait for a negative one with all the facts to hand before I begin the bashing thank you.

It is totally true - and a matter of record! I actually wrote an article about the 'horse on the gate' case - and the RSPCA's appalling behaviour - so it was VERY carefully researched. The video of the breaker hitting a horse repeatedly has been seen and discussed on almost every forum in the country - search Tic Toc!

I'm not questioning wether the huntsman you mention is a nice man or not, quite possibly he shouldn't have broken the law. I suggest YOU JanetGeorge are living in cloud cuckoo land if having a criminal record is a reputation booster. If so why don't you all strive to get one and stop whining about the ban. Personally I find following a laid scent exhilarating.

See - you don't READ! I didn't say my reputation would be boosted - just that it wouldn't be harmed! I actually don't hunt anymore - due to a blocked artery in my leg that makes long hours in the saddle very painful - but if I WAS able to hunt, I would prefer to go out with a pack hunting foxes - trail/drag-hunting just doesn't have the hound work or the unpredictability that made foxhunting great!

 

[Herne]

I'm sorry Herne but you have simply ignored everything i have written and rephrased your orginal arguement.

Not so. I pointed out why what you said did not discount my original argument and that therefore my original argument is still valid. There is a difference.

Your basic premise of "if they were innocent they would have nothing to fear" would only hold true if we had a perfect legal system where miscarriages of justice never took place.

In real life, however, there are lots of instances whereby innocent people could still be found guilty. These can include bias, fabrication of evidence, incorrect deductions, stupidity, poor defense, misinterpretation and many other things.

Therefore, as pretty much everybody who has ever read a newspaper, except seemingly you, is aware miscarriages of justice can and do occur - and that is why even people who know they are innocent still have to consider the consequences of being found guilty.

IF, as you claim, you work "within the law" you should be more aware of this than anyone.

Scenario: 3rd party films hunt trail layer laying a trail through a woodland covert and out the other side, films the hounds hunting the trail into the covert. The hounds put up a fox in the covert and the 3rd party films the hounds hunting the fox out of the covert. The 3rd party cuts the part of the film showing the trail layer and gives the RSPCA only the part of the film that shows the hounds run into the covert and running out hunting a fox.

The "evidence" given looks to show intentional hunting, whereas the reality was that it was accidental and therefore not unlawful.

I am not saying that this is what happened in this case, but it is a perfectly feasibly scenario in which the accused would have to consider the possibilty that he had no chance of being found innocent despitre being entirely so - and would therefore have to worry about the costs issue in just the way that we are suggesting.

For you to try to imply that this sort of thing cannot happen is simply ridiculous.

However, if you do not deny that this could happen, then your previous statements become equally ridiculous.

I am beginning to enjoy this banter though.

I cannot for the life of me imagine why, because you are getting drubbed.

However, perhaps I should not be too surprised, seeing as you also seem to have failed to observe that you are disproving your own logic.

If we take at face value your claim to work within the law - and tie that to your patently absurd suggestions that innocent people need never have to worry about being found erroneously guilty - a suggestion that no lawyer would believe let alone make - then we demostrate perfectly why people should be mistrustful of the legal system.

Because as you have just demonstrated, some people "who work within the law" do not, after all, always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Whoops. Oh dear, your entire argument just disappeared in a puff of logic. Goodbye.

 

[Lizzie66]

They merely bring about private prosecutions based on independant vets' opinions of whether an animal is suffering or likely to suffer if it is not removed or circumstances change.

Absolute nonsense, the Vet is not independent they are paid by the RSPCA, they will obviously pick a vet that backs their political agenda.

 

[Lizzie66]

Alec Swan I find it laughable that you state that the accused including the hunt itself I may add had to plead guilty because they couldn't afford to defend themselves??!!!! Hahahahahahahaha!!
Have you forgotten innocent until proven guilty? The fact that the burden of proof lies with the prosecutors not the defense....in laymans terms the accuser has to prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused committed an offence. Lets also point out that the RSPCA don't decide if someone is guilty or not, they merely present the evidence as a private prosecutor that specialises in animal welfare with a significantly higher success rate than the cps. The defendants pleaded guilty even before a trial. Did not even argue. The evidence must have been unquestionable. They broke the law and were caught red handed. You cannot pick and choose what laws you want to uphold. But then something told me you already knew all that Alec?

Again nonsense, they could have continued to court however if they had then been found guilty the Judge may have awarded costs against them. As the RSPCA had already racked up £300k and this would likely have risen to £500k, the accused decided to take the pragmatic approach of pleading guilty and paying the fine.

Even if you know you aren't guilty there is always a chance you might be found so, would you risk your home, and family security against taking a conviction for a minor offence ? I know I wouldn't !

 

[Lizzie66]

Re my above two posts, others have made the same points more eloquently than I.

I was reading my way through the posts and replied without reading to the end!

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

Your basic premise of "if they were innocent they would have nothing to fear" would only hold true if we had a perfect legal system where miscarriages of justice never took place.

.......

Whoops. Oh dear, your entire argument just disappeared in a puff of logic. Goodbye.

A chap who I know is a barrister. He was attempting to defend a guy who'd been charged with burglary. It was known to the said chum of mine, that the attending judge had himself been burgled but a couple of months earlier.

Whilst the good judge was out of Court and deciding just how best he could weigh off our young miscreant, my chum advised his client that he thought 2 years to be a likely outcome, warning his client that the judge was of uncertain mood.......

....... Back came the judge and handed down a 3 year term to the guilty man, who replied "My brief said you were a c**t, and he was right"!

The point is that it all depends upon the frame of mind, and perhaps the breakfast consumed, of the visiting judge, doesn't it?

Alec.