RSPCA with out photos

[MerrySherryRider]

Read the local press. Even I know what you're charged with.
Don't worry about the police and rspca needing to raid my property with vans and back up for the immediate removal of my animals. I don't.

 

[Alec Swan]

dymented, listen carefully to me;

This Forum is not a Court. The Court to which you will either apply, or face, will be the arbitrator, should you release or reveal information which will either assist your accusers or damage your own claim, then you will only have yourself to blame.

There are those who will goad you. For your own safety, you should ignore them.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

Oh I think we can be reasonably certain that the RSPCA have got the evidence to convict, Alec, they have a 98 per cent conviction rate, after all

I wonder what the overall success rate is of the CPS. I wonder if the Courts accept at face value, the evidence offered by the Police. I wonder if those same Courts, considering such a high success rate, accept the evidence offered by a group of people who have no established authority and who have no more than the rights of the common man and who, apart from a self proclaiming level of knowledge and experience, have little in the way of worthwhile contribution.

It's an interesting observation that when contradicted by those professionals who's opinion a Court would be more likely to accept, then the rspca become strangely quiet! I would find it worrying, from the standpoint of justice, if any Magistrate accepted the word or opinion of unqualified laymen, and simply because their thoughts were utterances. In fact, I would find it unthinkable that any Magistrate could be so reliant or have such a preformed notion of honesty. Would you agree?

Alec.

 

[cptrayes]

CPS conviction rate is more like 50 per cent I think.

Magistrates are trained to evaluate evidence. Where the evidence presented is one word against another, they have to make a judgement as to whose word is to be believed. In RSPCA cases, though, there are usually photographs and or reports from vets and/or experienced animal trainers.

I can assure you that unless they are able to provide corroborated evidence of the charges against Dymented, he will be found not guilty. They believe they have evidence of him being involved in dog fighting. I look forward to finding out what that evidence is.

 

[Alec Swan]

CPS conviction rate is more like 50 per cent I think.

…….. . I look forward to finding out what that evidence is.

That's an interesting Stat. I would be surprised to learn that the rspca are any more diligent, or have greater resources than the Police in sourcing and presenting evidence, which must lead us to the conclusion that where the question of 'balance' occurs, the evidence from a charity would, again 'on balance', be accepted before that of an accepted authority. I can't see any other reason.

That's all by the by. I too look forward to seeing the evidence, and whilst I remain sitting on the fence, I've viewed the photographs which have been displayed by the rspca, and can assure you that with the possible exception of what would appear to be a Patterdale Terrier, NOT ONE of the dogs, most of which were elderly, could ever be considered as being a 'working' dog. Dog fight contestants are purpose bred and sourced 'types' if not breeds, and the OP's dogs simply don't fall in to this category. The rspca will be very well aware of the 'types' of dogs used as they probably have more experience of this revolting practice, than most, so claiming that those dogs which they've confiscated, would be suitable, is nonsense. Even the Patterdale, though clearly a work bred dog, simply wouldn't last five minutes amongst such creatures. Perhaps there are other dogs, dogs which none of us are aware of. Presumably the evidence includes irrefutable film, or those who having taken an oath, witnessed the event.

If the OP has been less than honest in his denial of the charges, then I will lead the charge of those who would condemn him. As you say, we'll have to wait and see!

Alec.

 

[Sleighfarer]

I was just about to post saying exactly what Alec has said about the dogs in question.

It's all a bit of a puzzle and I too will be most interested to hear the evidence of the RSPCA.

I am also a little confused because the report posted by Fiona doesn't actually mention dog fighting - it talks of animal fighting. I am not at all clear what the charges actually mean.

 

[dymented]

Oh I think we can be reasonably certain that the RSPCA have got the evidence to convict, Alec, they have a 98 per cent conviction rate, after all

i could spend all day looking for information on how the rspca fabricate stuff or blow things well out of proportion here are 4 convictions all over turned after they found out the rspca well erm i ll leave it for you to read as a judge isn't as gullible
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/dad-attacks-rspca-cruelty-conviction-2340833

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk...n-overturned/story-16363900-detail/story.html

http://www.wigantoday.net/news/local/six-cleared-of-badger-hunt-1-164842

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pets/10149908/The-RSPCA-made-US-feel-like-criminals.html

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Just looked at your first link regarding Jess. Poor dog was indeed returned to her owners after being photographed repeatedly hurling the dog into the sea. Her owners have recently been back in court because of Jess's repeated attacks on other dogs. Tell me,do you think, are these the sort of people who should own any animal ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ones-caught-throwing-pet-dog-sea-Exmouth.htmlhttp://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/mob..._dog_to_be_muzzled_in_public_places_1_3728649http://jack-russells.net/magistrates-order-dog-to-be-muzzled-in-public-places

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Ah, then there's your second link. One of the terriers used that night has never been found, and one of the gang of eight men didn't contest his conviction as he was already in prison for assaulting his partner. Nice.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Just looked at your 3rd link and picked out the first example. Have you seen the pictures of the GS ? After the dog suffered an allergic reaction to shampoo for fleas, she then repeated the treatment some time after and two weeks later had still not taken the dog to a vet. It has open sores all over it's back,it must have been in agony.

Any more links of suffering animals you want to post, Dymented ?

 

[ester]

Just looked at your 3rd link and picked out the first example. Have you seen the pictures of the GS ? After the dog suffered an allergic reaction to shampoo for fleas, she then repeated the treatment some time after and two weeks later had still not taken the dog to a vet. It has open sores all over it's back,it must have been in agony.

Any more links of suffering animals you want to post, Dymented ?

Two weeks after the second wash :eek3: awful

 

[FionaM12]

dymented, listen carefully to me;

This Forum is not a Court. The Court to which you will either apply, or face, will be the arbitrator, should you release or reveal information which will either assist your accusers or damage your own claim, then you will only have yourself to blame.

Dymented, I seriously back up Alec's advice to be very careful what you say. You've mentioned several times that your solicitor has asked you not to discuss the case and I think it's very unwise to carry on posting.

I think it was foolish to start this thread in the first place, as is the whole of your internet campaign against the RSPCA considering that you're involved in ongoing court cases. However, now the thread exists other people here will want to discuss what's been said so far, and appears in the press, but if I were you I'd keep out of the thread.

Posting random links to other newspaper stories where people allege the RSPCA acted badly doesn't actually say anything about your situation, or your or the RSPCA's guilt. Also when the links show stories about people (see MerrySherryRider's comments) who appear to be animal abusers, you do yourself no favours.

You can't do any good posting on this thread, and it could backfire on you by jeopardizing your case, as Alec says. If you win your cases (which you surely will if the RSPCA have, as you say, no evidence), you are welcome to come and tell all you told us so. Until then, you'd be well advised to step back from the keyboard, for your own good.

 

[dymented]

I do apologise i wont post any more unless i have news the links i posted were to show that the convictions were over turned because of the rspca misleading and fabricated evidence some still believe they don't do that sort of thing

 

[FionaM12]

I do apologise i wont post any more unless i have news

No need to apologize, it's in your own interests not to post.

 

[milo'n'molly]

I didn't post anything at the time because as others said,I didn't think it wise to be discussing an ongoing case but I would think that it should have been sorted now. Does anybody know the outcome?

 

[dymented]

Nothing new there still dragging there feet as soon as anything happens ill post it

 

[Alec Swan]

Assuming that the dogs under discussion are still being held by the rspca, they'll have died of old age before there's an outcome!

Alec.

 

[Equi]

Assuming that the dogs under discussion are still being held by the rspca, they'll have died of old age before there's an outcome!

Alec.

Think sometimes thats what they want, then they can say something the owner did caused the death.

 

[Dobiegirl]

http://www.petforums.co.uk/pet-news/394051-armley-vets-30-animals-removed.html#post1064087821


Thought you would find this interesting reading and how the RSPCA operate.

 

[dymented]

Well with any luck ill update the chuggers with some news good or bad soon

 

[dymented]

as your all fully aware of what i have posted before ill keep it short and to the point
in march 2014 i was raided by the police and rspca they seized 9 dogs with alleged allegations of cruelty, dog fighting and badger bating they even posted a statement on the rspca website stating the above its still there today !!!
now after one day my sons dog was killed and returned to us skinned and beheaded ,numerous other things have happened to all the rest of the dogs while in rspca care ie the snapped the tail of one of the other dogs in half by trapping or slamming it in a door ,another fight one has a chest infection they claim they have done tests but its proving to be expensive and asked me to foot the bill they have all suffered fur loss and bites
We are taking legal action against them for all the atrocities they have done to the animals !!!

The rspca charges were as follows
keeping 9 dogs for animal fighting
being present at an animal fight
causing an animal fight
cruelty to a dog
causing suffering to a dog ( the one that was killed )
failing to seek veterinary assistance

I have never ever been charged with anything to do with badgers or convicted of anything to do with badgers

keeping 9 dogs for animal fighting thrown out no evidence
being present at an animal fight thrown out no evidence
causing an animal fight thrown out no evidence
cruelty to a dog thrown out no evidence
causing suffering to a dog ( the one that was killed in rspca care) thrown out no evidence
I was found guilty of not seeking a vet
the rspca wanted 17k in court costs 3k in kennelling and a ban
If the other charges were not thrown out it would have been £160.000 and a life time ban
the judge said no !!
the judge gave me the minimum fine he possibly could so he says to cover costs of the court but he also gave me
NO Animal BAN and a conditional discharge for not seeking a vet he ordered the dogs to be retuned
Now we submitted all our statements of evidence and witnesses for the charity workers to agree or disagree on ect
on the morning of the 4th day (last day of the trial) they refuse to accept my vets statement with out him being present
which was impossible that late in the day so i believe that it why i was found guilty of the latter charge no one to back me up

I thought about appealing but it will cost me ten times more than the fine and you never no if the judge on the day likes the charity workers lies and fabricated evidance
I am hoping the charity workers appeal to the high court about everything getting kicked out that way i get a free defence
there were lots off technical issues ect that were brought up by my defence team

i am glad the judge decided not to kick the other charged out on a technicality but kicked them out dew to being no evidence !!!!

Now i can press forward with there charges as the dogs should not have been in there care and they inflicted terrible things of them
why because they believe all forms of hunting is illegal and there total against it
More updates on https://www.facebook.com/rspcakilldog
I am sure the other chuggers who slated me say I was telling lies will have something to say about there much loved rspca that would never send a dead dog skinned and beheaded back to its owner

 

[Alec Swan]

Considering the previous statements which you made, and assuming them to be truthful, I'm staggered that the rspca persevered with your case. The sad thing of course, is that they are in a win-win situation. Should they be stupid enough to appeal the decision which has been handed down, then they will continue to use their failures as a path to the gathering in of further funds via the donations route. Win-win!!

Well done you. In your shoes and considering that your in-court support was diminished, I'd be tempted to appeal the existing decision, and apply for the judgement to be overturned, no matter how lenient it may have 'appeared' to be.

Alec.

 

[dymented]

I might do that yet Alec its been a really long draining 15 months , This just goes to show how bad the charity is if there lies had been believed they would have made me sell everything ie house cars ect to pay there bill they charge a lot of people that hunt under the awa act not the hunting act the awa act carries a far stiffer penalty a 20k fine per charge the hunting act its far less ect not 100% but they mad reference to it (£250) per charge now if that's not profit mongering i don no what is They have shown in my case they do not care one bit about animals or the would not have kept then in a kennel for 15 months ( they do not exercise working dogs ) and all the injures they have received whilst in there care when asked by me after the case about things I got a shrug of shoulders Its not just me things like this happen to it happens to an awful lot of people yet they still get away with it Why ? because people with head in butts will say its not true they would never do a thing like that there brilliant look at what they do on tv They are not like what you see on tv in reality They like to spread lies about people ect how do people react when they see stories of man accused of badger baiting ????? There only form of evidence regarding hunting in my case was a photo of a dog retrieving a shot fox not one single illegal activity was found in the photos on anything they took This could happen to any one on here

 

[honetpot]

I think you now need to get the media involved, its been to court and unless they appeal you can have your say. I would put all the evidence you have together have a google and find out which TV programs would be interested in your story, you have done an amazing job at defending yourself.

 

[Alec Swan]

There's also the contentious point that the only charge which the judge moved on, was the question of failing to seek veterinary advice for a dog which was injured. Had your Vet been present at the hearing, and had he confirmed that your own treatment was satisfactory, then that charge would have been thrown out too! It is not an offence to fail to seek veterinary advice in the case of injury, providing that the owner's treatment is considered to be satisfactory.

I'm left wondering if those posters who had you guilty and banned from keeping dogs, and before the case, are about to post and accept that they were wrong! You never know, you may even get an apology or two, but I wouldn't hold your breath!

Alec.

 

[_GG_]

There's also the contentious point that the only charge which the judge moved on, was the question of failing to seek veterinary advice for a dog which was injured. Had your Vet been present at the hearing, and had he confirmed that your own treatment was satisfactory, then that charge would have been thrown out too! It is not an offence to fail to seek veterinary advice in the case of injury, providing that the owner's treatment is considered to be satisfactory.

I'm left wondering if those posters who had you guilty and banned from keeping dogs, and before the case, are about to post and accept that they were wrong! You never know, you may even get an apology or two, but I wouldn't hold your breath!

Alec.

That last bit might not help some people that may be thinking about apologising!

Dymented, I said from the start that if I was wrong, I'd hold my hands up and apologise, so I am. Animal cruelty is an emotive subject and as I've said before in here, I got a bit carried away. I'm glad you had a good result in court and that you'll be getting your dogs back and I wish you luck in your own case.

 

[Alec Swan]

Well said _GG_, all of it!

Alec.

 

[dymented]

That last bit might not help some people that may be thinking about apologising!

Dymented, I said from the start that if I was wrong, I'd hold my hands up and apologise, so I am. Animal cruelty is an emotive subject and as I've said before in here, I got a bit carried away. I'm glad you had a good result in court and that you'll be getting your dogs back and I wish you luck in your own case.

Thank you there's no need to apologise I just want people to no what the charity workers are capable of doing ,The lies they tell ,trying to fabricate evidence ect They always go in gun blazing Not just with me with every one they raid I am just so glad its all over having it hang over your head for 15 month ect people talking behind your back after reading the false allegations and information the rspca have on there website Mud sticks people always think the worst in you The charity workers a far from nice people and are defiantly not like what you see on TV Its there policy to get the police to seize every animal they can if your accused of any hunting offence as they are totally against it whether innocent or guilty which can not be right if the judge had not seen through everything they would have put a claim in for all costs which were £160.000 and had an order put on my house for me so i would have had to sell to pay for them telling lies and fabricating evidence , Blood samples they took at the time of the raid from various things ect were asked about in court there reply was it was to expensive to proses so they did not After the court when i asked the charity worker he freely admitted it was rabbit blood but its not there policy to help the person there prosecuting

 

[Dobiegirl]

I never commented on this thread but did keep abreast of it, its terrifying how a so called charity can behave and persecute people, ive never had any time for the RSPCA on the odd occasions Ive rung them in the past they have been found wanting.

I found a prone comatose badger in our hayshed and called the RSPCA because if we had despatched it we might have been liable for prosecution, the officer who came out fired 4 or 5 shots to the skull and then took it away in a bin bag. I asked him if he would test it for TB and he said" do badgers get TB", I did a double take and he was serious.

Im glad you cleared your name OP, no one should have to go through what youve been through, I hope the RSPCA are held accountable as they do seem to think they are fireproof.

Please get this out into the wider public, it might stop someone else less fortunate than yourself having to go through this.

 

[Dry Rot]

I'm another who has been sitting on the side lines not knowing what to think. I am absolutely delighted that the OP has got justice. So often it goes the other way for want of the defendant being able to afford the best lawyers, etc. to match the opposition. I believe it is also a major triumph for British justice. David and Goliath. Yes, the media are going to be interested in this. If I was in the OP's situation, I'd be getting myself an agent and seeking the advice of organisations like the Countryside Alliance before running to the Press. It is also a major victory for field sports and the freedom of the individual.