SACKED

Birker2020 said:
I have to admit that years ago I had a horse who loved to squash you against things like the fence or the stable wall. I assume it was malicious, but whatever it was it was highly dangerous. A much loved and respected old school type vet came out to do my horses vaccination and he asked me if I had any issues with my horse so I told him about him squishing me against things at every opportunity.

He told me next time he did it to stick the end of my bic biro into my young horses ribs. I did so and he jumped about four foot into the air because it hurt him. But he never did it again.

If I'd ignored the vet and spent the next 11 months of the horses life pushing him and slapping him and hitting him to get him away from me it would have been much worse (for both of us and I could have been seriously injured). Cruel to be kind comes to mind. But not the same as kicking and punching a horse.
Click to expand...

I have a similar story about an old school type horseman. The implement suggested was invented a long time before the ball point pen.
 
All sorts of bad choices not directly related to your job can potentially have unfortunate consequences that affect other aspects of your life, including your employment. I’ve known people lose their jobs after being banned for drink driving when they didn’t need to drive for their job or after going bankrupt when their job had nothing to do with money.

I’m not sure that it’s trial by social media. The consequence of the film being shared on social media is that it’s been seen by millions of people which has led to threats being made to the woman and her family (which is very wrong). If the film had only been sent to her employer this obviously wouldn’t have occurred but would the outcome have been the same? Would she still have lost her job as a primary school teacher if millions of people hadn’t seen the film?
 
I presume you are attempting to prove a point here? There is a world of difference between what a zoo animal is required to do for routine handling purposes and what an animal that is going to be broken, transported, ridden and closely handled. There is no comparison, unless you are planning to ride a giraffe.
 
Last edited:
I may be taking this debate off-topic a little - but does anyone else agree with me that an accused person should be anonymous up until their charges are dropped or a trial is completed?
I always find it deeply uncomfortable when people who are accused of crimes have their lives destroyed before they have even been found guilty.
Am I correct in thinking that there is/was a move for anonymity for accused sex offenders (until guilt proven)?
 
Shilasdair said:
I may be taking this debate off-topic a little - but does anyone else agree with me that an accused person should be anonymous up until their charges are dropped or a trial is completed?
I always find it deeply uncomfortable when people who are accused of crimes have their lives destroyed before they have even been found guilty.
Am I correct in thinking that there is/was a move for anonymity for accused sex offenders (until guilt proven)?
Click to expand...

One of the big issues is ‘public interest’. It overrules a lot in terms of courts and law.
 
Shilasdair said:
I may be taking this debate off-topic a little - but does anyone else agree with me that an accused person should be anonymous up until their charges are dropped or a trial is completed?
I always find it deeply uncomfortable when people who are accused of crimes have their lives destroyed before they have even been found guilty.
Am I correct in thinking that there is/was a move for anonymity for accused sex offenders (until guilt proven)?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a basic tenet of our justice system though not, I don't think, generally enshrined in law. Social media is in a very interesting position in terms of that and I often wonder if where social media posts 'out' someone for something whether they are actually prejudicing the legal process. It never seems to bother anyone so I don't know what the facts are or how we get round the whole social media aspect of that.
 
Roasted Chestnuts said:
how actual sad is this post in general ???

Again there is no comparison ???
Click to expand...


I can't believe the commentator on that video with the zebra actually said ' voluntary participation in their own medical care is very important for welfare...' I don't think that is voluntary participation in their own medical care - I think that is clicker training where the animal associates an action with a reward. It has nothing to do with participation in medical care and everything to do with reward based standing still!! How 'adorable', obviously...
 
I guess my take on this is that through her actions against this pony which were filmed & then shared far & wide on SM she could be said to have brought her profession into disrepute or displayed behaviour that falls below the standards expected of someone in her profession. I'm not a teacher & so I don't know what the wording of their code of professional conduct is but I believe (& will admit that I've not read it for years so could be wrong) that in my own code of conduct drawn up by the governing body (that I had to verbally take an oath stating I would uphold when I graduated) behaviour outside of work & the standards I'm expected to uphold are covered. (If I were to do something similar in a public place which was filmed & evidence given to my governing body then I would fully expect not just to be sacked but to potentially be struck off... Granted I DO work in an animal related profession so it's more directly relevant, just using myself as a slightly crap example that professional standards don't necessarily get left at the workplace door & that a lot of employers & governing bodies can be very interested in how their employees / members behave outside of work).

That said I don't think her full name should have been plastered all over the internet at time of filming.
 
palo1 said:
I can't believe the commentator on that video with the zebra actually said ' voluntary participation in their own medical care is very important for welfare...' I don't think that is voluntary participation in their own medical care - I think that is clicker training where the animal associates an action with a reward. It has nothing to do with participation in medical care and everything to do with reward based standing still!! How 'adorable', obviously...
Click to expand...

Preferable to being whacked with a stick though. See post 312.
 
Shilasdair said:
I may be taking this debate off-topic a little - but does anyone else agree with me that an accused person should be anonymous up until their charges are dropped or a trial is completed?
I always find it deeply uncomfortable when people who are accused of crimes have their lives destroyed before they have even been found guilty.
Am I correct in thinking that there is/was a move for anonymity for accused sex offenders (until guilt proven)?
Click to expand...

In cases where a crime has allegedly been committed, pending a criminal investigation resulting in either a trial or charges being dropped yes the person should have anonymity because it could prejudice the outcome if they don’t. In cases like this when a person has been filmed in a public place doing something questionable, but not necessarily breaking the law, I don’t think they are entitled to anonymity.

This becomes complicated because it’s not as straightforward as being found guilty or innocent. There’s no doubt the woman did what she did to the horse as it’s on film, but apparently a crime was not committed.
 
skinnydipper said:
Preferable to being whacked with a stick though. See post 312.
Click to expand...

I am troubled by where the 'abuse' line may lie.

Is it slapping a horse in the face when it comes to you to be caught? I think we'd all say 'yes'.
Is it using a whip in the wrong place (the shoulder here) for a horse refusing to go forwards? Again - 'yes'

But then the questions get harder;
Is it using a whip in the right place (behind the leg for forwards, on the shoulder for a run out)?
Is it using leg aids too strongly, or accidentally drawing blood with a spur if you lose balance?
Is it using a leg aid at all?
Is it riding at all?

Who decides? Hunt sabs? The RSPCA? The public?
 
Shilasdair said:
I am troubled by where the 'abuse' line may lie.

Is it slapping a horse in the face when it comes to you to be caught? I think we'd all say 'yes'.
Is it using a whip in the wrong place (the shoulder here) for a horse refusing to go forwards? Again - 'yes'

But then the questions get harder;
Is it using a whip in the right place (behind the leg for forwards, on the shoulder for a run out)?
Is it using leg aids too strongly, or accidentally drawing blood with a spur if you lose balance?
Is it using a leg aid at all?
Is it riding at all?

Who decides? Hunt sabs? The RSPCA? The public?
Click to expand...

I am troubled by it too, but it will be different for all of us based on our level of understanding of animal behaviour and our previous experience. We can all convince ourselves that what we are doing with our horses is acceptable because they don’t show any obvious signs of distress. Am I being cruel every time I expect my horse to leave his herd and load onto a metal box to travel to a competition?

As for who decides, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, unless a crime has been committed which requires formal investigation and to go through the legal process.
 
The biggest specutation of all is how much abuse, bullying and threatening behaviour by the sabs had gone on against the woman and no I could never condone her actions as it was clearly wrong but again it horrifies me that she has lost her job and may well take her life over a situation that may well have been pushed into by harrassment. She possibly snapped because she was trying to get as quickly as possible away from those vile people to protect her child and the horses involved. At what point does a moment or two in time become a hanging offence. Those trying to justify trial by media should look very closely at themselves first. I would lay good odds that a person with a camera could at least get some very incriminating stills and possible a few moments of video that would condemn most if not all posters. There will have been a jerk on a headcollar a snatch on a bit a ponyclub kick etc. However you look at now a days there are lies, damned lies and camera shots. I personally find close liberty work to be one very cruel sport that should be banned and yet it is accepted as magical
 
windand rain said:
The biggest specutation of all is how much abuse, bullying and threatening behaviour by the sabs had gone on against the woman and no I could never condone her actions as it was clearly wrong but again it horrifies me that she has lost her job and may well take her life over a situation that may well have been pushed into by harrassment. She possibly snapped because she was trying to get as quickly as possible away from those vile people to protect her child and the horses involved. At what point does a moment or two in time become a hanging offence. Those trying to justify trial by media should look very closely at themselves first. I would lay good odds that a person with a camera could at least get some very incriminating stills and possible a few moments of video that would condemn most if not all posters. There will have been a jerk on a headcollar a snatch on a bit a ponyclub kick etc. However you look at now a days there are lies, damned lies and camera shots. I personally find close liberty work to be one very cruel sport that should be banned and yet it is accepted as magical
Click to expand...
Wow, talk about speculation, she might well take her life ? This whole thread is crazy but that’s another level.
 
The woman should be able to control her temper better, the fact she was a teacher makes it worse. Hitting and kicking a horse in public when she knows she is likely to be filmed begs the question of what happens to her horses when there is no one around. Sacking her is her employers decision and they would have more information than we do. If shes not happy with the decision she can appeal it.
 
windand rain said:
The biggest specutation of all is how much abuse, bullying and threatening behaviour by the sabs had gone on against the woman and no I could never condone her actions as it was clearly wrong but again it horrifies me that she has lost her job and may well take her life over a situation that may well have been pushed into by harrassment. She possibly snapped because she was trying to get as quickly as possible away from those vile people to protect her child and the horses involved. At what point does a moment or two in time become a hanging offence. Those trying to justify trial by media should look very closely at themselves first. I would lay good odds that a person with a camera could at least get some very incriminating stills and possible a few moments of video that would condemn most if not all posters. There will have been a jerk on a headcollar a snatch on a bit a ponyclub kick etc. However you look at now a days there are lies, damned lies and camera shots. I personally find close liberty work to be one very cruel sport that should be banned and yet it is accepted as magical
Click to expand...
But it appears to be filmed by someone in a car? She isn't even in shot? It appears to be unedited ? I would agree with the previous poster who said the film was intended to show the road being blocked. The voices of the car occupants aren't effing and blinding, they sound quite reasonable. They may have different beliefs to yours, but it doesn't make them "vile people". The vile person is the woman who is kicking and hitting the totally blameless horse. I would not want my children in her class.
 
ycbm said:
That is actually the first time on the thread that you have stated that she should be sacked for that single incident in isolation.

Thank you for replying. I'm happy to disagree with you.
.
Click to expand...
Again I didn't say that, you are putting words in my mouth. You asked me 'was it fair for her to lose her job?'

I answered 'yes she is in a position of trust. As I explained painstakingly throughout this thread, many, many times. Just because you don't agree with what I say doesn't make it any less valid I'm afraid.

You did not ask me 'should she be sacked'. Please stop trying to twist my words. How can I know whether she should have been sacked or not, you can only make a balanced judgement based on facts and risks assessed at the time. I don't know why you are so adverse to me explaining (or trying to) how the system works based on the experience I gained. when you hear things like 'I can't believe she was sacked because of something on social media' that is a completely inaccurate statement that someone has made. Its not black and white like that.
'
The case would no doubtedly gone before a professional conduct panel meeting similar to the cases in the links below. Its not a case of one morning the head teacher decides she wants to get rid of one of her teachers because of something she's seen on social media. Its not her choice to make, the world doesn't work like that.

There are protocols that have to be adopted and meetings that have to be held surrounding the person in a position of trust (they are never present). And like I (and many, many people have said) we are not party to all the facts and maybe there are previous issues in respect of her conduct that we know nothing about, and so the decision may seem particulary harsh to the majority of people.

Here are forthcoming meetings in relation to teachers:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/teacher...professional-conduct-panel-hearing-or-meeting

I found that link almost straight away, its in the public realm.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top