Sarah Moulds

[tristar]

Curiosity, if every time she went hunting the sabs filmed her doing similar punishment to the pony when it was naughty loading would she be found innocent week in week out?

there you go, she was punishing the horse

but they have twisted it into, she was training the horse

my view is that the pony was in no way naughty, but it still got punished

she was not supervising the child, yet she was the adult in charge

loading is a time to pay attention to the animals responses and reaction,, hunt sabs or not

is is not wonderful how humans twist words even to the extent of trying to say punishment is part of training

then stick it all on a little pony who cannot have words to express his point of view and how he felt during the incident,

if she was filmed week in week out it would indeed be interesting to see if in time the thick heads would have the penny drop and the verdict would be different

so are we now in a situation where bashing the horse is an acceptable way of training the horse, after all, a woman bashed the horse and she was training it, the law says she was innocent of abusing it , therefore has that normalized the method and it should not be questioned


and helgstrand is a wonderful rider, after all he is training his horse, and all the young TB broken very young, well thats good for their bones, and whips and spurs are only training the horse, and used for refinement, jumping 1m60 well horses love that, don`t they, N H racing, well breaking your neck is just an unavoidable part of the `sport`


i`m only wasting my time saying this because horses cannot use words, trapped in many ways, often the horses have more brains than the people is what is coming through, that is the message in all this for me

 

[tristar]

There are always two sides to every story.
If she had this bunch of hunt saboteurs intimidating and harassing her and the youngsters she was looking after, it was quite possible a rash / foolish decision was made.

View attachment 121576

In my opinion her actions were wrong, but please lets put things into context.

`two sides to every story` pathetic

 

[equinerebel]

Coming back round to the “two sides to every story” argument, you’re technically right of course, but SM had her chance to tell her side and it was that punching a horse is considered “normal”. She did not say that the presence of sabs made her feel so threatened that she acted out of fear and desperation to get a horse into a lorry and away from her perceived danger. She did not argue that she was inappropriately reacting to a hostile environment, so it’s irrelevant to the case.

The other side of the story would not be the sabs. They are not accused of anything in this case. It would be the victim, the horse, who of course cannot tell us their version of events. Animals are voiceless, and that’s why we need legislation to protect them. In this case, it failed.

 

[ycbm]

`two sides to every story` pathetic

Oh I don't know. Don't we all punch a pony when we're frightened by some people standing at a distance from us holding a video camera?

 

[DabDab]

It is defined in law, it just doesn’t apply to ordinary horse owners.



If I were prosecuting on a case where that legislation did apply, ie a professional horse transporter, I would argue that punching a horse at such a time after the behaviour she claims provoked it was indeed violent and would cause unnecessary fear and injury to the animal. We all know that was inappropriate treatment of the animal, and with legal legislation prosecution would have been able to prove it.

Alas, it doesn’t apply in this case so defence had the legal upper hand - which is why they won. I think it should apply to anyone and everyone handling horses and would love to see stronger legislation.

That only applies to transporting animals too. And it wasn't what she was charged with was it?

But anyway, the horse had no physical injury, proving that it suffered fear in that moment is pretty difficult, which is why anywhere that phrase appears in law relating to animals it is pretty much useless to provide suitable legal protection.

Yes, there was too big a gap between punishment and the action she said she was punishing for, so bad horsemanship as Cortez said. But if the mis-timed punishment had been a raised voice or jerk of a headcollar then I don't think we'd have a problem would we (although both are very able to cause distress to a horse).

So we are left with the fact that it was a punch, and in the legal argument you say you would make, you don't even mention that the punches were applied to the face while the horse was restrained and unable to move away. Which is the real nub of the 'crime' that she committed to me.

I'm purely making the point that when people say that the law is an idiot and horses need better protection that it is worth discussing what that would actually look like. Personally I would like to see something along the lines of 'restraint of a flight animal while applying physical punishment to a vulnerable body part'. But other people have excitedly mentioned that it should be illegal because she kicked the pony, or because she just abused it innit.

Call me a radical, but I do tend to think that if we want to provide better legal protection (and better lives) for animals we should be able to actually identify the things that cause them distress without defaulting to a load of emotive language that is really non-specific, doesn't help horses one jot, and seems just to be to make us feel better.

 

[ycbm]

Good post DD, the law would also need very careful wording. In human law, for example, a distinction is made between an open handed slap and a closed fist punch. You'd also need to cover the situation where you desperately need the horse to get off your foot, or stop pushing you into an obstacle, without being able to let go of it. In that case I can easily see a justification for controlled use of force on a horse that is being restained.

It would be a very difficult law to frame.
.

 

[equinerebel]

That only applies to transporting animals too. And it wasn't what she was charged with was it?

But anyway, the horse had no physical injury, proving that it suffered fear in that moment is pretty difficult, which is why anywhere that phrase appears in law relating to animals it is pretty much useless to provide suitable legal protection.

Yes, there was too big a gap between punishment and the action she said she was punishing for, so bad horsemanship as Cortez said. But if the mis-timed punishment had been a raised voice or jerk of a headcollar then I don't think we'd have a problem would we (although both are very able to cause distress to a horse).

So we are left with the fact that it was a punch, and in the legal argument you say you would make, you don't even mention that the punches were applied to the face while the horse was restrained and unable to move away. Which is the real nub of the 'crime' that she committed to me.

I'm purely making the point that when people say that the law is an idiot and horses need better protection that it is worth discussing what that would actually look like. Personally I would like to see something along the lines of 'restraint of a flight animal while applying physical punishment to a vulnerable body part'. But other people have excitedly mentioned that it should be illegal because she kicked the pony, or because she just abused it innit.

Call me a radical, but I do tend to think that if we want to provide better legal protection (and better lives) for animals we should be able to actually identify the things that cause them distress without defaulting to a load of emotive language that is really non-specific, doesn't help horses one jot, and seems just to be to make us feel better.

I didn't mention it because I didn't think it necessary in this thread where everyone has seen the footage.

100% the law needs to be more detailed, but you have to have a framework in place first.

Have you ever tried to get this government to pass animal welfare legislation? I have, along with many others. It went to the House of Commons and ended up shelved. You need a framework before you can pull in species experts to detail what "fear" and "suffering" means to an animal.

 

[meleeka]

I didn't mention it because I didn't think it necessary in this thread where everyone has seen the footage.

100% the law needs to be more detailed, but you have to have a framework in place first.

Have you ever tried to get this government to pass animal welfare legislation? I have, along with many others. It went to the House of Commons and ended up shelved. You need a framework before you can pull in species experts to detail what "fear" and "suffering" means to an animal.

And then, even if you get legislation passed, it’s not enforced because there isn’t enough knowledge or training.

 

[equinerebel]

And then, even if you get legislation passed, it’s not enforced because there isn’t enough knowledge or training.

Agreed, but in this specific case, having the legislation would have affected the outcome - IMO.

 

[DabDab]

I didn't mention it because I didn't think it necessary in this thread where everyone has seen the footage.

100% the law needs to be more detailed, but you have to have a framework in place first.

Have you ever tried to get this government to pass animal welfare legislation? I have, along with many others. It went to the House of Commons and ended up shelved. You need a framework before you can pull in species experts to detail what "fear" and "suffering" means to an animal.

?? Yes isn't that just the point of what we're discussing

 

[equinerebel]

?? Yes isn't that just the point of what we're discussing

Yes?

 

[tristar]

we should not need legislation

which then tells us we are innocent anyway

we know we should not go around bashing each other over the head, a head is a head animal or human


i do hope to god, no one kisses a horse on the snout for winning a comp, specially if its spanish

 

[TPO]

My goodness, the first time ever I have found myself agreeing with Dr. Marlin's opinion! Praise where praise is due.

Ditto!

 

[equinerebel]

we should not need legislation

which then tells us we are innocent anyway

we know we should not go around bashing each other over the head, a head is a head animal or human


i do hope to god, no one kisses a horse on the snout for winning a comp, specially if its spanish

But we do. The law is flawed, but it's the law and animals need better representation under it.

 

[tristar]

But we do. The law is flawed, but it's the law and animals need better representation under it.

i said should not need, not DO not need.

 

[SEL]

I can see from the press she was charged with two offences under the Animal Welfare Act. One was causing unnecessary suffering - what was the other?

I suspect the RSPCA just didn't have enough evidence to make them stick and were never going to. That one moment in time just wasn't sufficient to hit the marker for prosecution under the Act.

 

[FestiveG]

An interesting philosophical conundrum: a filmed snapshot in time is seen as worthy of prosecution, should the same be done in cases of horses deliberately deprived of the ability to interact with others of their own species, for long periods of time?

 

[Tiddlypom]

I can see from the press she was charged with two offences under the Animal Welfare Act. One was causing unnecessary suffering - what was the other?

From the local press reporting on the trial in progress.

Moulds denies causing an animal unnecessary suffering to a protected animal and not taking reasonable steps to protect the animal from pain, suffering, injury or disease.

 

[Birker2020]

An interesting philosophical conundrum: a filmed snapshot in time is seen as worthy of prosecution, should the same be done in cases of horses deliberately deprived of the ability to interact with others of their own species, for long periods of time?

What has that got to do with anything??

 

[FestiveG]

I think YorksG is

What has that got to do with anything??

I have never had any interaction with Sarah Mould, not sure why you would think I had?
One incident was a moment in time, unacceptable as it was, with the likelihood of no long term impact on the horses well being, the other is deliberate, long term curbing of the horses natural behaviour, which is very likely to cause distress and harm to the horse. One could wonder why the uproar about one and absolute silence, particularly from the RSPCA, about the other. I did think that my original post was self explanatory.

 

[Rowreach]

What has that got to do with anything??

Quite a lot in terms of what might constitute unnecessary suffering, I’d have thought.

It bothers me that so many people who consider (rightly imo) that SM was causing harm to Bruce by her actions are not looking at the broader picture of horse welfare and continue doing as they do on a long term basis.

 

[equinerebel]

Quite a lot in terms of what might constitute unnecessary suffering, I’d have thought.

It bothers me that so many people who consider (rightly imo) that SM was causing harm to Bruce by her actions are not looking at the broader picture of horse welfare and continue doing as they do on a long term basis.

It's hard say all horses suffer from, for example, being stabled for extended periods of time, but very easy to say that no horse benefits from being punched in the face.

 

[FestiveG]

It's hard say all horses suffer from, for example, being stabled for extended periods of time, but very easy to say that no horse benefits from being punched in the face.

It isn't just stabling though, it's individual turnout, often in very small enclosures, often with no enrichment, a situation which would, quite rightly, be condemned in a zoo.

 

[NinjaPony]

The whataboutery is tedious, and happens every time someone is filmed clearly abusing a horse.

There are wider issues around horse welfare that the equestrian community needs to reckon with. Issues around working life, stabling, socialising etc are nuanced. Punching a horse in the face is not. If we can’t roundly condemn behaviour like this when it’s absolutely black and white, no wonder we haven’t made any progress on more complicated horse welfare issues. There is no ‘other side’ in this specific case; she punched a horse in the face.

 

[equinerebel]

It isn't just stabling though, it's individual turnout, often in very small enclosures, often with no enrichment, a situation which would, quite rightly, be condemned in a zoo.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree. I'm just saying all of that is more subjective than "don't punch a horse in the face."

 

[FestiveG]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree. I'm just saying all of that is more subjective than "don't punch a horse in the face."

Ah so the RSPCA, rather than using their funds as stated in their founding charter, are going for the perceived, low hanging fruit.

 

[Pearlsacarolsinger]

I have never punched or kicked a horse and can't imagine any situation when I would do so. I think SM was very foolish on all sorts of levels BUT, horses do much worse to each other frequently, without long term harm. I doubt that SM did much harm at all on that one occasion.
And it would appear that there is no evidence of her behaviour being a regular occurance. I really doubt that RSPCA would have got involved at all if no-one had mentioned 'hunting'.

 

[skinnydipper]

Should the RSPCA have ignored the fact that SM physically abused an animal, shrugged and said 'oh well, its just a moment in time' or should they have been seen to be doing something about it?

 

[equinerebel]

Ah so the RSPCA, rather than using their funds as stated in their founding charter, are going for the perceived, low hanging fruit.

If you consider the behaviour in that footage "low hanging fruit" then we're just not going to agree and, respectfully, there's not much point continuing the discussion together.

I have never punched or kicked a horse and can't imagine any situation when I would do so. I think SM was very foolish on all sorts of levels BUT, horses do much worse to each other frequently, without long term harm. I doubt that SM did much harm at all on that one occasion.
And it would appear that there is no evidence of her behaviour being a regular occurance. I really doubt that RSPCA would have got involved at all if no-one had mentioned 'hunting'.

And dogs bite each other but that doesn't give you or I the right to bite our dogs either.

It's a shame some posters can't see past the hunting aspect of it all. If this were filmed at a PC, RC, race meet or any other equestrian event my opinion would be exactly the same.

 

[FestiveG]

If you consider the behaviour in that footage "low hanging fruit" then we're just not going to agree and, respectfully, there's not much point continuing the discussion together.


And dogs bite each other but that doesn't give you or I the right to bite our dogs either.

It's a shame some posters can't see past the hunting aspect of it all. If this were filmed at a PC, RC, race meet or any other equestrian event my opinion would be exactly the same.

I think the RSPCA thought it was low hanging fruit, however the prosecution failed, having cost a lot of money which could have been used for greater protection for animals. Such as those animals condemned to solitary confinement in unenriched small paddocks.