ForeverBroke_
Well-Known Member
Admitedly, these photos aren't great ...
Brown, sodden ground at SF, warm, dry straw at the horse trust.
Brown, sodden ground at SF, warm, dry straw at the horse trust.
So were the posters who backed Jamie Gray "Trolls" ?
- Thread starter Janetterose
- Start date
- Status
tania01
Well-Known Member
Whatever you put patty will continue to defend them all,it amazes me still and many others here how she says she has facts that noone has still yet not seen.
When she has never stepped a foot on SF before this came to light yet still manages to have facts about SF.
How does she have facts if she has never been there?
Where are the facts?
Patty also claims that the RSPCA dug up the bodies, again where is the proof?she has never been on there to know.
Its not worth feeding.
When she has never stepped a foot on SF before this came to light yet still manages to have facts about SF.
How does she have facts if she has never been there?
Where are the facts?
Patty also claims that the RSPCA dug up the bodies, again where is the proof?she has never been on there to know.
Its not worth feeding.
dozzie
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Even with the best of intentions to be open minded, it is a human inclination to find that the evidence is biased in favour of what you want to believe,
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this statement totally MH. But it works both ways.
The press release put people in the mindset that he was guilty. The images were awful I agree, and with the words of the RSPCA they made it pretty clear that he was the most evil man to walk this earth.
The images and press release presented an extremely biassed view to which the public, as expected, reacted in outcry and donations flooded in. He was guilty in the eyes of the nation as soon as those images appeared, as there could be no excuse for the cruelty described and the images presented.
The images were carefully selected IMO to create the public outcry and they certainly achieved their aim.
However, no-one knew how long he had owned those emaciated or dead animals.
Finally FWIW I dont think Patty is on a crusade against the RSPCA.
I gave the links not Patty. So if anyone is questioning the methods of the RSPCA it is me.
Patty is the only person on here I believe who sat through the trial and listened to the evidence. She does not feel the court notes are a true reflection of everything said in court. That is her right and I dont understand why anyone is calling her a liar or insinuating that she is when they werent there themselves.
Even with the best of intentions to be open minded, it is a human inclination to find that the evidence is biased in favour of what you want to believe,
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this statement totally MH. But it works both ways.
The press release put people in the mindset that he was guilty. The images were awful I agree, and with the words of the RSPCA they made it pretty clear that he was the most evil man to walk this earth.
The images and press release presented an extremely biassed view to which the public, as expected, reacted in outcry and donations flooded in. He was guilty in the eyes of the nation as soon as those images appeared, as there could be no excuse for the cruelty described and the images presented.
The images were carefully selected IMO to create the public outcry and they certainly achieved their aim.
However, no-one knew how long he had owned those emaciated or dead animals.
Finally FWIW I dont think Patty is on a crusade against the RSPCA.
I gave the links not Patty. So if anyone is questioning the methods of the RSPCA it is me.
Patty is the only person on here I believe who sat through the trial and listened to the evidence. She does not feel the court notes are a true reflection of everything said in court. That is her right and I dont understand why anyone is calling her a liar or insinuating that she is when they werent there themselves.
spaniel
Well-Known Member
People keep stating that the RSPCA published these pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial. Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team.
the watcher
Well-Known Member
dozzie
maybe I am in the lucky (or unlucky) position of knowing more than was disclosed to the general public - which is why throughout I have been careful not to say anything too specific.
i do accept that a closed mind, in either direction, can lead to jumping to conclusions and also that the press would of course only publish the most impactive pictures - because they are in the business of selling newsprint or TV time
it is also the case that there are examples of people who have been dealt with by the RSPCA who feel very hard done by - without knowing the full circumstances from a better source i wouldn't comment on the rights or wrongs of any of those cases.
i haven't called patty a liar, i have said she is naive and inclined to set too much by what the Gray family have said in their defence - unlike the prosecution case there are no penalties if they are caught out in a lie.
Patty did call me a liar though - which I have challenged
maybe I am in the lucky (or unlucky) position of knowing more than was disclosed to the general public - which is why throughout I have been careful not to say anything too specific.
i do accept that a closed mind, in either direction, can lead to jumping to conclusions and also that the press would of course only publish the most impactive pictures - because they are in the business of selling newsprint or TV time
it is also the case that there are examples of people who have been dealt with by the RSPCA who feel very hard done by - without knowing the full circumstances from a better source i wouldn't comment on the rights or wrongs of any of those cases.
i haven't called patty a liar, i have said she is naive and inclined to set too much by what the Gray family have said in their defence - unlike the prosecution case there are no penalties if they are caught out in a lie.
Patty did call me a liar though - which I have challenged
lily1
Well-Known Member
Sounds like patty has got verbal diahorrea they are guilty get a life patty & a job!
JM07
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
People keep stating that the RSPCA published these pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial. Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well Said, Spaniel
People keep stating that the RSPCA published these pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial. Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well Said, Spaniel
Gingernags
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even with the best of intentions to be open minded, it is a human inclination to find that the evidence is biased in favour of what you want to believe,
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this statement totally MH. But it works both ways.
The press release put people in the mindset that he was guilty. The images were awful I agree, and with the words of the RSPCA they made it pretty clear that he was the most evil man to walk this earth.
The images and press release presented an extremely biased view to which the public, as expected, reacted in outcry and donations flooded in. He was guilty in the eyes of the nation as soon as those images appeared, as there could be no excuse for the cruelty described and the images presented.
The images were carefully selected IMO to create the public outcry and they certainly achieved their aim. [\quote]
<font color="red"> But the point being there are other members on here who have seen the ACTUAL state these equines were in at the point they were siezed - not carefully selected photos and media hype - so although Patty has seen images in court - there are people on this forum who have seen the actual animals- no hype, no slant, no selection - and quite frankly they come across as more credible. </font>
[ QUOTE ]
Patty is the only person on here I believe who sat through the trial and listened to the evidence. She does not feel the court notes are a true reflection of everything said in court. That is her right and I dont understand why anyone is calling her a liar or insinuating that she is when they werent there themselves.
[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> But she has called MH a liar when MH states she has seen these horses firsthand. Plus the alleged "fat as butter" ones that went elswhere and were not photographed - have been seen by another member - again who has physically seen the state of the animals with their own eyes and contradicts that.
There appears to be two sides here -
Either if Patty is to be believed - the Grays are wonderful, looked after their horses well, and have been totally set up. In which case as she alleges - the RSPCA are lying, as are The Horse Trust, vets, police, knackermen - everyone that isn't JG and family are lying through their teeth as nothing has been done wrongly, no horses have been mistreated, he hasn't been cruel or starved them and has always got treatment for them. Members here who have seen them are all liars. The press are withholding ordinary pics and haven't yet smelled a rat.
Are you trying to tell me the media would not be on to this like a shot to break a massive scandal if this view by Patty was right? It would be a bigger story than the original - damn right they'd blow it open!
Also the whole English legal system has failed.
v
The Grays are guilty of cruelty on a huge scale. The RSPCA are correct, the vets are correct. People on here who have seen the horses are telling the truth. The media is printing genuine and fair coverage, the Legal system has done its job. The only interest in this case for everyone is seeing justice done and even if landed with huge costs they can't recover, they have done it to hit back at people who do not treat their animals with care and respect and are a disgrace to anyone decent who owns animals.
Quite frankly its a no brainer. I cannot believe in Patty's version that everyone is out to get JG and everyone has lied.
I think on balance, it is 100% more likely that the Grays have lied as they are the ones who needed to lie.</font>
Oh and my last point re: these worms that can kill within 12-24 hours - has ANYONE ever heard of this or experienced it? I've had horses for 22 years and have NEVER, EVER been warned about this, even when designing worming programs for whole yards in conjunction with vets.
The only deaths I have EVER come across are where horses with long term and consistent absence of any worming, have had migratory worms getting where they shouldn't and damaging the gut so loss through colic, or catastrophic damage to other organs.
That has been in LONG TERM neglect/absence of worming.
[ QUOTE ]
Even with the best of intentions to be open minded, it is a human inclination to find that the evidence is biased in favour of what you want to believe,
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this statement totally MH. But it works both ways.
The press release put people in the mindset that he was guilty. The images were awful I agree, and with the words of the RSPCA they made it pretty clear that he was the most evil man to walk this earth.
The images and press release presented an extremely biased view to which the public, as expected, reacted in outcry and donations flooded in. He was guilty in the eyes of the nation as soon as those images appeared, as there could be no excuse for the cruelty described and the images presented.
The images were carefully selected IMO to create the public outcry and they certainly achieved their aim. [\quote]
<font color="red"> But the point being there are other members on here who have seen the ACTUAL state these equines were in at the point they were siezed - not carefully selected photos and media hype - so although Patty has seen images in court - there are people on this forum who have seen the actual animals- no hype, no slant, no selection - and quite frankly they come across as more credible. </font>
[ QUOTE ]
Patty is the only person on here I believe who sat through the trial and listened to the evidence. She does not feel the court notes are a true reflection of everything said in court. That is her right and I dont understand why anyone is calling her a liar or insinuating that she is when they werent there themselves.
[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> But she has called MH a liar when MH states she has seen these horses firsthand. Plus the alleged "fat as butter" ones that went elswhere and were not photographed - have been seen by another member - again who has physically seen the state of the animals with their own eyes and contradicts that.
There appears to be two sides here -
Either if Patty is to be believed - the Grays are wonderful, looked after their horses well, and have been totally set up. In which case as she alleges - the RSPCA are lying, as are The Horse Trust, vets, police, knackermen - everyone that isn't JG and family are lying through their teeth as nothing has been done wrongly, no horses have been mistreated, he hasn't been cruel or starved them and has always got treatment for them. Members here who have seen them are all liars. The press are withholding ordinary pics and haven't yet smelled a rat.
Are you trying to tell me the media would not be on to this like a shot to break a massive scandal if this view by Patty was right? It would be a bigger story than the original - damn right they'd blow it open!
Also the whole English legal system has failed.
v
The Grays are guilty of cruelty on a huge scale. The RSPCA are correct, the vets are correct. People on here who have seen the horses are telling the truth. The media is printing genuine and fair coverage, the Legal system has done its job. The only interest in this case for everyone is seeing justice done and even if landed with huge costs they can't recover, they have done it to hit back at people who do not treat their animals with care and respect and are a disgrace to anyone decent who owns animals.
Quite frankly its a no brainer. I cannot believe in Patty's version that everyone is out to get JG and everyone has lied.
I think on balance, it is 100% more likely that the Grays have lied as they are the ones who needed to lie.</font>
Oh and my last point re: these worms that can kill within 12-24 hours - has ANYONE ever heard of this or experienced it? I've had horses for 22 years and have NEVER, EVER been warned about this, even when designing worming programs for whole yards in conjunction with vets.
The only deaths I have EVER come across are where horses with long term and consistent absence of any worming, have had migratory worms getting where they shouldn't and damaging the gut so loss through colic, or catastrophic damage to other organs.
That has been in LONG TERM neglect/absence of worming.
dozzie
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
People keep stating that the RSPCA published these pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial. Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team.
[/ QUOTE ]
And they could have refused.
People keep stating that the RSPCA published these pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial. Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team.
[/ QUOTE ]
And they could have refused.
the watcher
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People keep stating that the RSPCA published these pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial. Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team.
[/ QUOTE ]
And they could have refused.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why should they - this case has been a bit of a PR triumph for them, and they certainly worked hard enough for it, along with all the other agencies involved.
the public need to know and understand about cruelty and neglect.
people who are looking to retire horses need to know what can happen if they do not do enough background checks
[ QUOTE ]
People keep stating that the RSPCA published these pics as if it was some sort of ruse to sway the trial. Can I just point out that it was the PRESS who requested photographs to publish and NOT the RSPCA or the prosecution team.
[/ QUOTE ]
And they could have refused.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why should they - this case has been a bit of a PR triumph for them, and they certainly worked hard enough for it, along with all the other agencies involved.
the public need to know and understand about cruelty and neglect.
people who are looking to retire horses need to know what can happen if they do not do enough background checks
TheresaW
Well-Known Member
Excellent post GingerNags.
jacks_mum
Well-Known Member
I look forward to seeing Patty/MJ's book when it hits the stands, I think he/she is a reporter or author (would be author). Should make interesting reading
Fenris
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Oh and my last point re: these worms that can kill within 12-24 hours - has ANYONE ever heard of this or experienced it? I've had horses for 22 years and have NEVER, EVER been warned about this, even when designing worming programs for whole yards in conjunction with vets.
The only deaths I have EVER come across are where horses with long term and consistent absence of any worming, have had migratory worms getting where they shouldn't and damaging the gut so loss through colic, or catastrophic damage to other organs.
That has been in LONG TERM neglect/absence of worming.
[/ QUOTE ]
The worms do exist and they can kill and cause emaciation within a very short time frame.
The little red worm has an encysted form that burrows into the gut wall and stays there, sometimes for years before it decides to erupt, damaging the wall as it does so.
It is also true that many wormers that claim to kill little red worms do not explain that they are ineffective if the worms are present in the gut wall in the encysted form, so many people are still worming their animals imagining that their horses are safe.
No-one knows what the trigger is that causes the worms to decide to erupt through the gut wall. They usually do so in late autumn or spring. The larvae then pass through the horse are into the next host.
These worms have developed resistance even to febendazole based wormers, the original 5 day course that was once the only treatment. Equest is still capable of dealing with them, but few people are aware of the problems.
Worse, febendazole may cause further damage to the gut wall. And worming can actually induce an eruption of these worms.
It is perfectly possible for horses that have passed through markets or dealers yards to become infected and it is also likely that lower quality horses will carry such encysted worm burdens simply because their owners did not realise the need for such a specialist wormer.
And that is why Jamie Grey may not have realised just what was happening when horses started collapsing around him.
Oh and my last point re: these worms that can kill within 12-24 hours - has ANYONE ever heard of this or experienced it? I've had horses for 22 years and have NEVER, EVER been warned about this, even when designing worming programs for whole yards in conjunction with vets.
The only deaths I have EVER come across are where horses with long term and consistent absence of any worming, have had migratory worms getting where they shouldn't and damaging the gut so loss through colic, or catastrophic damage to other organs.
That has been in LONG TERM neglect/absence of worming.
[/ QUOTE ]
The worms do exist and they can kill and cause emaciation within a very short time frame.
The little red worm has an encysted form that burrows into the gut wall and stays there, sometimes for years before it decides to erupt, damaging the wall as it does so.
It is also true that many wormers that claim to kill little red worms do not explain that they are ineffective if the worms are present in the gut wall in the encysted form, so many people are still worming their animals imagining that their horses are safe.
No-one knows what the trigger is that causes the worms to decide to erupt through the gut wall. They usually do so in late autumn or spring. The larvae then pass through the horse are into the next host.
These worms have developed resistance even to febendazole based wormers, the original 5 day course that was once the only treatment. Equest is still capable of dealing with them, but few people are aware of the problems.
Worse, febendazole may cause further damage to the gut wall. And worming can actually induce an eruption of these worms.
It is perfectly possible for horses that have passed through markets or dealers yards to become infected and it is also likely that lower quality horses will carry such encysted worm burdens simply because their owners did not realise the need for such a specialist wormer.
And that is why Jamie Grey may not have realised just what was happening when horses started collapsing around him.
the watcher
Well-Known Member
'And that is why Jamie Grey may not have realised just what was happening when horses started collapsing around him. '
Oh please - try getting your head out of that RSCPA hating hole you put it in and look at all the other evidence.
If you want a stick to beat the RSPCA with, this case is not the one.
Oh please - try getting your head out of that RSCPA hating hole you put it in and look at all the other evidence.
If you want a stick to beat the RSPCA with, this case is not the one.
Gingernags
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
It is perfectly possible for horses that have passed through markets or dealers yards to become infected and it is also likely that lower quality horses will carry such encysted worm burdens simply because their owners did not realise the need for such a specialist wormer.
And that is why Jamie Grey may not have realised just what was happening when horses started collapsing around him.
[/ QUOTE ]
But Equest is not a specialist wormer - we use it on rotation as one of the most effective wormers - we worm with it summer and winter alternated with a tapeworm wormer in spring and autumn.
With a 13 week cover period it is one of the most economical wormers on the market!
And if you were a dealer of low end horses and ran this risk, its one of the cheaper and more effective ways of making sure your "herd" is covered for extended periods of time.
I don't believe from the coverage we've heard and has been reproduced - that over 48 hours he suddenly lost loads of stock despite care and treatment, from these worms.
I think over a period of time he failed to identify and treat several horses resulting in debilitation and death, and not as sudden as he says.
I think the lack of care and feed and appalling conditions were most likely the cause of the breakout of any illness as the animals were in no fit state to fight it being weak and malnourished and kept in overcrowded squalor.
I actually hate the RSPCA with a passion and disagree with a lot they do - but in this case I think they are totally 100 percent in the right.
It is perfectly possible for horses that have passed through markets or dealers yards to become infected and it is also likely that lower quality horses will carry such encysted worm burdens simply because their owners did not realise the need for such a specialist wormer.
And that is why Jamie Grey may not have realised just what was happening when horses started collapsing around him.
[/ QUOTE ]
But Equest is not a specialist wormer - we use it on rotation as one of the most effective wormers - we worm with it summer and winter alternated with a tapeworm wormer in spring and autumn.
With a 13 week cover period it is one of the most economical wormers on the market!
And if you were a dealer of low end horses and ran this risk, its one of the cheaper and more effective ways of making sure your "herd" is covered for extended periods of time.
I don't believe from the coverage we've heard and has been reproduced - that over 48 hours he suddenly lost loads of stock despite care and treatment, from these worms.
I think over a period of time he failed to identify and treat several horses resulting in debilitation and death, and not as sudden as he says.
I think the lack of care and feed and appalling conditions were most likely the cause of the breakout of any illness as the animals were in no fit state to fight it being weak and malnourished and kept in overcrowded squalor.
I actually hate the RSPCA with a passion and disagree with a lot they do - but in this case I think they are totally 100 percent in the right.
Fenris
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever met JG's son??? He is certainly not 14 but 16 - GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.
If you had ever had the unfortunate pleasure of meeting him you certainly wouldn't describe him as your above quote.
Get real and STOP DEFENDING THE GUILTY
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE POSTING
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps he is 16 now but was 14 at the time of the raid? In which case the RSPCA should not have prosecuted the son.
Remember the case of RSPCA v C?
RSPCA prosecuted a girl whose father failed to take the family cat to the vet and also prosecuted the girl for failing to seek veterinary treatment.
RSPCA eventually lost on the grounds that the girl could not be expected to go against her father's decisions and in any case would have no money.
On top of that, the RSPCA campaigned to make the person responsible for an under 16 the person responsible for any failures on their part in terms of animal welfare. They cannot have it both ways.
Have you ever met JG's son??? He is certainly not 14 but 16 - GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.
If you had ever had the unfortunate pleasure of meeting him you certainly wouldn't describe him as your above quote.
Get real and STOP DEFENDING THE GUILTY
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE POSTING
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps he is 16 now but was 14 at the time of the raid? In which case the RSPCA should not have prosecuted the son.
Remember the case of RSPCA v C?
RSPCA prosecuted a girl whose father failed to take the family cat to the vet and also prosecuted the girl for failing to seek veterinary treatment.
RSPCA eventually lost on the grounds that the girl could not be expected to go against her father's decisions and in any case would have no money.
On top of that, the RSPCA campaigned to make the person responsible for an under 16 the person responsible for any failures on their part in terms of animal welfare. They cannot have it both ways.
the watcher
Well-Known Member
Fenris.
It is very simple. In any animal prosecution the RSPCA or other agency will seek to make every person at the address liable - if they didn't JG, for example, could continue to neglect horses with impunity simply by claiming that they belonged to another family member. This cannot be allowed to happen.
It is very simple. In any animal prosecution the RSPCA or other agency will seek to make every person at the address liable - if they didn't JG, for example, could continue to neglect horses with impunity simply by claiming that they belonged to another family member. This cannot be allowed to happen.
Gingernags
Well-Known Member
At 14 years old I was fully capable and totally responsible for looking after my own horse - Dad paid for it - I got on with it. Had the horse needed the vet - I'd have called the vet and dealt with any potential fallout later. My horses welfare would always come first. Everyone I know with animals agrees they qould rather waste a callout being on the safe side than risk their animal's health.
At 10 years old I was helping run yards, perfectly capable of letting people know if there were problems and asking for help when needed and knowing when you needed the vet.
How many farming families have kids responsible for large amounts of livestock on a daily basis as they are brought up to do so and help out?
At 10 years old I was helping run yards, perfectly capable of letting people know if there were problems and asking for help when needed and knowing when you needed the vet.
How many farming families have kids responsible for large amounts of livestock on a daily basis as they are brought up to do so and help out?
patty19
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
i don't know what your issue is with the RSPCA - but you are very mistaken if you believe that any miscarriage of justice has taken place here.
[/ QUOTE ]
For as long as I have breath in my lungs I will always KNOW that a miscarriage of just has in FACT been done. Only God almighy Himself could tell me otherwise.
[ QUOTE ]
Those of us who have known of JG's activities for years know this - you should just come to terms with it, there is nothing you can say to defend this family.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, you are very wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
So, does that make you a bit of an anti RSPCA activist who has the time and resources to follow this trial in detail?
[/ QUOTE ]
I used to be a HUGE HUGE fan of the RSPCA and donted to the organization. Now however, I would rather burn money than give it to an organization that is hell bent on tearing peoples lives apart.
[ QUOTE ]
Even with the best of intentions to be open minded, it is a human inclination to find that the evidence is biased in favour of what you want to believe, especially if you have approached this with the mindset that all RSPCA staff, all Equine Welfare Staff, all vets and all Police Officers involved in this case must be liars - and the defendants (who are the only people in the case with a good reason to lie) are telling the clear unblemished truth.
[/ QUOTE ]
I had a very open mind before the JG case. However, the RSPCA has given me every good reason to feel the way I do about them. None of the defendants were caught in lies - the prosecution witnesses were caught out in lies to many to number.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have the time or inclination now to challenge some of your points - which are actually just rubbish. But, you have called me a liar and I will not allow that to pass unchallenged.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then please feel free to chanllenge.
[ QUOTE ]
You said there was nothing wrong (other than a little scratch) with two ponies that were later seized and removed by the RSPCA. You have not seen these so only have the word of JG and family (presumably) on which to base your opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats where you are wrong. I have also seen the other animals which were in the yard on that day - which were not removed. The two which were removed were indeed removed against the advice of a vet who later made a full report concering the 2 horses, and of the RSPCA's harrassment of Mr Gray.
If I remember rightly they were 2 Haflingers.
[ QUOTE ]
I saw them within 24 hours of their arrival at their current home, they were in dire condition - a little scratch would have been the least of their problems - and I am no tree hugger and fully understand the principles of keeping horses as stock, rather than as pets. Funnily enough it has only taken access to good hay and decent grazing to put them right - the very things that the animals on JG's farm were denied.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, you are wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
Only one person has been hoodwinked here, and it is you patty - in some ways I feel sorry for you, now knowing where you are coming from. Conspiracy theories only work as theory - they are rarely found in real life.
[/ QUOTE ]
Example:
Same EVIL CONNIVING Organization - Different country.
I got pulptations while reading parts of this. It's heartwrenching.
i don't know what your issue is with the RSPCA - but you are very mistaken if you believe that any miscarriage of justice has taken place here.
[/ QUOTE ]
For as long as I have breath in my lungs I will always KNOW that a miscarriage of just has in FACT been done. Only God almighy Himself could tell me otherwise.
[ QUOTE ]
Those of us who have known of JG's activities for years know this - you should just come to terms with it, there is nothing you can say to defend this family.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, you are very wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
So, does that make you a bit of an anti RSPCA activist who has the time and resources to follow this trial in detail?
[/ QUOTE ]
I used to be a HUGE HUGE fan of the RSPCA and donted to the organization. Now however, I would rather burn money than give it to an organization that is hell bent on tearing peoples lives apart.
[ QUOTE ]
Even with the best of intentions to be open minded, it is a human inclination to find that the evidence is biased in favour of what you want to believe, especially if you have approached this with the mindset that all RSPCA staff, all Equine Welfare Staff, all vets and all Police Officers involved in this case must be liars - and the defendants (who are the only people in the case with a good reason to lie) are telling the clear unblemished truth.
[/ QUOTE ]
I had a very open mind before the JG case. However, the RSPCA has given me every good reason to feel the way I do about them. None of the defendants were caught in lies - the prosecution witnesses were caught out in lies to many to number.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have the time or inclination now to challenge some of your points - which are actually just rubbish. But, you have called me a liar and I will not allow that to pass unchallenged.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then please feel free to chanllenge.
[ QUOTE ]
You said there was nothing wrong (other than a little scratch) with two ponies that were later seized and removed by the RSPCA. You have not seen these so only have the word of JG and family (presumably) on which to base your opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats where you are wrong. I have also seen the other animals which were in the yard on that day - which were not removed. The two which were removed were indeed removed against the advice of a vet who later made a full report concering the 2 horses, and of the RSPCA's harrassment of Mr Gray.
If I remember rightly they were 2 Haflingers.
[ QUOTE ]
I saw them within 24 hours of their arrival at their current home, they were in dire condition - a little scratch would have been the least of their problems - and I am no tree hugger and fully understand the principles of keeping horses as stock, rather than as pets. Funnily enough it has only taken access to good hay and decent grazing to put them right - the very things that the animals on JG's farm were denied.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, you are wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
Only one person has been hoodwinked here, and it is you patty - in some ways I feel sorry for you, now knowing where you are coming from. Conspiracy theories only work as theory - they are rarely found in real life.
[/ QUOTE ]
Example:
Same EVIL CONNIVING Organization - Different country.
I got pulptations while reading parts of this. It's heartwrenching.
Fenris
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Fenris.
It is very simple. In any animal prosecution the RSPCA or other agency will seek to make every person at the address liable - if they didn't JG, for example, could continue to neglect horses with impunity simply by claiming that they belonged to another family member. This cannot be allowed to happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
Legal precedent under the 1911 Act found against the RSPCA on this one. No doubt the inevitable Grey appeals will determine whether the RSPA's actions are lawful under the 2006 Act.
Note that no-one can neglect any animal with impunity by claiming it belongs to a family member under the age of 16 under the 2006 Act. The responsible adult is fully liable for any breaches by the child.
Fenris.
It is very simple. In any animal prosecution the RSPCA or other agency will seek to make every person at the address liable - if they didn't JG, for example, could continue to neglect horses with impunity simply by claiming that they belonged to another family member. This cannot be allowed to happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
Legal precedent under the 1911 Act found against the RSPCA on this one. No doubt the inevitable Grey appeals will determine whether the RSPA's actions are lawful under the 2006 Act.
Note that no-one can neglect any animal with impunity by claiming it belongs to a family member under the age of 16 under the 2006 Act. The responsible adult is fully liable for any breaches by the child.
Quadro
Well-Known Member
excellet point gingernags i was the same as you i 2 had my ponies from an early age and would muck them out etc before school and i knew that if they were not looked after properly then they would go!!!, at age 14 there is no doubt in my mind that you know right from wrong this has been proven at a much earlier age (the jamie bulger case??) so age imo is not an excuse for gross negligence
Fenris
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Example:
Same EVIL CONNIVING Organization - Different country.
I got pulptations while reading parts of this. It's heartwrenching.
[/ QUOTE ]
The Australians are now challenging their RSPCA's right to bring prosecutions. Time for the UK to follow suit perhaps!
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200905/s2562342.htm
RSPCA's role in prosecutions questioned
Wednesday, 06/05/2009
The way animal welfare is monitored and prosecuted in Australia is being criticised by an increasing number of lawyers and academics.
Some think that a private, charitable organisation like the RSPCA should be replaced by an independent government body in the case of animal welfare compliance, particularly for farmed animals.
Peter Sankoff, the co-editor of a new book, Animal Law in Australasia, says it wouldn't be difficult to develop an alternative model.
"The real question is why are animal welfare crimes just about the only crime that are dealt with by a private body?" he says.
Example:
Same EVIL CONNIVING Organization - Different country.
I got pulptations while reading parts of this. It's heartwrenching.
[/ QUOTE ]
The Australians are now challenging their RSPCA's right to bring prosecutions. Time for the UK to follow suit perhaps!
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200905/s2562342.htm
RSPCA's role in prosecutions questioned
Wednesday, 06/05/2009
The way animal welfare is monitored and prosecuted in Australia is being criticised by an increasing number of lawyers and academics.
Some think that a private, charitable organisation like the RSPCA should be replaced by an independent government body in the case of animal welfare compliance, particularly for farmed animals.
Peter Sankoff, the co-editor of a new book, Animal Law in Australasia, says it wouldn't be difficult to develop an alternative model.
"The real question is why are animal welfare crimes just about the only crime that are dealt with by a private body?" he says.
the watcher
Well-Known Member
Thats where you are wrong. I have also seen the other animals which were in the yard on that day - which were not removed. The two which were removed were indeed removed against the advice of a vet who later made a full report concering the 2 horses, and of the RSPCA's harrassment of Mr Gray.
We must have seen different animals - the ones I saw were certainly not haflingers - they were both small welsh type ponies
We must have seen different animals - the ones I saw were certainly not haflingers - they were both small welsh type ponies
the watcher
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fenris.
It is very simple. In any animal prosecution the RSPCA or other agency will seek to make every person at the address liable - if they didn't JG, for example, could continue to neglect horses with impunity simply by claiming that they belonged to another family member. This cannot be allowed to happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
Legal precedent under the 1911 Act found against the RSPCA on this one. No doubt the inevitable Grey appeals will determine whether the RSPA's actions are lawful under the 2006 Act.
Note that no-one can neglect any animal with impunity by claiming it belongs to a family member under the age of 16 under the 2006 Act. The responsible adult is fully liable for any breaches by the child.
[/ QUOTE ]
Jamie Grey Jnr was never going to stay under 16 forever though was he. If he had not been prosecuted (and he is a liable as the rest of his family in my view) then right now we would be seeing the entire business being put in his name.
Are appeals inevitable?
[ QUOTE ]
Fenris.
It is very simple. In any animal prosecution the RSPCA or other agency will seek to make every person at the address liable - if they didn't JG, for example, could continue to neglect horses with impunity simply by claiming that they belonged to another family member. This cannot be allowed to happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
Legal precedent under the 1911 Act found against the RSPCA on this one. No doubt the inevitable Grey appeals will determine whether the RSPA's actions are lawful under the 2006 Act.
Note that no-one can neglect any animal with impunity by claiming it belongs to a family member under the age of 16 under the 2006 Act. The responsible adult is fully liable for any breaches by the child.
[/ QUOTE ]
Jamie Grey Jnr was never going to stay under 16 forever though was he. If he had not been prosecuted (and he is a liable as the rest of his family in my view) then right now we would be seeing the entire business being put in his name.
Are appeals inevitable?
Fenris
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Jamie Grey Jnr was never going to stay under 16 forever though was he. If he had not been prosecuted (and he is a liable as the rest of his family in my view) then right now we would be seeing the entire business being put in his name.
Are appeals inevitable?
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be utterly inequitable for someone to be tried for a crime they might commit in the future.
I cannot answer for the Greys in terms of their eventual decision on whether to appeal, but with such a flawed Judgement they have little to lose and everything to gain.
Jamie Grey Jnr was never going to stay under 16 forever though was he. If he had not been prosecuted (and he is a liable as the rest of his family in my view) then right now we would be seeing the entire business being put in his name.
Are appeals inevitable?
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be utterly inequitable for someone to be tried for a crime they might commit in the future.
I cannot answer for the Greys in terms of their eventual decision on whether to appeal, but with such a flawed Judgement they have little to lose and everything to gain.
patty19
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You see, thats where you are wrong....I have done so much digging, have gathered tons of information and have scrutinized every single piece of information, and sat through hours upon hours in the court listening to both cases and taking and comparing notes, so that I would NOT be horribly naive
[/ QUOTE ]
Can I just ask one question with reference to your above statement?
WHY?
[/ QUOTE ]
Why not?
You see, the problem is, when people are hit with the media hype like it was on the 9th of January 08 and the following days, people have no reason not to have an instant hatred for the person who is said to have been so cruel. After the initial impact which tugged upon the hearts strings of animal lovers and others up and down the country, people unconsciencly only want to hear how terrible that person is, and anything said, other than how evil he is, is shot down in flames.
Like 1000's of other people I took an instant interest. I was fortunate enought to have the time to go to Amersham the following day (10th of Jan) - and the contacts which got me further than the rest of those that took an instant interest.
I had my own baised idea of what horse dealers where all about so I was uttlery shocked to see what I saw on the 10th. Still not satisfies though, I dug a little deeper and deeper, asked question after question from different sourses, did my homework on all main witnesses, scrutinizes everything I received until I had irrefutable answers and evidence. I didnt intend on going out of my way to such an extent and didnt even realise where I was until I sat back and looked at myself. With the information I had I knew without a shadow of a doubt that Mr Gray was innocent of what he was being accused of. This drove me to sit for hours upon hours taking notes in the back of the court room, to where I witnessed first hand the very cause for the different view and respect I now have of the RSPCA - And the realisation that their power is extremely underestimated by the general publc and the majority of animals owners all over the country.
[ QUOTE ]
What can you possibly gain from doing all that?
[/ QUOTE ]
Knowledge. And extremely valuable knowledge at that!
[ QUOTE ]
And if you were so interested, why miss the penultimate day of JG giving evidence, surely that would be the pinnacle of the case, his one chance to defend himself and you missed it?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure where you got that idea from?
[ QUOTE ]
I really cannot get my head round why soneone, who says they are nothing to do with the case, would go to so much trouble to gain all this information and not put it to use???
[/ QUOTE ]
Well now I hope I have explained this for you. Maybe I am among a minority of people who would go to such length. But like I said, this wasnt my intention at the outset.
[ QUOTE ]
You see, thats where you are wrong....I have done so much digging, have gathered tons of information and have scrutinized every single piece of information, and sat through hours upon hours in the court listening to both cases and taking and comparing notes, so that I would NOT be horribly naive
[/ QUOTE ]
Can I just ask one question with reference to your above statement?
WHY?
[/ QUOTE ]
Why not?
You see, the problem is, when people are hit with the media hype like it was on the 9th of January 08 and the following days, people have no reason not to have an instant hatred for the person who is said to have been so cruel. After the initial impact which tugged upon the hearts strings of animal lovers and others up and down the country, people unconsciencly only want to hear how terrible that person is, and anything said, other than how evil he is, is shot down in flames.
Like 1000's of other people I took an instant interest. I was fortunate enought to have the time to go to Amersham the following day (10th of Jan) - and the contacts which got me further than the rest of those that took an instant interest.
I had my own baised idea of what horse dealers where all about so I was uttlery shocked to see what I saw on the 10th. Still not satisfies though, I dug a little deeper and deeper, asked question after question from different sourses, did my homework on all main witnesses, scrutinizes everything I received until I had irrefutable answers and evidence. I didnt intend on going out of my way to such an extent and didnt even realise where I was until I sat back and looked at myself. With the information I had I knew without a shadow of a doubt that Mr Gray was innocent of what he was being accused of. This drove me to sit for hours upon hours taking notes in the back of the court room, to where I witnessed first hand the very cause for the different view and respect I now have of the RSPCA - And the realisation that their power is extremely underestimated by the general publc and the majority of animals owners all over the country.
[ QUOTE ]
What can you possibly gain from doing all that?
[/ QUOTE ]
Knowledge. And extremely valuable knowledge at that!
[ QUOTE ]
And if you were so interested, why miss the penultimate day of JG giving evidence, surely that would be the pinnacle of the case, his one chance to defend himself and you missed it?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure where you got that idea from?
[ QUOTE ]
I really cannot get my head round why soneone, who says they are nothing to do with the case, would go to so much trouble to gain all this information and not put it to use???
[/ QUOTE ]
Well now I hope I have explained this for you. Maybe I am among a minority of people who would go to such length. But like I said, this wasnt my intention at the outset.
M_G
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you could share all this evidence with us instead of skitting around with no photographic evidence....
If things were dug up I want to see the holes that were left
If things were dug up I want to see the holes that were left
patty19
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Patty
I quote:
"And as for the young Jamie Gray...I'm baffled at how he could possibly be responsible for a vast amount of animals at the age of 14.
If you look into each charge, it's hard to imagain how the judge could possibly expect some of those things from a mere boy."
Have you ever met JG's son??? He is certainly not 14 but 16 - GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.
If you had ever had the unfortunate pleasure of meeting him you certainly wouldn't describe him as your above quote.
Get real and STOP DEFENDING THE GUILTY
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE POSTING
[/ QUOTE ]
My FACTS are right. At the time he was supposed to have committed the crimes he was 14 years old.
So please get YOUR facts right before YOU post. Thank you.
Patty
I quote:
"And as for the young Jamie Gray...I'm baffled at how he could possibly be responsible for a vast amount of animals at the age of 14.
If you look into each charge, it's hard to imagain how the judge could possibly expect some of those things from a mere boy."
Have you ever met JG's son??? He is certainly not 14 but 16 - GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.
If you had ever had the unfortunate pleasure of meeting him you certainly wouldn't describe him as your above quote.
Get real and STOP DEFENDING THE GUILTY
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE POSTING
[/ QUOTE ]
My FACTS are right. At the time he was supposed to have committed the crimes he was 14 years old.
So please get YOUR facts right before YOU post. Thank you.
patty19
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Admitedly, these photos aren't great ...
Brown, sodden ground at SF, warm, dry straw at the horse trust.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you know for a fact that horses were kept in that barn - and that Mr Gray's hired man wasnt in the proccess of clearing it before he found that another of his animals had died, and so put it in there?
Funny how only such a barn was published, and the barns that I confused for the barn at the sancuary wasnt. Yes funny that!!
Admitedly, these photos aren't great ...
Brown, sodden ground at SF, warm, dry straw at the horse trust.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you know for a fact that horses were kept in that barn - and that Mr Gray's hired man wasnt in the proccess of clearing it before he found that another of his animals had died, and so put it in there?
Funny how only such a barn was published, and the barns that I confused for the barn at the sancuary wasnt. Yes funny that!!
sam1am
Well-Known Member
Im gonna give my 2 pence worth to this,
I like everyody else was shocked about this case when it first came to light.
I am not taking sides; BUT i have seen the 2 videos ( that were on h+h news) and yes there were dead animals, some poor looking animals etc. what i would like to point out is that at the end of one of the short clips (cannot remember which one) at some sanctuary they turn out two of the "rescue cases" now feel free to jump down my neck if u dissagree with me but these two pony's look the picture of health!! and happy to go with it!
I think this case has been the victim of sensationalism(sp) I think JG Mismanaged. had more than he could cope with. and was dealing with the majority of these horses as stock animals; Which they were!
I am not taking sides, and do not condone cruelty but have read up on this and do not see how his 2 daughters have anything to do with it, there names shopuld not be draged throughmuck like this.
Please correct me if i am wrong.
I like everyody else was shocked about this case when it first came to light.
I am not taking sides; BUT i have seen the 2 videos ( that were on h+h news) and yes there were dead animals, some poor looking animals etc. what i would like to point out is that at the end of one of the short clips (cannot remember which one) at some sanctuary they turn out two of the "rescue cases" now feel free to jump down my neck if u dissagree with me but these two pony's look the picture of health!! and happy to go with it!
I think this case has been the victim of sensationalism(sp) I think JG Mismanaged. had more than he could cope with. and was dealing with the majority of these horses as stock animals; Which they were!
I am not taking sides, and do not condone cruelty but have read up on this and do not see how his 2 daughters have anything to do with it, there names shopuld not be draged throughmuck like this.
Please correct me if i am wrong.
- Status