So were the posters who backed Jamie Gray "Trolls" ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
[ QUOTE ]

You are indeed correct. The press did requested them. BUT it was the RSPCA that TOOK the photos, and only gave the images to the court and press that would cause public outcry. The RSPCA could have (IF THEY WANTED TO) have also produced the photos of all the animals in lovely condition.

The Gray family produced photos of all the other animals to the court. So why were they not published?

A side note for you....The RSPCA and an editor of a certain national news paper are beyond friendly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I swear Al Fayed comes across as more reasonable in his conspiracy theory!!!!

You are telling us that photos exist of these animals in excellent condition, backing up the fact that everyone but the Grays have lied... and you expect us to beleive that the vultures that are the british press, wouldn't absolutely delight in publishing the scandal of the century?

Someone being best buddies with one editor would make it all the more appealing for the rest in scooping them!

The UK press would sell photos of their granny in the buff at an orgy of goats if they thought they could!

No way. absolutely no way, could a conspiracy of this magnitude and cost be carried off just to "get" some insignificant horse dealer - FGS its too fantastic an idea for a hollywood film!!!!
 
Patty should sell her story to one of the tabloids, they could serialise it and with the money she makes she could pay JG’s and his family’s fines for them if she is so fond of them.
 
Patty can’t be a very good wife and mother spending all her waking hours fighting for a lost cause like JG, unless of course she is paying for childcare so as to allow her the time to keep everybody on this thread entertained.

It is strange how she suddenly went from being MYJACK to PATTY, sounds like mystic Meg to me everything she says, and fortunately at the end of the day it won’t make an iota of difference the Grays are still guilty, and it’s less than a month to the happy day when they will all be sentenced.
Maybe we should all go on 12th June to Aylesbury Magistrates and meet her afterwards for coffee and a chat, I assume if she is that involved she will be sitting at the back of the court as usual!
 
I'm sorry to sound so cynical but is there some kind of financial gain for you patty?
I just can't get my head round the fact that some one who says she has nothing to do with the Grays, hasn't got her own horses and is from all accounts a stay at home mother would set out on such a quest surely at some cost to yourself?
 
The horses were given a clean bill of health on Dec 21st I think.

Encysted redworm cannot be detected by worm counts or blood tests.

Mass eruption of encysted redworm can be fatal and usually happens late winter early Spring but can happen at any time. it is not known why mass eruptions occur at other times.

It can cause both rapid or gradual decline.

http://www.equinecentre.co.uk/vet7.htm
 
[ QUOTE ]

It would do every animal owner well to brush up on their knowledge where the RSPCA are concerned.

They are an extremely powerful organization. My personal opinion is that they are above the law. The police and vets seem to be putty in their hands, and they are an idol to the smaller animal charities.



[/ QUOTE ]

There is NO doubt that the RSPCA is a bossy, somewhat 'extreme' organisation. It has prosecuted cases it shouldn't have prosecuted - for political reasons (anyone remember the 'horse on the gate' case?) A number of prosecutions where convictions were obtained in Magistrate's Court were overturned on Appeal. A High Court judge in one Appeal case accused the RSPCA of "driving a coach & horses through PACE."

However, the RSPCA is NOT above the law - that has been proven on many occasions. Nor are they 'an idol to the smaller animal charities." Most of the smaller animal charities loathe and detest the RSPCA - believing (correctly IMHO) that it wastes money on vindictive prosecutions that could be better spent on animal WELFARE! In fact, even most of its own branches loathe HO!

And little people HAVE taken on the RSPCA and won - there are good equine law specialists who just LOVE a chance to wrap the RSPCA lawyers up in their own inadequacies!

I am sure there were some breaches of PACE in this case. HOWEVER, I do NOT believe that reputable equine charities like World Horse Welfare, Redwings, Blue Cross, BHS et al would have supported the RSPCA in this case if there WAS no case! Nor do I believe the police, trading standards, reputable vets AND a senior judge have ALL been hoodwinked by the RSPCA!

Anyone who does should be undergoing treatment!
 
Fenris, I have to take issue with your comment that it is perfectly standard for a solicitor to advise that a client give a no comment interview. For starters, why would there be a need for solicitor if that was all they were going to advise?! If that is all your legal advisors are telling you, you’re not getting value for money! The practise of saying no comment *may* have been the case before the introduction of the ‘new/extended’ police caution, but is certainly not the case now. If you have nothing to hide, why not take the opportunity (that frankly we are lucky to have in this country) to put your side of the story over at the earliest opportunity? And more than that, on a tape which can be either played, or a transcript read in court to demonstrate that it is a true recording of what was stated in interview. As I mentioned in my earlier post to Patty, you both REALLY NEED to go and read the stated case law on this issue, as it is too long, boring and complex for me to go into here. But please don’t post stuff that you clearly have got 7th hand without a full understanding. Patty has asked us not to blindly believe all that is written in the media and I urge you to do the same, as your knowledge of this area of the law is distinctly lacking.

In response to Patty;

[ QUOTE ]
So do you suggest that all people who give no-comment police interviews on the advice of a solicitor, are all guilty?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I suggest that the judge is entitled to draw an inference from no comment interviews, and that they are entitled to disbelieve all people who have failed to advance their defence WHEN ASKED, since they have been fully warned that this will happen.

[ QUOTE ]
If not, do you believe it is totally right and fair for a judge, after seeing and hearing evidence that could have been produced in a police interview but was not, to find people guilty just because they didnt produce that evidence in the police interview because they were advised by their solicitor not to?

[/ QUOTE ]

See my full answer above.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand this but it does not mean he must find them guilty just because they made no comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well clearly you don’t, otherwise you would not be repeatedly asking about it. There is no ‘must’. See my fuller answer above.

[ QUOTE ]
They were not arrested, but was threatened with arrest if they didn’t have the interviews. They later found out that such actions taken by the police was not lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I don’t know if you got that information from the same solicitor, but it is wrong. As you have admitted, there has been no complaint made to the IPCC regards their police interviews, then they must be satisfied that the procedures were correctly followed. For your information, it makes not one iota of difference whether they were arrested or not prior to interview, they are still fully cautioned as above. The caution is then broken down into ‘plain English’ so that the person being interviewed has a full understanding.

Your claims that the Grays trusted their solicitor so implicitly are misguided. Having had the caution they will have been well aware of the consequences of remaining silent. Are you suggesting that they are so blindly trusting that they would do whatever a solicitor said? What if he had advised them that they would ‘get off’ if they signed all their assets over to him? I think you are doing the Grays a disservice by claiming them to be that easily led and lacking in intelligence.

Your assertions that not all of the Grays horses were in poor condition are irrelevant. None of the Grays were charged with, nor found guilty of failing to care for every single equine that ever had the misfortune to pass through their hands. They faced specific charges relating to specific equines and these are the only ones that are relevant to this discussion. Even if he had an extra 50 horses that lived in the mortal equivalent of horsey paradise, the judge has ruled that he still did not care correctly for those that were the subject of the guilty findings. There are plenty of people who have neglected only one or some of their animals and yet treated some of the others perfectly adequately. The fact that someone has given appropriate care to some of the animals and not others makes it worse in my view, as it shows that they did know how to care for the animal properly and didn’t.

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest you take another look at the report. Though out of context as it is, I feel it will answer your questions better than I can. I have answered the same questions time after time. People dont seem to be reading through the thread and think they are asking all new and improved questions, when really they are doing no more than repeating what has already been asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am asking this question again because I found the last answer incomplete and unconvincing and thus I was asking for some more supporting evidence. Clearly there is none, otherwise you would have provided it.

[ QUOTE ]
They did what other people do in such circumstances. But here, I'll break it down for you.
1. They hired a solicitor.
2. the took his advice which was to make NO COMMENT.
3. They acted upon that advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad choice! Please see above for fuller explanation of why this was so misguided.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, why did the Grays not state WHEN ASKED in interview ‘Dead horse 6 was already dead when i had it transported to my land for [insert LEGITIMATE purpose here]. It died at [time] on [date] at [place] of [condition] whilst it was in the care of [owner]. I provide the owners details and they will be happy to provide a statement. I am an approved [knackerman/rendering plant/burial site/cremation agent/insert or delete as appropriate]. I provide [documents] to prove that I am licensed by [relevant authority].

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
No comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!
grin.gif
That was a joke....right?!
Seriously. Read my above on why people are now entitled to disbelieve anything you later choose to say on this matter.
Regarding the dead horses, as far as I am concerned, if they had been buried, Mr Gray would have needed permission to do so, and this would have needed to be done in a suitable place AND TO A SUITABLE DEPTH. If this permission was gained, why has it not been produced? Even if they had been buried, they could never have been uncovered without heavy machinery if this had been done to an adequate standard.
 
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of the animals were not in the best condition and I have never disputed that. However, what proof do these other members have to say that they are in that condition because Mr Gray starved them and/or neglected them?
What proof do those other members have to say that Mr Gray was not trying to build those animals up at the time they were seized?

The idea of Mr Gray starving them was put into the minds of the public from day one. So people look at such animals with the mind that they have been starved.

No one even bothers to think that they were seized from a trader who may have only had them for the matter of hours/days/weeks. And maybe they could have come along in condition since the trader had owned them. Nor do they think that maybe starvation is not the underlying cause for their condition.

Some of those animals may not have had the body score your horses have, but by no means were they at the bottom of the scale.

All of the above was bought out in court and Mr Gray provided papers which gave irrefutable proof the it wasnt possible for him to be the cause for the condition that some of them were in. He showed proof of his worming program -Names, dates, times, places of purchase were all provided to the court along with veterinary papers and medication.

However, the majority of the animals the public were allowed to see was not in the worst condition. I'm not saying their condition was fantastic but neither were they in the condition that the RSPCA have put into the minds of people - including those who have seen them.

And everyone claims they have seen them within hours of the seizure but according to the RSPCA they were in quarenteine. That is of course all these people are those working at the sanctuaries.

The RSPCA said all were etc etc.....why were photos of ALL the animals not produced in the prosecutions evidence?

Why were the photos which were provided to the court by the Grays not given to the media to publish?


[ QUOTE ]
But she has called MH a liar when MH states she has seen these horses firsthand.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look throught the thread you will see I didnt call MH a liar because she claimed to have seen the horses firsthand.


[ QUOTE ]
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.[ QUOTE ]


Those were at an undisclosed location - same with the barrel shaped shetlands, because apparently they were worried that Mr Gray would go steal them back.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should do some deep digging and find out for yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
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!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my, please dont be so sure.

[ QUOTE ]
Also the whole English legal system has failed.

v


[/ QUOTE ]


Wouldnt be the first time.

[ QUOTE ]
The Grays are guilty of cruelty on a huge scale. The RSPCA are correct, the vets are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this because?


[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this because?



[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Grays were cross examined and was consistant in every way even though the prosecution tried to twist everyword they breathed. They provided irrefutable evidence which proved the RSPCA and media reports WRONG. The prosecution witnesses contradicted each other plus themselves....and several of the prosecution witnesses were good witnesses in confirming what the Grays had said.

[ 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 ]

Maybe you should be a vet then as you seem to believe that you know more than every vet involved in the case - INCLUDING that of the PROSECUTION expert vet who stated that John Parker was more experienced than him.
 
[ QUOTE ]

It is strange how she suddenly went from being MYJACK to PATTY, sounds like mystic Meg to me everything she says, and fortunately at the end of the day it won’t make an iota of difference the Grays are still guilty, and it’s less than a month to the happy day when they will all be sentenced.
Maybe we should all go on 12th June to Aylesbury Magistrates and meet her afterwards for coffee and a chat, I assume if she is that involved she will be sitting at the back of the court as usual!

[/ QUOTE ]

Now thats an idea!!!! Everyone form a queue and get your name badges fixed to your shirt, then we can lynch every one that has'nt got a name badge and demand identification!!!!!
grin.gif
ROFL
 
Patty, you bang on ..and on..and on about proof. E.g, is there any proof to show he starved them...
The proof to me is in the state of the poor things when they were taken from SF..
Is there any proof to say he didnt?
 
well said Legend.

I had been wondering about the permission to bury. as we all know the environment agency takes an interest in this

it does rather seem that Patty and Fernis are either being led a merry dance by the Grays, or are more closely associated than they wish to declare
 
[ 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.
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

The RSPCA didnt even try to refuse.

BTW, I have tried to PM you several times but your inbox is full. :
smirk.gif
 
I so can't be bothered with you any more.

Other than your say so you have not produced one shred of evidence on here. we have only your say so against the word of the RSPCA,Professionals, media and the legal system.

You have not provided one single photo to back you up.

You HAVE implied if not downright stated that other members on here are lying when they said they've actually seen the state of these horses.

IMO - MY OPINION which is what you've quoted and put other peoples words into above - if these horses were in such an appalling state when he bought them - it would have been kinder to send them to to a slaughter house.

What the hell did he buy them for? Its quite obvious he did not have the resources and the skill to fix them. I don't think any dealer worth their reputation has wastage figures like his!

Nor would they risk their own pets bringing in animals that could spread god knows what.

And I note you haven't answered the question about the burials - Did JG have permission to bury the horses or not? Did he apply to the council?

Funny too that the RSPCA found all these dead horses - and you say dug them up to which again you have no proof - how would they know where they were so quickly?

Your conspiracy theory is currently ranking up there with the Kennedy assassination and area 51.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Fenris, I have to take issue with your comment that it is perfectly standard for a solicitor to advise that a client give a no comment interview. For starters, why would there be a need for solicitor if that was all they were going to advise?! If that is all your legal advisors are telling you, you’re not getting value for money! The practise of saying no comment *may* have been the case before the introduction of the ‘new/extended’ police caution, but is certainly not the case now. If you have nothing to hide, why not take the opportunity (that frankly we are lucky to have in this country) to put your side of the story over at the earliest opportunity? And more than that, on a tape which can be either played, or a transcript read in court to demonstrate that it is a true recording of what was stated in interview. As I mentioned in my earlier post to Patty, you both REALLY NEED to go and read the stated case law on this issue, as it is too long, boring and complex for me to go into here. But please don’t post stuff that you clearly have got 7th hand without a full understanding. Patty has asked us not to blindly believe all that is written in the media and I urge you to do the same, as your knowledge of this area of the law is distinctly lacking.



[/ QUOTE ]

There are many ways of dealing with an interview. One can give a "full and frank" interview answering all questions with as much detail as possible. This is not a good idea, despite the fact of the changes in the law which have NOT removed the right to silence but have enabled a court to "draw inferences" from failure to state something which is later used in court.

For those who wonder why telling the truth is not a good idea take a look at an excellent site that explains why you should never answer questions. Remember the RSPCA have no rights. No powers. Nothing. Go and watch the videos at

http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/07/eight-reasons-even-innocent-shouldnt.html

Going back to the ways of dealing with interviews. Your solicitor (or police station representative) might tell you to answer questions apart from those he advises you not to anwer.

He might advise you to draw up a written statement to hand in and to make no comment answers to any other questions.

And the quickest interview ever was one in an RSPCA case where the solicitor walked into the room, sat down and asked the RSPCA man what evidence he had against his client. Reply was "none yet". Solicitor stands up and says "Goodbye then, let us know when you have some and we'll come back"

You see the RSPCA don't obey PACE despite their protestations. Nor do they comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The whole point of an RSPCA interview is an information trawling exercise aimed at finding some reason to prosecute.

Indeed, one has to wonder how it is that the police make all of their facilities available to an organisation that parliament chose not to empower under both the 2006 and the 1911 Acts, despite the fact that the RSPCA sponsored both.
 
Patty please can you answer this as i have asked a few times and still no answer.

Im correct in saying that before this came to light you had never set foot on SF?

You never knew the grays before this came to light?

If this is correct how can you have facts that none were starved and none neglected if you never been there?

It seems that you have taken the words of the grays and others involved with no actual facts when you didn know of the grays or SF before this came to light.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
confused.gif


[/ 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 ]

Woo hold up a moment MH - at the time those photos were published a guilty verdict had not been reached.

How would you of replied to Dozzie if they had been found not-guilty?
 
It is quite simple - there is no doubt in my mind at all that those horses and ponies had been severely neglected - the photographs spoke for themselves. If JG had been able to come up with a timely and reasonable explanation as to how and why they were in that state, and how he had nothing to do with the neglect, or deaths, or lack of available feed, or any of the other grisly conditions there then of course he should not have been found guilty - but that doesn't take away from the fact that some point these animals were exposed to extreme neglect.

As a flag to the public and salient warning those pictures stand up on their own.

As it turns out, he did not provide those timely and reasonable explanations to the satisfaction of the Court, and it appears there was sufficient evidence to prove that he and his family had a real hand in those conditions - therefore they were all found guilty.
 
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost exactly what was heard in court. And the fact that wormers can induce eruption took me by suprise to be honest.
 
There are many ways of dealing with an interview. One can give a "full and frank" interview answering all questions with as much detail as possible. This is not a good idea, despite the fact of the changes in the law which have NOT removed the right to silence but have enabled a court to "draw inferences" from failure to state something which is later used in court. For those who wonder why telling the truth is not a good idea take a look at an excellent site that explains why you should never answer questions. Remember the RSPCA have no rights. No powers. Nothing. Go and watch the videos at http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/07/eight-reasons-even-innocent-shouldnt.html Going back to the ways of dealing with interviews. Your solicitor (or police station representative) might tell you to answer questions apart from those he advises you not to anwer. He might advise you to draw up a written statement to hand in and to make no comment answers to any other questions.

Fenris - you really have been talking to the wrong people.
A no comment interview is never a good idea from the point of the defendant - it gives the prosecution an entirely free hand to put every question they wish, and the defendant misses the only opportunity they have to put their side.

As for your example of the solicitor who said to come back when you have got some evidence - actually, arresting somebody to secure evidence by way of questioning is perfectly legal - sometimes it even gives innocent people an early opportunity to clear up misunderstandings and confusion. Asking a person questions is completely legal in any circumstances, please don't imply that it is not.

Why would an innocent person wish to drag out any kind of enquiry?
 
[ QUOTE ]
'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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is?
 
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr Gray gave evidence that he wormed his animals before they came off his lorry.

Defence vet John Parker gave evidence that not alot is know about this and not alot of people know about it. Mr Peter Green didnt know too much about it and told the court that Mr John Parker was more experienced than himself.

Apart from a handful and his pets, Mr Gray didnt own any of the animals over a very long period.

Evidence was produced to the court that there was no lack of care and feed, and the conditions were not appalling or over crowded.

Sure, the small frame in which images were shown in the press would serve it's purpose and appear to confirm what was said about Mr Gray and his farm.

SF is 40 acres and the yard has the capacity to house 100 horses.
 
Patty we really do need to know the status of the burials.

As you stated you have been a horse owner, i am sure you are very aware that horse burial is a very contencious (sp) issue.

Please provide data that the burials you claim were performed by the Grays were legal ie took place with the approval of defra/environment agency.

This really is a fundamental element of your credibility.

If you are unable to secure this information, may I suggest you review your sources .
 
Taken from Defra
"The definition of a pet animal given within the ABPR is: any animal belonging to species normally nourished and kept, but not consumed, by humans for purposes other than farming."

Notice the use of the word NOURISHED!
smirk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]


Perhaps he is 16 now but was 14 at the time of the raid?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
In which case the RSPCA should not have prosecuted the son.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that I can agree that a 14 year old boy should not be prosecuted for animals cruelty IF infact he had committed the crime.


However, in the case of Jamie Gray junior and the nature of the charges, I cannot for the life of me see how these charges could apply to a 14 year old boy.

Just like the case you mention concerning the young girl and the cat.
 
[ 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 ]

In that case then the RSPCA should have prosecuted the other Gray children ranging from 4 years old instead of Jodie and Cordelia who didnt even live at SF..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top