The Peel case horses - the lost ones

[ester]

And I stand my ground with my defence .

Your defence? of yourself, the peels or the whole situation?

 

[FreyaBean]

As far as I can tell, there are plenty of questions that have not been answered. Skirted around perhaps, yes. But certainly not answered.

Abuse and neglect is not defendable in my eyes. There are no excuses and plenty of innocent lives were lost. No defense possible.

 

[DD]

to get back top the original theme, the Peels left horses to starve to death , kept in horrendous conditions and also dogs badly looked after too. horrendous. they should aLL BE BANNED FOR LIFE FROM KEEPING ANY ANIMAL AT ALL.

 

[FreyaBean]

The Peels should never be allowed near another animal, let alone be allowed the privilege of owning animals.

 

[ossy]

Trolling wow thanks a Lovley compliment . I have answered all questions.
And yes it's a losing battle when the same bunch of bullies on here are the same as on Arabian lines , I have every right to be on here like everyone else has
And I stand my ground with my defence .

Actually I've asked plenty of questions which you haven't addressed. And actually although I have read the response from Evie on AL I haven't got a log in or joined in any posts on there, I have a WB thanks, so no we are not all the same.

You don't seem to be able to bring any evidence to convince anyone on here of the innosense of the peels, but whoever you are, spirt13, Danielle, one of or friends of the peels or just some troll playing a game I'm happy to play along as it's keeping this thread up at the top of this page for all to see.

 

[Bare hoof]

actually i've asked plenty of questions which you haven't addressed. And actually although i have read the response from evie on al i haven't got a log in or joined in any posts on there, i have a wb thanks, so no we are not all the same.

You don't seem to be able to bring any evidence to convince anyone on here of the innosense of the peels, but whoever you are, spirt13, danielle, one of or friends of the peels or just some troll playing a game i'm happy to play along as it's keeping this thread up at the top of this page for all to see.

game on

 

[ossy]

game on

Go and answer some of my questions then please.

 

[Bare hoof]

What questions have I not answered ossy?

 

[Damnation]

You have continued to ignore my points made.

I specifically worded them to ensure that you cannot tarnish me with the "bully" stick as everythig I have said can be backed up.

I now have one final question.

Do you think it is acceptable to keep horses with no access to water or in the same pen/field as rotting carcasses?

For me, this is what it boils down to. If you can defend that then quite frankly I wouldn't trust you with the care of my dirty left sock.

What questions have I not answered ossy?

Answer mine.

 

[Bare hoof]

Answer mine.

Exactly were in the video or photos does it show dead horses . It dosnt and like I said the RSPCA have plotted and been in conspiracy with the whole case
Mabie you would like to talk to cooper or Mabie Kat as they were involved aswell.

 

[ester]

Damnation is not referring to the video, nowhere did she mention that? Obviously that short video clip is not the sum of the evidence presented at court!

Seven carcasses were put forward as evidence within the trial and reported in the papers. If this were untrue it would have been removed, therefore seven were found. This cannot be disputed.

Also, I find it alarming that you describe two dead animals, probably from the result of lack of care as "only two dead bodies". Two dead rotting carcasses that have not been disposed of is illegal. The fact that there were any at all is too high.

I suggest you remove your rose tinted glasses.

 

[Bare hoof]

Your defence? of yourself, the peels or the whole situation?

The case and the peels

 

[ossy]

What questions have I not answered ossy?

On phone so can't easily multi quote but below is a brief list.
1. At which point did Rochelle have to prove her innocence? The conviction was quashed on failure of witness to turn up as the debacle of the shot horses had emerged at this point.
2. The video on the h&h report- was this taken by you? Where was taken?
3. In particular about the video horses aside, the condition those dogs were in, do you really think that is acceptable?
4. If you don't know why the case against the Peels was able to site 7 dead carcasses in their case then why are you defending them saying there was only 2. And can you find out why then?
5. Can you explain the anomaly between what you said your notes say and what Evie said on her response in AL, ie you state 14 were returned and Evie stated 12 were returned.

 

[Meowy Catkin]

Hypothetically though, do you think it is acceptable to keep horses with no access to water or in the same pen/field as rotting carcasses?

 

[Bare hoof]

Damnation is not referring to the video, nowhere did she mention that? Obviously that short video clip is not the sum of the evidence presented at court!

The papers are not that accurate if you listen to newspaper articles then you are a long way from the truth. The two horses that were buried ... Let me rephrase that BURIED . You know like a pet , or a loved one in a church yard. If you read Evie's statement on Arabian lines they had died of sycamore poison.
Hmmm yes and the 7 carcasses you state were put forward in court . Were you there at the hearing ? or was it what the papers have said , which quite frankly is a load of lies.

 

[Bare hoof]

On phone so can't easily multi quote but below is a brief list.
1. At which point did Rochelle have to prove her innocence? The conviction was quashed on failure of witness to turn up as the debacle of the shot horses had emerged at this point.
2. The video on the h&h report- was this taken by you? Where was taken?
3. In particular about the video horses aside, the condition those dogs were in, do you really think that is acceptable?
4. If you don't know why the case against the Peels was able to site 7 dead carcasses in their case then why are you defending them saying there was only 2. And can you find out why then?
5. Can you explain the anomaly between what you said your notes say and what Evie said on her response in AL, ie you state 14 were returned and Evie stated 12 were returned.

1 - Rachelle was innocent all along and it was cooper that was the witness.
2- the video was not taken by me but by a colleague
3-dont know about the dogs as I did not deal with them.
4-iam defending them because there are a nice, honest, Decent family that has been targeted. And the notes we were handed from the case said they had dug up 2 horses at the farm to Clarify there identity.
5-yes 12 were returned as 2 were rehomed there was 14 altogether to be returned but 2 were found homes. Sorry if that got confusion.

 

[Bare hoof]

Hypothetically though, do you think it is acceptable to keep horses with no access to water or in the same pen/field as rotting carcasses?

Exactly were have you heard this ? Papers maybe ?
And yes horses should have access to clean fresh water .

 

[ossy]

1 - Rachelle was innocent all along and it was cooper that was the witness.
2- the video was not taken by me but by a colleague
3-dont know about the dogs as I did not deal with them.
4-iam defending them because there are a nice, honest, Decent family that has been targeted. And the notes we were handed from the case said they had dug up 2 horses at the farm to Clarify there identity.
5-yes 12 were returned as 2 were rehomed there was 14 altogether to be returned but 2 were found homes. Sorry if that got confusion.

Thanks for the reply. Couple points Rochelle was found guilty, so not innocent all along, so when was her innocence proved apart from technicalities of copper refusing to re-testify.
You may not have dealt with the dogs but the condition they were living in is clear to see in the video, so for what is on it, is that acceptable?
Where is the evidence that what has been reported is lies? Apart from the stuff associated with the shootings

And lastly nice honest people at the very least would admit their mistake take responsibility and show some remorse for getting themselves into that situation in the first place.

 

[Bare hoof]

I have. Question for you all
How would you feel if the RSPCA came onto your property and took your animals away , and said you have neglected them. Then they go into RSPCA holdings only to suffer evan more

 

[Damnation]

Exactly were in the video or photos does it show dead horses . It dosnt and like I said the RSPCA have plotted and been in conspiracy with the whole case
Mabie you would like to talk to cooper or Mabie Kat as they were involved aswell.

I did not refer to the video in my final question to you.

Hypothetically though, do you think it is acceptable to keep horses with no access to water or in the same pen/field as rotting carcasses?

This is the question I asked twice for you to deflect the answer. I will not drop this.

http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html

For your information - if what has been printed is untrue and Rachelle's reputation has been damaged by the "untrue" accusations and "conspiricies" then it would fall under "libel".

I notice this course of action has not been taken.

I also add that my question stems from Vetenary Evidence and from charity workers, submitted in the original trial whereby the amount of carcasses found was clarified and the fact that some horses had no access to water was also pointed out.

http://www.clitheroeadvertiser.co.u...in-muddy-slaidburn-field-court-told-1-7226978

http://www.clitheroeadvertiser.co.uk/news/crime/slaidbuirn-animal-cruelty-case-under-way-1-7224723

 

[Bare hoof]

Thanks for the reply. Couple points Rochelle was found guilty, so not innocent all along, so when was her innocence proved apart from technicalities of copper refusing to re-testify.
You may not have dealt with the dogs but the condition they were living in is clear to see in the video, so for what is on it, is that acceptable?
Where is the evidence that what has been reported is lies? Apart from the stuff associated with the shootings

And lastly nice honest people at the very least would admit their mistake take responsibility and show some remorse for getting themselves into that situation in the first place.

Your welcome
The video is not that clear but yes I could see it needed cleaning out where the dogs were . Compared to the cases I've delt with over the years this was not as dirty as some I have seen , but still yes i agree needed a clean out. From what I could see the dogs condition was fine . Same as the majority of the horses.

 

[Damnation]

Exactly were have you heard this ? Papers maybe ?
And yes horses should have access to clean fresh water .

You have not answered the first question.

 

[Damnation]

I have. Question for you all
How would you feel if the RSPCA came onto your property and took your animals away , and said you have neglected them. Then they go into RSPCA holdings only to suffer evan more

They wouldn't have any need to. I don't have rotting carcasses on my livery yard, and my horse is healthy with her basic needs like water and feed attended to at all times.

 

[Bare hoof]

For your information - if what has been printed is untrue and Rachelle's reputation has been damaged by the "untrue" accusations and "conspiricies" then it would fall under "libel".

I notice this course of action has not been taken.


And you know this for sure do you ?
Let's hope she is taking action

 

[Bare hoof]

You have not answered the first question.

Yes I have

 

[Damnation]

Yes I have

The dead Carcasses. Is that acceptable?

Judge Clarke said that throughout the lengthy trial Peel had demonstrated a persistent unwillingness to accept any shortcomings on her part.

“You saw yourself very much the victim and you laid blame at a series of others in how they dealt with you and your family and with how they treated the horses. There was in some instances an obstinate refusal to accept even the most compelling evidence of neglect,” said Judge Clarke.

"Compelling Evidence", "Refused to admit any short comings on her part", seems legit...

http://www.clitheroeadvertiser.co.u...eder-found-guilty-of-animal-neglect-1-7441605

 

[Bare hoof]

I can only answer what I know, if you want more information then please, don't hesitate to contact copper Wilson / kat hamlington/ RSPCA / or the peels themselfs

 

[Damnation]

For your information - if what has been printed is untrue and Rachelle's reputation has been damaged by the "untrue" accusations and "conspiricies" then it would fall under "libel".

I notice this course of action has not been taken.


And you know this for sure do you ?
Let's hope she is taking action

No, admittedly I don't.

But, it's still on the internet so.... I'm going to take a wild guess at the likelihood of that course of action.

I doubt pictures and video's of dead animals and crap smothered horses that were more than probably submitted as evidence during the original trial and therefore proven as true therefore NOT libel will exonerate her.

 

[Bare hoof]

The dead Carcasses. Is that acceptable?



is this a personal question toward myself ?

As I have mixed views on fallen stock given the circumstances.

 

[Bare hoof]

No, admittedly I don't.

But, it's still on the internet so.... I'm going to take a wild guess at the likelihood of that course of action.

I doubt pictures and video's of dead animals and crap smothered horses that were more than probably submitted as evidence during the original trial and therefore proven as true therefore NOT libel will exonerate her.

Wild guessing , is not the way but only to speculate. And ruin ones reputations.