THINK......AND I MEAN THINK ABOUT THIS

Ok, I get your point
smile.gif
However, if I went to your farm, I would see that the vast majority of your horses ARE fit, shiny, healthy, well-fed etc and so would assume the manky-looking ones were recent arrivals. If I were a rescue organisation I would, probably, ask you for receipts of purchase to make sure this was the case, and I'm sure you would be able to comply. I'm also pretty sure that there would be no horse carcasses at all to be seen anywhere on your yard...
 
they are now, having been "rescued", fed, kept warm, dry, cosseted, going to have a MAJOR shock when they are sold at auction next month...

isn't THAT cruelty in it's self???.......i think a few people should, rightly, be having a few sleepless nights over these animals...

Why is it going to be a MAJOR shock for them?? What sort of conditions are you expecting these horses to face at this auction? I would have thought a fair few of these horses have already experienced an auction ring. Anyway I am not aware of an auction house in Warks so perhaps this will be on private premises & quiet low key. Horses get bought/sold all the time, some end up with bad owners, but most have a decent life. Having bought from an auction I find the above comment a bit derogertry.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The RSPCA didnt want them to go back to him... Sorry but i think people are too quick to blame them (this is a general reply!)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. I know people slate the RSPCA but please believe me (I'm working on a job with them at the moment) It will be an uphill struggle to get it through our farcical legal system that seems to fail in what it should do ie protect the weak whether animal or human.

If anyone should have sleepless nights it should be the defence solicitors that offer them protection and advice at the the public expense, I know they have a job to do but what the heck motivates them?

Oh, and 'yes' I agree many of them should have been PTS rather than put through this.
 
I don't understand what legal fees JG is liable for. If he is allowed the horses back as he hasn't allegedly been cruel surely the court case should never have happened therefore he shouldn't be liable for court fees.

I don't think the charties should have the money from the proceeds as it was their choice to feed the horses etc. No contract was entered into with JG to feed his horses so why should he pay them?

Imagine if this had happened to one of you with your horse -would you be happy to pay all these fees if you were innocent (I'm not saying JG is, just that the judge thinks he is). I don't understand how he can be told to sell them though.
 
I agree with you JM7.

However, rose tinted glasses or not (and I think you're being a litte mean here actually) - they now deserve every chance now.

So perhaps peoples efforts would be better served writing to people that can help now.......
 
QR...

Flintus...your points are valid..but not really relevent to my OP.

MAGIC...derogatory to whom???...as i said in the title "think"..its about the Amersham animals NOT people like yourself who buy from markets...as i myself do...as for not knowing of a sale in warks..it's HENLEY in ARDEN...

AMYMAY...i hope that the extra effort really pays off, for those who are putting in to it
 
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it going to be a MAJOR shock for them??

[/ QUOTE ]
Now, Magic, I know you to be an intelligent person - so really suprised to read this.

[ QUOTE ]
What sort of conditions are you expecting these horses to face at this auction?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not very nice ones, auction rings are horrid places for horse - they are not going to Tattersalls......

[ QUOTE ]
I would have thought a fair few of these horses have already experienced an auction ring.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it would therefore be a tragedy for any of them to go through the ring again.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Feel a bit mean saying this, but I wish I hadn't donated my £50 now

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep feel the same - may as well just have given the money straight to JG.
 
[ QUOTE ]
why put them to sleep?? why not allow them a chance of a full and good life after the horrors they went through at ammersham,

[/ QUOTE ]
You have absolutely missed the point. The clue was in THINK.
 
I have no regrets about having donated to OE. The charities had an unprecedented number of horses and ponies suddenly arrive with them, and without all the extra donations I would imagine they would have really struggled.

As for the court case, and what follows it, I can't help but feel we don't know the whole picture. I don't think we know what state every one of those horses and ponies was in, or the past it had, so I'm not sure we can make a judgement as to whether they would have been better PTS.
 
Of course, if we really want to do something about an 'Amersham' situation how about we ALL do something drastic like:

1. Do not sell on equines with known health or behavioural problems, including lack of training (see breeding). Keep them, fix them or put them to sleep.
2. Do not breed equines - and certainly not anything that is not absolute top quality with a high value. There are plenty of equines around already. (Also goes for dog breeding).
3. Having bred said beast, train it well (yes, takes huge time and effort) to be a useful animal.
4. Do not buy any animal that is in bad condition from obviously scummy people just to get a bargain. Report them. Maybe if the scummies realise they can't sell a poorly done horse they will think of their pockets and put some time and effort in their stock.
5. Have a good think, and do the sums, before you buy any animal. And be honest about your abilities. Ask someone knowledgeable if they think you are up to training the 'bargain' horse on your own. Getting prof help is expensive and long term.
6. Don't discard a horse because its thwarting your ambitions or rosette gathering career. You can't complain scumbags treat horses like cabbages if you do so yourself.

All a bit utopian but if we all did some of the above we wouldn't be part of the problem of Amersham, more part of a solution.
 
Oldred...excellent points..all 6!!!

the times i have banged THAT particular drum on here is numerous......................

tends to fall on many a deaf ear

crazy.gif
 
MAGIC104........my reply to pringle05 in LN.....

"Henley isn't a big place on a "normal" day...with lots of traveller types...

on any given sale day, i would hazzard a guess that only 70% of all animals actually go through the ring, many are taken off one lorry straight onto another without going through, loads are tied up to lorries, trapped/trotted up and down...it can and frequently does turn into Bedlam. "

a shock indeed......although as Tia has said..ponies do adapt very quickly to their surroundings...
 
An excellent post and yes people should think.

I don't regret my donation, though having just had a £1300 vet bill it was money I could have used myself.

What I do wish is that the money had bought a few bullets for those poor buggers rather than having to go through the whole process again.

The whole thing appears to be a screw up - and hopefully an investigation will find out who screwed up - legal system, RSPCA or JG.

Having rescued/bought a skin and bone TB years ago, first thing I did was to get vet out to confirm her condition and had a sale receipt dated so I could prove it was not me that did this. I was lucky - best £200 spent and I had 5 years of great fun with Breeze who though old, was a cracker to the day she died and I still miss her.

Totally agree with points above about responsibility - all mine stay to the end apart from one young mare who was on loan and now sold to them. After a long time I found her a great home as a broodmare - but she is this due to injury and produces valuable well bred foals. I still visit each year to see the new foal and she looks wonderful.
 
I'm just wondering if PTS would have been a lawful option, seeing as all the horses still techincally belonged to JG? This isn't meant to be an argumentative question, I don't know the legal position, perhaps someone on here does?
 
I think they've probs been fattened up nicely for the meat man.

I hope it changes the way that charities do things in the future as this is one massive, huge mess up. They've yet again spent other peoples money totally unecessarily.

There are horses out there- like the one Boodle posted about, which genuinely need helping. If the judge is right, and we must assume that he is far more informed than any of us, then these horses didnt need help. They may well have been kept for meat but so what? Thats legal.
 
Having only read to page 3 and not wanting to get involved I do just want to say can every user PLEASE be careful about what they write on this forum - ANY defamatory quotes/attacks/ideas can jeapordise the court case - and in turn jeapordise the fight to get these horses the right outcome.
 
Agree 100% - better for the poor creatures to be humanely destroyed than suffer god knows what fate at auction...
frown.gif
 
I was saddened to hear how things have panned out. Not only has that man already got new stock, but he got 30 "pets" back and now is free to bid at auction for the rest.

I feel heartless saying this but I gree with the poster that said they should have been PTS months ago, their suffering would have ended, and they wouldn't have had a taste of the goodlife which for most will probably never have again. All that the ruling has done is provided the meat trade with well covered horses "sponsored" by already pushed rescue centers.

The whole ruling makes a mockery of all of us who contributed to supporting these horses
 
QR, As I understand things this morning the bill for looking after these horses (around £140,000) is to be met through the proceeds of these sales.

Looking at the bigger picture until people stop indiscriminately breeding rubbish there will always be horses and ponies that look like belsen refugees going through the sales. People need to get real here and understand that there are animals who spend their time almost permanently on wagons being shipped to sale after sale almost day in day out. There are some quality animals out there who will be picked up by people with an eye to a good horse, well looked after, schooled and brought on to be passed on into the general horse owning population but there are tens times that who are, sadly, destined for nothing but petfood.

If we stop breeding the petfood then Amersham wont happen again.

Its down to responsible ownership.
 
I have quickly read through this post, and one of the most-voiced concerns seems to be that the horses will either go to the meat man or back to JG.

Given the the amount of coverage that this issue is receiving, I think it highly likely that there will be people at Henley prepared to pay well over the odds to prevent either scenario. JG will not need to get his mates to push the bidding up, the nations horse lovers will do that all on their own - and I wish I could afford to be one of them.
 
What I can't help but THINK about is that these horses went for tuppence the first time around. As a bunch of hairy, unwanted cobs, they were worthless. The masses of "pony loving" public turned their heads whilst hundreds of unwanted, badly bred, unschooled, unhandled and sick horses were sent to the bottom of the food chain.
Now they're 'famous' everyone suddenly gives a damn.
I live near a meat farm and the horses there are little different to the Amersham horses, yet the public do not care. Same type of horse, same sort of condition, but out of sight and therefore out of mind.

It is beyond easy to say the Amersham horses should never have been bred, but the only solution now is to let the meat men have them. Want to do something about unwanted meat horses, start with the breeders. There is nothing we can legally do to save the horses from the sale, and anything paid is a donation to JG.
It'll be hard, but the less spent on these animals, the less gets back to JG and the likelihood of this miserable bunch being put out of their misery is increased.

They should never have ended up in a rescue centre. As bottom of the barrel bred animals, they were never going to be anything other than meat. Why torment them with months of good feed and grazing before they end up in slaughter anyway?
And how many horses have been ignored in real suffering because the public can't deal with our horse meat industry?
 
The problem is the wording of the Wefare Act which allows the defendent to appeal but not the welfare organisations. In retrospect the bill was badly drafted.

It is important that an ammendment is made to the Welfare Act as soon a spossible to avoid this happening again.

The National Welfare Revue body will be meeting on 24th April 2008 together with local authorities and the police to draft an ammendment to the Welfare Act.

However, the charaties looking after the horses will be sending the defendent(s) a bill for the care of the horses.
 
I haven't had a chance yet to read through everyone's comments on this. Maybe I'm missing something, but how can the horses and ponies be returned to him before the case is heard?

I'm quite aware that cruelty goes on all the time, and there isn't a lot I or anyone else can do to stop it completely, but I really hoped this case would have a different outcome and show those indivduals who mistreat animals that others are watching and they won't get away with it.
 
Right.....hopefully this will help clear things up a bit....

"Return of Animals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006

Applications for custody of animals seized by Police under Section 18 of the Act can be made by the owner and interested parties under section 20.

The act allows a magistrates court to order possession of the animal(s) to be given up to a specified person or that the animal(s) is sold, disposed of otherwise than by way of sale, or destroyed.

The idea behind section 20 is that cases brought under the Animal Welfare Act - particularly those involving multiple animals - can go on for years and during that time their future is uncertain, costs incurred and the value of an animal might change (said deputy head of press RSPCA Rebecca Hawkes).

But only the owner can appeal a decision - the RSPCA cant in this case because we are only an interested party.

Applications under section 20 can be made for single or multiple animals, but, according to the RSPCA, it is most likely to be used where multiple animals are seized 'because they tend to be kept for commercial reasons by their owners"

H+H 10.4.08

The Rspca offered to waive the £153,000 care costs incurred if JG would sign the horses over but JG declined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top