What was Jamie Grays' line of business?

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well it sounds to me like the lawyer didn't do his homework as his advice apparently caused the conviction of his 'innocent' client unless the court was acting illegally by allowing the no comment interviews to be considered. Is JG making an appeal on the verdict and if so when does this happen? Presumably before the sentencing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont believe the court was acting illegally - just unfairly imho.

I dont know about an appeal but I'm sure hoping the Gray family will appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well there is a huge difference between illegal and unfair in your opinion! They had the oppportunity to present their evidence beforehand and chose not to. If they had mentioned the documentary evidence during interview I am sure they would have been given a chance to produce it.

Presumably if the Grays are sure of their innocence then they will be appealing - I'l keep my eyes open. Anyway I need a shower before the Apprentice

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well it sounds to me like the lawyer didn't do his homework as his advice apparently caused the conviction of his 'innocent' client unless the court was acting illegally by allowing the no comment interviews to be considered. Is JG making an appeal on the verdict and if so when does this happen? Presumably before the sentencing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont believe the court was acting illegally - just unfairly imho.

I dont know about an appeal but I'm sure hoping the Gray family will appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well there is a huge difference between illegal and unfair in your opinion! They had the oppportunity to present their evidence beforehand and chose not to. If they had mentioned the documentary evidence during interview I am sure they would have been given a chance to produce it.

Presumably if the Grays are sure of their innocence then they will be appealing - I'l keep my eyes open. Anyway I need a shower before the Apprentice

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are ever are unfortunate enough to have the rspca on your back do <u>NOT</u> start pulling out documents which prove your innocence

 

[davejoiner]

OK OK PATTY !! WE GET IT JAMIE GRAY IS A SAINT MORE HEAVENLY THAN GOD !! THE RSPCA IS EVIL AND WE ARE ALL STUPID FOR NOT KNOWING THIS.

 

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are ever are unfortunate enough to have the rspca on your back do NOT start pulling out documents which prove your innocence

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are starting to sound totally loopy! I don't suppose you want to expand on this comment either do you?

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
OK OK PATTY !! WE GET IT JAMIE GRAY IS A SAINT MORE HEAVENLY THAN GOD !! THE RSPCA IS EVIL AND WE ARE ALL STUPID FOR NOT KNOWING THIS.

[/ QUOTE ]

No no no - I dont believe he is a saint and certainly not more heavenly than God.

 

[RantBucket]

The Judge was cleverer than “Judge Patty” and I expect he can spell too, he obviously realised that JG’s two so called expert witnesses were just hired guns, “Ms. Forsyth Saga” just used arcane words with no meaning (just like Patty) and Mr. Parker belongs to another age long ago, he felt the weak animals should just drop, and that the animals should be returned to JG before the case was heard in courts, what sort of vets and experts are these two?

JG LOST this case and “Judge Patty” should just accept that with good grace, she will make herself ill if she carries on like this, and then what would we do for entertainment we might have to watch TV instead?

I am very much looking forward to meeting Patty in 9 days time, I sincerely hope she will make herself known to all of us who are going, and not slither into court via the back door with her head between her knees, after all I expect the TV crews will be there to capture this historic even for the evening news.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are ever are unfortunate enough to have the rspca on your back do NOT start pulling out documents which prove your innocence

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are starting to sound totally loopy! I don't suppose you want to expand on this comment either do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you want to use documents to support your case DONT produce them to the rspca. Copies can be produced to the RSPCA via a lawyer defending your case. And do NOT keep any documents on your property after the rspca have seized your animals.

 

[RantBucket]

Sorry I missed the "t" off event in my last post, must be getting too excited at the thought of meeting Patty on the 12th!

 

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are ever are unfortunate enough to have the rspca on your back do NOT start pulling out documents which prove your innocence

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are starting to sound totally loopy! I don't suppose you want to expand on this comment either do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you want to use documents to support your case DONT produce them to the rspca. Copies can be produced to the RSPCA via a lawyer defending your case. And do NOT keep any documents on your property after the rspca have seized your animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not making any sense - are you accusing the RSPCA of going back to the farm to steal documents? This conspiracy theory just gets more and more far fetched!

 

[dozzie]

The point is HH they were being interviewed by the RSPCA not the police. Even though they used a police station, which is quite normal for the RSPCA, it was in fact the RSPCA that were interviewing, not the police.

The RSPCA had no legal right to interview him.
Therefore he had no legal obligation to comment.

Hence the solicitor was right to advise no comment interviews.

And hence, the magistrate should not have taken it into consideration when forming his judgement. The no comment interview had no legal standing in this situation.

Is that right Patty?

 

[RantBucket]

It's a load of "Pattygate" if you ask me!

I mustn’t joke after all this is Patty's finest hour, never before in the history of animal cruelty was so much rubbish spoken to so many by so few!

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]


You are not making any sense - are you accusing the RSPCA of going back to the farm to steal documents? This conspiracy theory just gets more and more far fetched!

[/ QUOTE ]


I am saying no such thing.

 

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is HH they were being interviewed by the RSPCA not the police. Even though they used a police station, which is quite normal for the RSPCA, it was in fact the RSPCA that were interviewing, not the police.

The RSPCA had no legal right to interview him.
Therefore he had no legal obligation to comment.

Hence the solicitor was right to advise no comment interviews.

And hence, the magistrate should not have taken it into consideration when forming his judgement. The no comment interview had no legal standing in this situation.

Is that right Patty?

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the judge had the right to allow the no comment interviews to be taken into account then why shouldn't he? The lawyer should have known this and advised accordingly.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is HH they were being interviewed by the RSPCA not the police. Even though they used a police station, which is quite normal for the RSPCA, it was in fact the RSPCA that were interviewing, not the police.

The RSPCA had no legal right to interview him.
Therefore he had no legal obligation to comment.

Hence the solicitor was right to advise no comment interviews.

And hence, the magistrate should not have taken it into consideration when forming his judgement. The no comment interview had no legal standing in this situation.

Is that right Patty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes Dozzie.

 

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You are not making any sense - are you accusing the RSPCA of going back to the farm to steal documents? This conspiracy theory just gets more and more far fetched!

[/ QUOTE ]


I am saying no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please humour me - what are you implying? Don't keep documents on your property if you have had an RSPCA raid - why not?

 

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is HH they were being interviewed by the RSPCA not the police. Even though they used a police station, which is quite normal for the RSPCA, it was in fact the RSPCA that were interviewing, not the police.

The RSPCA had no legal right to interview him.
Therefore he had no legal obligation to comment.

Hence the solicitor was right to advise no comment interviews.

And hence, the magistrate should not have taken it into consideration when forming his judgement. The no comment interview had no legal standing in this situation.

Is that right Patty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes Dozzie.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying the judge acted illegally?

Dear Lord, roll on the 12th and lets get to the end of this be it by appeal or sentencing. The whole thing gets more and more Alifce in Wonderland by the day!

 

[RantBucket]

Anybody with half a brain cell would cooperate with the RSPCA on any matter concerning animal cruelty allegations on their premises, and I don't mean by vandalising their vans! If JG was stuck for solid legal advice why didn’t he ring dear Patty, oh sorry, I remember the story Patty didn’t arrive until the day after when her contacts got her further than she expected?

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You are not making any sense - are you accusing the RSPCA of going back to the farm to steal documents? This conspiracy theory just gets more and more far fetched!

[/ QUOTE ]


I am saying no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please humour me - what are you implying? Don't keep documents on your property if you have had an RSPCA raid - why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I told you why I'm more than possitive I will not be believed.

Just remember this information should you ever be unfortunate enough to have the rspca on your back.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is HH they were being interviewed by the RSPCA not the police. Even though they used a police station, which is quite normal for the RSPCA, it was in fact the RSPCA that were interviewing, not the police.

The RSPCA had no legal right to interview him.
Therefore he had no legal obligation to comment.

Hence the solicitor was right to advise no comment interviews.

And hence, the magistrate should not have taken it into consideration when forming his judgement. The no comment interview had no legal standing in this situation.

Is that right Patty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes Dozzie.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying the judge acted illegally?

Dear Lord, roll on the 12th and lets get to the end of this be it by appeal or sentencing. The whole thing gets more and more Alifce in Wonderland by the day!

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I saying the judge acted illegally? - nope!!

 

[Happy Horse]

With respect I have no idea who you are, no idea what you are saying and I also don't neglect my animals. If you have solid proof of any misdemeanour by the RSPCA and I am not talking hearsay from JG or his family but actual evidence then please share it - if not then no, I can't and won't take any notice of this.

 

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is HH they were being interviewed by the RSPCA not the police. Even though they used a police station, which is quite normal for the RSPCA, it was in fact the RSPCA that were interviewing, not the police.

The RSPCA had no legal right to interview him.
Therefore he had no legal obligation to comment.

Hence the solicitor was right to advise no comment interviews.

And hence, the magistrate should not have taken it into consideration when forming his judgement. The no comment interview had no legal standing in this situation.

Is that right Patty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes Dozzie.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying the judge acted illegally?

Dear Lord, roll on the 12th and lets get to the end of this be it by appeal or sentencing. The whole thing gets more and more Alifce in Wonderland by the day!

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I saying the judge acted illegally? - nope!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Then stop banging on about the no comment interviews being allowed to be considered. It was legally permitted - end of.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody with half a brain cell would cooperate with the RSPCA on any matter concerning animal cruelty allegations on their premises, and I don't mean by vandalising their vans! If JG was stuck for solid legal advice why didn’t he ring dear Patty, oh sorry, I remember the story Patty didn’t arrive until the day after when her contacts got her further than she expected?

[/ QUOTE ]

JG did cooperate with the RSPCA - invited them onto his farm when he was not legally bound to. They had no right of entry but Mr Gray allowed them in to look around and look at his animals.

I have learnt a hell of alot since the raid on the Grays farm.

My opinion is that anybody with half a brain cell would NOT cooperate with the RSPCA on any matter concerning animal cruelty allegations on their premises. They would demand a warrant and would NOT allow RSPCA on to their property or near their animals. They would call a lawyer and their vet and would NOT allow their vet to have any communication with the rspca in any way, shape or form.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]


Am I saying the judge acted illegally? - nope!!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Then stop banging on about the no comment interviews being allowed to be considered. It was legally permitted - end of.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in your honest opinion you believe the fact that he dismissed the defendants evidence on the basis of their no comment interviews was fair?

 

[patty19]

Hey, the Apprentice is on - hope you managed to squeeze your shower in.

 

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Am I saying the judge acted illegally? - nope!!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Then stop banging on about the no comment interviews being allowed to be considered. It was legally permitted - end of.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in your honest opinion you believe the fact that he dismissed the defendants evidence on the basis of their no comment interviews was fair?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes if they chose not to present the evidence at interview. Their solicitor should have been well aware of the legal process and advised them accordingly. They still have the right of appeal if they want to but in the first instance yes, I feel the case was judged fairly.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Am I saying the judge acted illegally? - nope!!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Then stop banging on about the no comment interviews being allowed to be considered. It was legally permitted - end of.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in your honest opinion you believe the fact that he dismissed the defendants evidence on the basis of their no comment interviews was fair?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes if they chose not to present the evidence at interview. Their solicitor should have been well aware of the legal process and advised them accordingly. They still have the right of appeal if they want to but in the first instance yes, I feel the case was judged fairly.

[/ QUOTE ]

So even though they produced the evidence at the trial - you believe it was fair to dismiss this evidence because they took legal advice and made no comment interviews?

 

[spaniel]

This is becoming more and more farcical and Ive not heard so a load of old claptrap for ages. Patty you clearly have little understanding of the law and legal process.

Can I ask one more question....dont worry its not complicated.....


In what capacity were you at SF when the 'raid' took place. You have previously stated that you have no connection with JG or the family so how come you profess to have been there taking photographs and gathering information.

Simple enough question I think.

 

[RantBucket]

The Judge knew JG was a liar anyway so why consider anything he said or didn’t say. He was quite happy to state under oath about his family being involved in the family business, and in court say the opposite while giving evidence under oath, surely that is perjury.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
This is becoming more and more farcical and Ive not heard so a load of old claptrap for ages. Patty you clearly have little understanding of the law and legal process.

Can I ask one more question....dont worry its not complicated.....


In what capacity were you at SF when the 'raid' took place. You have previously stated that you have no connection with JG or the family so how come you profess to have been there taking photographs and gathering information.

Simple enough question I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not at SF when the raid took place. I have never said I was.

 

[RantBucket]

Patty a group of us are taking the day off on the 12th and coming up for the sentencing, would you care to join us afterwards for a celebratory drink and some nibbles?