What was Jamie Grays' line of business?

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr Gray never stated under oath that his family were involved in his business. He stated that he had suffered a breakdown when that particular statement was written and he could not remember making that statement. He was on heavy medication.

Mr Grays health issues were mentioned but no statement was given under oath - where did you get that from?

Funny how the judge managed to believe THAT part of that statement which was given in April 2008, but dismissed EVERYTHING else. Funny that!!!

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am hoping to attend. If I do I will make myself known to you.

 

[RantBucket]

This is like "Brief Encounter", how will we recognise you Patty?

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
This is like "Brief Encounter", how will we recognise you Patty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sandwich board.

 

[spaniel]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

In which case I dont believe that you have any right to comment on what did or did not happen that day, everything you are trying to peddle is heresay and therefore completely dismissable.

 

[RantBucket]

[ QUOTE ]
Sandwich board.

[/ QUOTE ]

What will your sandwich board say Patty?

I feel sure there will be many animal rights protesters there all carrying sandwich boards, how will we know which one is you?

 

[patty19]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

In which case I dont believe that you have any right to comment on what did or did not happen that day, everything you are trying to peddle is heresay and therefore completely dismissable.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that goes for every poster here does it?

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sandwich board.

[/ QUOTE ]

What will your sandwich board say Patty?

I feel sure there will be many animal rights protesters there all carrying sandwich boards, how will we know which one is you?

[/ QUOTE ]

JAMIE GRAY IS INNOCENT!!!!

 

[RantBucket]

[ QUOTE ]
JAMIE GRAY IS INNOCENT!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we will spot that sandwich board Patty, there won't be too many of those on the 12th I think - and you spelt innocent correctly too well done I am impressed.

 

[Happy Horse]

Mine will say PATTY IS A FANTASIST!

 

[competitiondiva]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe I'm posting on here again!!! What are we on 26 pages now!!! Are we going for a record on the forum!!! Anyway.....

What difference does it make if you allow the rspca on your land or don't, if you don't they'll get the police to attend with a warrant anyway!!! So you may as well cooperate!!

And with regard to JG allowing rspca on his land, I'm sure he did hoping to fend them off with seeing the horses and sheds HE wanted them to see (the ones in better nic and living conditions)!!!!

 

[RantBucket]

[ QUOTE ]
JAMIE GRAY IS INNOCENT!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Innocent of what exactly, everything he was found guilty of in all his too numerous to mention court cases or just this one?

 

[patty19]

Your inbox is full - I cannot reply to your messages.

 

[jhoward]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

so what your telling us all is you was at sf the day AFTER the raid, when all the commontion was going on, they allowed you to stroll on in and take photos.

is that correct?

 

[JanetGeorge]

[ 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!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I would go that far! IF I had a horse in a condition that might SUGGEST 'cruelty' or neglect, then it would be under the care of my vet! The RSPCA CANNOT seize an animal WITHOUT the authority of the police and on the advice of a vet. I would put their vet in touch with my vet who would make it absolutely clear that the animal was under HIS care and did NOT require intervention.

Any vet who 'took over' the treatment of an animal in these circumstances without the consent of the treating vet (which he wouldn't get) would be in VERY hot water with the BVA. I would not allow RSPCA inspectors on my property - only the police and the vet! And I would NOT give a statement to the RSPCA - there is NO requirement to do so. RSPCA Inspectors have NO legal standing whatsoever!

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> 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! </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I would go that far!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats good!!

[ QUOTE ]
IF I had a horse in a condition that might SUGGEST 'cruelty' or neglect, then it would be under the care of my vet! The RSPCA CANNOT seize an animal WITHOUT the authority of the police and on the advice of a vet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The RSPCA do not seize the animals. The police seize the animals on the advice of the rspca who are instructed by a vet who in turn is persuaded by the RSPCA...

[ QUOTE ]
I would put their vet in touch with my vet who would make it absolutely clear that the animal was under HIS care and did NOT require intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sound like a very good idea but I would not let RSPCA or their vets anywhere near my vet until my vet had re-examined the animal and had given me a full report of the animal, its condiition, and his recomendation for the animal at THAT particular time.

[ QUOTE ]
Any vet who 'took over' the treatment of an animal in these circumstances without the consent of the treating vet (which he wouldn't get) would be in VERY hot water with the BVA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really understand why you would say this but I think you may be suprised.


[ QUOTE ]
I would not allow RSPCA inspectors on my property - only the police and the vet! And I would NOT give a statement to the RSPCA - there is NO requirement to do so. RSPCA Inspectors have NO legal standing whatsoever!

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct!!! But you may be threatened with arrest if you dont give an interview to the rspca. The police are very naive where the AWA is concerned and are lead to believe they have certain rights which they dont have.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]

so what your telling us all is you was at sf the day AFTER the raid, when all the commontion was going on, they allowed you to stroll on in and take photos.

is that correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was no commotion on the 10th of Jan 08.

 

[jhoward]

seeing as it all started on the 4th. and horses were being seized, and police in attendence

either way. why would anybody let you stroll in and take pictures?

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]


I can't believe I'm posting on here again!!! What are we on 26 pages now!!! Are we going for a record on the forum!!! Anyway.....

What difference does it make if you allow the rspca on your land or don't, if you don't they'll get the police to attend with a warrant anyway!!! So you may as well cooperate!!

[/ QUOTE ]

But they did not have a warrant but claimed they did not need a warrant under the AWA section 18 - then othertimes they used section 19. The police were told by KH that they had whe power to take them plus an army of other people onto private property. The police did not have a clue about the act and told the court that KH told them that the act gave then that authority.

[ QUOTE ]
And with regard to JG allowing rspca on his land, I'm sure he did hoping to fend them off with seeing the horses and sheds HE wanted them to see (the ones in better nic and living conditions)!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

None of the barns were hidden - they are all open for anyone to see. The RSPCA just arrived unannounced. And yes, they did see barns in good nic and living conditions. It's just a pitty that those barns were not mentioned by the rspca in their press reports. However, they were mentioned in the court.

 

[JanetGeorge]

[ QUOTE ]


The RSPCA do not seize the animals. The police seize the animals on the advice of the rspca who are instructed by a vet who in turn is persuaded by the RSPCA...

[/ QUOTE ]

The police make the seizure on the advice of a vet who is (normally) briefed by the RSPCA. But the end result is the same - the RSPCA has your horse!


[ QUOTE ]
I really understand why you would say this but I think you may be suprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I say this is because I discussed this possible scenario with my very experienced vet - who HAS been called in by the RSPCA on cruelty cases - just last year. I had a TB brood mare who was dropping condition fast, due to a heart problem - she had been thoroughly checked over by the vet who saw her on each of his regular visits and was being fed and cared for according to his advice to enable us to get her foal to the point where it could be weaned. I was concerned that some well-meaning person might see her and think I was starving her. My vet gave me very sound advice on the steps Police/RSPCA/vet would have to take - and made it VERY clear that if ANY vet interfered in the care of an animal under the immediate and regular care of another vet (which he would do by removing it), that vet would be in serious trouble! IF it happened, he told me to tell the attending vet that the horse was under his care and give the vet his name and phone number!

[ QUOTE ]

Correct!!! But you may be threatened with arrest if you dont give an interview to the rspca. The police are very naive where the AWA is concerned and are lead to believe they have certain rights which they dont have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fortunately, most police officers are NOT as stupid as you seem to believe. IF a police officer threatened me with arrest for refusing an interview to the RSPCA, then I would politely suggest to that officer that he check his facts with a senior officer before taking any action that would lead to a 'wrongful arrest' action against his Chief Constable. If he WAS stupid enough to persist, then I would accompany him to the police station, explain the circumstances of my arrest to the custody officer, explain why it was unwarranted and unlawful and request my phone call. The police get very nervous about wrongful arrest cases!

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]


seeing as it all started on the 4th. and horses were being seized, and police in attendence

either way. why would anybody let you stroll in and take pictures?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one was there when I strolled in and took pictures - accept of course, my handy contact.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
The RSPCA do not seize the animals. The police seize the animals on the advice of the rspca who are instructed by a vet who in turn is persuaded by the RSPCA...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The police make the seizure on the advice of a vet who is (normally) briefed by the RSPCA. But the end result is the same - the RSPCA has your horse!

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But the vet is influenced by the rspca.


[ QUOTE ]
I really understand why you would say this but I think you may be suprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I say this is because I discussed this possible scenario with my very experienced vet - who HAS been called in by the RSPCA on cruelty cases - just last year. I had a TB brood mare who was dropping condition fast, due to a heart problem - she had been thoroughly checked over by the vet who saw her on each of his regular visits and was being fed and cared for according to his advice to enable us to get her foal to the point where it could be weaned. I was concerned that some well-meaning person might see her and think I was starving her. My vet gave me very sound advice on the steps Police/RSPCA/vet would have to take - and made it VERY clear that if ANY vet interfered in the care of an animal under the immediate and regular care of another vet (which he would do by removing it), that vet would be in serious trouble! IF it happened, he told me to tell the attending vet that the horse was under his care and give the vet his name and phone number!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure your vet is very experienced in animal welfare and rspca tactics. Sadly, this is not always the case. Mr Gray was treating animals known by Mr Baskerville but that did not stop him from going against his client. Also, Katy Robinson was another one who Mr Gray called out to a gray because he was concerned about it - Katy Robinson told Mr Gray that the gray was fine - well that gray died within days of that examination.

[ QUOTE ]

Correct!!! But you may be threatened with arrest if you dont give an interview to the rspca. The police are very naive where the AWA is concerned and are lead to believe they have certain rights which they dont have.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Fortunately, most police officers are NOT as stupid as you seem to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not all but the police who attended SF gave evidence that they did not know anything about the AWA, and that they were told by KH that they had the rights under the act to take the rspca plus lots of other people onto SF without a warrant.

[ QUOTE ]
IF a police officer threatened me with arrest for refusing an interview to the RSPCA, then I would politely suggest to that officer that he check his facts with a senior officer before taking any action that would lead to a 'wrongful arrest' action against his Chief Constable. If he WAS stupid enough to persist, then I would accompany him to the police station, explain the circumstances of my arrest to the custody officer, explain why it was unwarranted and unlawful and request my phone call. The police get very nervous about wrongful arrest cases!

[/ QUOTE ]

The Gray family did not know their rights and did not know it was unlawful for them to be threatened with arrest if they did not take the interviews. Their dumb ass lawyer who they had at the time should have put up more of a fight.

 

[the watcher]

[ 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 ]

Dozzie, I can understand your confusion, but please do not be misled by Patty on this. Patty may argue with conviction but is coming from a place of no understanding of legal process - in spite of apparently spending weeks in court becoming something of an 'expert'

The RSPCA have a perfect right to ask questions of anybody during an investigation, but in line with any other investigative agency they have to comply with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. They must caution people being questioned who are suspected or being investigated of an offence, they must allow a legal advisor if requested and sufficient time for this advisor to be briefed, they must tell the person being questioned that they are not under arrest and free to terminate the interview (unless they are under arrest of course) and it has to be said that in the circumstances there would have been ample grounds for the Police to arrest the occupants of the farm and detain them for questioning.

No, he had no legal obligation to comment or answer any questions, but he would have been warned what the consequences were of not giving an account at that stage and he would have been given as much time as needed to brief the solicitor or even request that the interview be rescheduled so that he could provide any evidence to prove his innocence - if he wished to do so.

There is no credibility in a defendant who waits until the trial to come up with 'evidence' and explaination - the family and their legal advisors would have known this.

They made a serious misjudgement in going no comment in the interviews if they had any evidence to offer that could have impacted on the prosecution case. It should have been given in interview and formed part of the pre-trial review.

The judge was totally correct to take this into account.

 

[RantBucket]

Very wise words indeed "mother_hen" thank you for posting that. I hope everybody reads it. JG and his family were ill advised to not assist the RSPCA, it would have helped them in the long run if they had of.

 

[Happy Horse]

I am assuming that Patty is something to do with the SHG as much of what she says is contained on the website http://the-shg.org/index.htm

With regards to the advice not to allow the RSPCA to speak with your own vet, this is because then any history becomes a valid part of the evidence so if the vet had previously treated an animal for a condition that may have been due to neglect, this can then be used in evidence. f course if your history with the vet is perfectly clear of any such problems you have nothing to worry about.

As for the RSPCA influencing vets all I can say is that I have worked alongside vets acting as expert witnesses including one of the vets on the prosecution in this case and I can say with 100% confidence (as much as Patty says she is sure they were influenced) that none of these vets would be influenced in any way as it could jeopardise their MRCVS membership if they were proved to be lying.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]


Dozzie, I can understand your confusion, but please do not be misled by Patty on this. Patty may argue with conviction but is coming from a place of no understanding of legal process - in spite of apparently spending weeks in court becoming something of an 'expert'

The RSPCA have a perfect right to ask questions of anybody during an investigation, but in line with any other investigative agency they have to comply with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. They must caution people being questioned who are suspected or being investigated of an offence, they must allow a legal advisor if requested and sufficient time for this advisor to be briefed, they must tell the person being questioned that they are not under arrest and free to terminate the interview (unless they are under arrest of course) and it has to be said that in the circumstances there would have been ample grounds for the Police to arrest the occupants of the farm and detain them for questioning.

No, he had no legal obligation to comment or answer any questions, but he would have been warned what the consequences were of not giving an account at that stage and he would have been given as much time as needed to brief the solicitor or even request that the interview be rescheduled so that he could provide any evidence to prove his innocence - if he wished to do so.

There is no credibility in a defendant who waits until the trial to come up with 'evidence' and explaination - the family and their legal advisors would have known this.

They made a serious misjudgement in going no comment in the interviews if they had any evidence to offer that could have impacted on the prosecution case. It should have been given in interview and formed part of the pre-trial review.

The judge was totally correct to take this into account.

[/ QUOTE ]

The RSPCA have NO legal right to interview and/or ask questions of anyone. They may read people their rights and tell people that they are not under arrest which is a misleading statement leading people to believe that they CAN arrest them if they wish to - well they CANT.

They are members of the public just like you and I but they like to parade themselves and act like police officers. An informed person who knows their rights can tell them in plain english to GET LOST - Something I would take great pleasure in doing if they ever attemped to intimidate me.

To all readers who are animal owners, read the following - you may need it one day.

What rights do the RSPCA have?


Basic legal advice for pet owners.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
I am assuming that Patty is something to do with the SHG as much of what she says is contained on the website http://the-shg.org/index.htm

With regards to the advice not to allow the RSPCA to speak with your own vet, this is because then any history becomes a valid part of the evidence so if the vet had previously treated an animal for a condition that may have been due to neglect, this can then be used in evidence. f course if your history with the vet is perfectly clear of any such problems you have nothing to worry about.

As for the RSPCA influencing vets all I can say is that I have worked alongside vets acting as expert witnesses including one of the vets on the prosecution in this case and I can say with 100% confidence (as much as Patty says she is sure they were influenced) that none of these vets would be influenced in any way as it could jeopardise their MRCVS membership if they were proved to be lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm nothing to do with the SHG but I admire and appreciate their efforts.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
I am assuming that Patty is something to do with the SHG as much of what she says is contained on the website http://the-shg.org/index.htm

With regards to the advice not to allow the RSPCA to speak with your own vet, this is because then any history becomes a valid part of the evidence so if the vet had previously treated an animal for a condition that may have been due to neglect, this can then be used in evidence. f course if your history with the vet is perfectly clear of any such problems you have nothing to worry about.

As for the RSPCA influencing vets all I can say is that I have worked alongside vets acting as expert witnesses including one of the vets on the prosecution in this case and I can say with 100% confidence (as much as Patty says she is sure they were influenced) that none of these vets would be influenced in any way as it could jeopardise their MRCVS membership if they were proved to be lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

The public have a lot to learn - they truely do!!!

 

[Happy Horse]

The trouble is Patty that the SHG advice can be used by people who are literally torturing animals within their homes. Would you be happy for say a dog or cat to die at the hands of a cruel owner in the time it takes to obtain a police warrant? It could be killed and disposed of before anyone could do anything about it. I'd love to see the RSPCA given more powers not less and work more closely with the police.

I watch Animal Cops Houston (sad, I know!) and they have a full time police officer working within the HSPCA.

 

[Happy Horse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am assuming that Patty is something to do with the SHG as much of what she says is contained on the website http://the-shg.org/index.htm

With regards to the advice not to allow the RSPCA to speak with your own vet, this is because then any history becomes a valid part of the evidence so if the vet had previously treated an animal for a condition that may have been due to neglect, this can then be used in evidence. f course if your history with the vet is perfectly clear of any such problems you have nothing to worry about.

As for the RSPCA influencing vets all I can say is that I have worked alongside vets acting as expert witnesses including one of the vets on the prosecution in this case and I can say with 100% confidence (as much as Patty says she is sure they were influenced) that none of these vets would be influenced in any way as it could jeopardise their MRCVS membership if they were proved to be lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

The public have a lot to learn - they truely do!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

About what?! Is this about the accusations you have made against the vets but won't back up again? Are you not a member of the public?