Woman banned from keeping horses allowed to keep her dogs?!

Unfortunately the courts can decline to make a deprivation order on some animals when a person is convicted and banned. I have known it to happen occassionally, but thankfully it's not common.

It's usually in instances where the court feels it would cause detriment to the animal to remove - ie a very old animal which the person has kept for many years and is in good health with no signs of neglect.
 
The issue here is that not only were the dogs in good condition but also she claimed they belonged to her live in partner who has early stage dementia or something and that they were his dogs and a big comfort to him.

Very difficult in this case and I think since the dogs were in good condition they got the benefit of the doubt. However if they go downhill they will be (it has already been said) taken away.
 
Surely if he's got bad dementia then their sole care is probably dealt with by her? Which IMO shouldn't be allowed. She shouldn't be allowed near any animals, let alone live under the same roof as them.
 
I can see where everyone is coming from but just to play devil's advocate, why, if the dogs are in good condition, should she not be allowed to keep them? I don't know the history of the case or the full story but she could have found the horses, being much larger animals become too difficult to handle or look after, maybe had too many and didn't initally realise the implications of horse ownership? One or two dogs would be far easier for her to care for and are far less expensive to keep than horses. Could she not be given a chance to keep dogs and be given random, unannounced checks for an undisclosed periodto monitor her? Don't shout me down, it is only a thought!
 
perlino said:
I can see where everyone is coming from but just to play devil's advocate, why, if the dogs are in good condition, should she not be allowed to keep them? I don't know the history of the case or the full story but she could have found the horses, being much larger animals become too difficult to handle or look after, maybe had too many and didn't initally realise the implications of horse ownership? One or two dogs would be far easier for her to care for and are far less expensive to keep than horses. Could she not be given a chance to keep dogs and be given random, unannounced checks for an undisclosed periodto monitor her? Don't shout me down, it is only a thought!
Click to expand...

I understand this.

Most of us have horses and dogs and its fair to say that dogs are one hellava lot easier to care for. I have my horses at home and its hard work never mind driving to them twice a day.

Not that I condone cruelty in any form but dogs are a lot easier to look after IMO and its far easier to become overwhelmed with horses especially if you have other pressures in your life, like an OH with dementia.

I can't believe I'm actually trying to show some empathy with someone who has abused horses but there you go.
 
Can I politely suggest you all research this horrendous story before supporting this woman, and before magicmelon blows a fuse at any support this lady might receive.

Note - that was a polite suggestion! Not usually like me. I must be ill.....
 
She wasn't too overwhelmed to hide the carcasses of the multiple dead horses away in a barn though...
 
guido16 said:
Can I politely suggest you all research this horrendous story before supporting this woman, and before magicmelon blows a fuse at any support this lady might receive.
Click to expand...

Exactly, thanks! It doesn't matter if she keeps the dogs healthy, the point being that she caused misery, suffering and DEATH to horses in her care - how on earth does she deserve to keep ANY other animal?! Thats the whole point of punishment! So, looking at it from a different angle if a convicted paedophile looked after a child and all seemed well, you'd be happy with that...?! Right... you guys are crazy.
 
The legal issue is that the court has accepted that these are not her dogs, they belong to someone else, and have also not been neglected which backs up the case that they may be the man's dogs.

If a relative of yours with whom you lived was convicted for cruelty I doubt you would be happy if your animals were seized as a result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top