# What was Jamie Grays' line of business?



## SpruceRI (22 May 2009)

Sounds a stupid question I know, but reading the transcript from the Court, what did he actually do with the horses he bought from markets?

Surely starving them would bring in less meat money, than fattening them up?

Or did he just have too many in, and couldn't cope with the turnover?


www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgment_guidance/index.htm <font color="red">  </font>


----------



## brighteyes (22 May 2009)

This is something I'd like to know but didn't really want to ask!


----------



## QUICKFIRE (22 May 2009)

For what its worth, I think that the corpses found in the field was horses that were imports and were used to bring drugs into the country the same what they do with dogs, but then thats just my thoughts.


----------



## shoeey (22 May 2009)

Someone told me that Gray could be doing "the blood game". She said blood is taken from mares and sold on to laboratories on the continent to be made into the pill and HRT. Sounds far fetched but she was adamant that it happens. 
Blood gets taken from the horses daily until they drop. And she said when she's seen it before the horses were terribly thin, just like at Spindles.


----------



## M_G (22 May 2009)

Some HRT products made using mares hormones but this does not come from the blood I believe its urine/squirt (could be totally wrong) but I am 99% sure its not blood


----------



## TheresaW (22 May 2009)

I thought it was urine too.


----------



## M_G (22 May 2009)

It is I found this trough google 

Oestrogens used in the HRT drugs Prempak C and Premarin, manufactured by Wyeth-Ayerst, are extracted from the urine of pregnant horses. More than 45,000 of the animals are farmed each year, mainly in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


----------



## Quadro (22 May 2009)

ask patty she will know


----------



## Onyxia (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
ask patty she will know 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]
She will tell us that although she has vital evidence to prove what the rest of the world  know to be fact is not true,but cant possibly tell


----------



## RantBucket (22 May 2009)

That was funny Anima!


----------



## gingermuffin (22 May 2009)

On the 11th May at 0042 Patty informed us that Mr Gray dealt to and from Holland, not for meat he had no interest in the meat trade.
I think the answer may be in rspca Inspector Claire Rayner's interest in Mrs Grays coat, reported again by Patty light years ago.
Could it have been pony skin??????


----------



## Paddywhack (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
For what its worth, I think that the corpses found in the field was horses that were imports and were used to bring drugs into the country the same what they do with dogs, but then thats just my thoughts. 

[/ QUOTE ]
You are very close to the truth there


----------



## horseygirl28 (22 May 2009)

In my opinion i think you are all talking a load rubbish. 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For what its worth, I think that the corpses found in the field was horses that were imports and were used to bring drugs into the country the same what they do with dogs, but then thats just my thoughts. 

[/ QUOTE ]
You are very close to the truth there 

[/ QUOTE ]

Paddywhack, what proof do you have of this to be able to make such a sweeping statment??


----------



## competitiondiva (22 May 2009)

Same question could be asked of this case, the person had valuable horses and left them to starve and die??? 
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/n...il/article.html

I think that the shear number of horses become too much for them but they won't ask for help, that or there really are some sick people in this world. I have no idea about the rumours of drug trafficking.  Certainly HRT comes from urine, they keep mares stalled with urine bags attached, to catch the urine of pregnant mares.  The mares never go out and barely see daylight, the foals when they arrive are either killed or go for the meat trade.


----------



## BankEndRescue (22 May 2009)

I think we are maybe getting carried away here.  It's my opinion and obviously I don't KNOW but I think that he just ended up with more than he was able to care for


----------



## QUICKFIRE (22 May 2009)

Well as I made that post, can you tell me what  kind of "kof" business man would let his stock rot in the field. 

IMO there would be more money to be made out of drugs than out of a skinny horse, yes he was a horse dealer, yes he was a meat man and this would have been a good cover for the money making side of his business, yes IMO he was importing worthless horses full of drugs, and the quickest way to get them drugs out is to open the horse up and let them drop out.
People may say this is a bit far fetched, but as it has been proved that he his a ruthless man could this not been a possability. ?


----------



## patty19 (22 May 2009)

Oh please do get a life. Drugs????? Get real for goodness sake. 

And you all have the nerve to accuse me of being unreal!?

PLEEEEEZ!!!!!!

Honestly - [****] sure does fly from didcot.


----------



## dozzie (22 May 2009)

I think Bankend Rescues suggestion is more likely.


----------



## Happy Horse (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


I think Bankend Rescues suggestion is more likely. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree but still no excuse for the conditions of the property or the animals.


----------



## QUICKFIRE (22 May 2009)

It is real !!!!!! humans traffick drugs, dogs are forced to do it, why not horses! Bankendrecue didn't suggest this..... I did.


----------



## dozzie (22 May 2009)

But there were huge discrepancies in witness statements about the conditions. Have a look for the full water trough. It is there to see! 
	
	
		
		
	


	






Deep litter does look awful but is a method used in farming as it is an efficient method of keeping livestock . Also when the barn floor is concrete it is safer to let an amount of muck, for want of a better word, to build up as a cushion. It is a bit like having a soil floor. Much safer than slippery concrete under a brand new straw bed. It is one of the reasons many people dont have concrete laid in field shelters, they keep a soil floor. 

So the conditions are more about perception rather than logic IMO!

It is not like the excrement of meat eating animals.

And before you all jump on me about the carcasses lying about,  I think he failed to dispose of some carcasses efficiently. Whether there were mitigating circumstances I dont know so cant judge. I have no idea what options he had in his area. I have the option of a hunt but no local knacker. His options may have been different. But once a horse is dead, it is dead. I dont think failure to dispose indicates cruelty.  I think we assume it as part of human nature. And I think the images presented by the RSPCA and the media encouraged that assumption.

RE OP
It made no sense for him to starve these horses. You are right.


----------



## Janetterose (22 May 2009)

I still dont get how ANYONE can refute all the evidence about the Greys. It has been proved that he made the animals suffer. Why? Sure he had his reasons and it would be good to find out to prevent it happening again.


----------



## Happy Horse (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
But there were huge discrepancies in witness statements about the conditions. Have a look for the full water trough. It is there to see! 
	
	
		
		
	


	






Deep litter does look awful but is a method used in farming as it is an efficient method of keeping livestock . Also when the barn floor is concrete it is safer to let an amount of muck, for want of a better word, to build up as a cushion. It is a bit like having a soil floor. Much safer than slippery concrete under a brand new straw bed. It is one of the reasons many people dont have concrete laid in field shelters, they keep a soil floor. 

So the conditions are more about perception rather than logic IMO!

It is not like the excrement of meat eating animals.

And before you all jump on me about the carcasses lying about,  I think he failed to dispose of some carcasses efficiently. Whether there were mitigating circumstances I dont know so cant judge. I have no idea what options he had in his area. I have the option of a hunt but no local knacker. His options may have been different. But once a horse is dead, it is dead. I dont think failure to dispose indicates cruelty.  I think we assume it as part of human nature. And I think the images presented by the RSPCA and the media encouraged that assumption.

RE OP
It made no sense for him to starve these horses. You are right.  

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have any problem with well maintained deep litter systems but the ones in the video show absolutely no fresh straw on top, just excrement, this will harbour disease and also cause potential foot rot, skin and lung infections.

With regards to the dead bodies yes they are dead but by law it is illegal to allow them to rot on the surface.  The other animals are at risk from pathogens from the bodies in the soil and water courses.  IF the knacker was unavailable although he testified that he was and I see no reason for him to lie, DEFRA would have advised on other options, I assume they were never contacted.

One full water trough does not make all 130 (or however many horses) well kept and it is not possible to see how clean the water is.

Asa matter of interst Dozie as you seem rather more logical than Patty, what are your views on the horse with severe diarrhoea and eye infection - suffering or not suffering?  These are two immediately visible afflictions in the video.


----------



## QUICKFIRE (22 May 2009)

I haven't refuted any evidence about the Greys, I have suggested another reason for his business practices.


----------



## Janetterose (22 May 2009)

I wasnt suggesting you were - just saying I cant imagin why anyone is supporting the guy


----------



## patty19 (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds a stupid question I know, but reading the transcript from the Court, what did he actually do with the horses he bought from markets?

Surely starving them would bring in less meat money, than fattening them up?

Or did he just have too many in, and couldn't cope with the turnover?


www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgment_guidance/index.htm <font color="red">  </font> 

[/ QUOTE ]

He was a horse trader - not a meat trader as some have said. 

He imported and exported horses to and from Holland and Belgium but it appears his main dealings were here in the UK.


----------



## patty19 (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
For what its worth, I think that the corpses found in the field was horses that were imports and were used to bring drugs into the country the same what they do with dogs, but then thats just my thoughts. 

[/ QUOTE ]

And why do you think that?


----------



## patty19 (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Someone told me that Gray could be doing "the blood game". She said blood is taken from mares and sold on to laboratories on the continent to be made into the pill and HRT. Sounds far fetched but she was adamant that it happens. 
Blood gets taken from the horses daily until they drop. And she said when she's seen it before the horses were terribly thin, just like at Spindles. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that someone is speaking from their rear end.


----------



## patty19 (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ask patty she will know 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]
She will tell us that although she has vital evidence to prove what the rest of the world  know to be fact is not true,but cant possibly tell 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

So YOU and the rest of the world KNOW that the ridiclous claims on this thread are FACTS?


----------



## patty19 (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
On the 11th May at 0042 Patty informed us that Mr Gray dealt to and from Holland, not for meat he had no interest in the meat trade.
I think the answer may be in rspca Inspector Claire Rayner's interest in Mrs Grays coat, reported again by Patty light years ago.
Could it have been pony skin?????? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Goodness me you're so funny -  
	
	
		
		
	


	





Bet you are the life and soul of every party. 

You go girl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## patty19 (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For what its worth, I think that the corpses found in the field was horses that were imports and were used to bring drugs into the country the same what they do with dogs, but then thats just my thoughts. 

[/ QUOTE ]
You are very close to the truth there 

[/ QUOTE ]

As wrong as you are I have to say that the contents of your  comment could never be attributed to yourself because you're always so full of crap.

Like I said - [****] flies from didcot.


----------



## patty19 (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion i think you are all talking a load rubbish. 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For what its worth, I think that the corpses found in the field was horses that were imports and were used to bring drugs into the country the same what they do with dogs, but then thats just my thoughts. 

[/ QUOTE ]
You are very close to the truth there 

[/ QUOTE ]

Paddywhack, what proof do you have of this to be able to make such a sweeping statment?? 

[/ QUOTE ]

NONE - PW is just full of verbal diarrhea. And going by some of the comments from other posters on this thread it seems it may be contagious.


----------



## SpruceRI (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds a stupid question I know, but reading the transcript from the Court, what did he actually do with the horses he bought from markets?

Surely starving them would bring in less meat money, than fattening them up?

Or did he just have too many in, and couldn't cope with the turnover?


www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgment_guidance/index.htm <font color="red">  </font> 

[/ QUOTE ]

He was a horse trader - not a meat trader as some have said. 

He imported and exported horses to and from Holland and Belgium but it appears his main dealings were here in the UK. 

[/ QUOTE ]

It is said that he bought horses from Holland, but why?  And he sells back again.  But why?  

I don't understand where there is money to to be earnt here?

Surely it is cheaper fuel-wise to at least buy horses of a similar ilk in this country?

And  more profit to sell in this country too?  If they're not meat ponies, and certainly not riding ponies, what is the trade?


----------



## patty19 (22 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
It is said that he bought horses from Holland, but why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh, it's what some traders DO. 


[ QUOTE ]
And he sells back again.  But why?  

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt say he takes the SAME horses back.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand where there is money to to be earnt here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Going by your 2 previous comments I can quiet believe that you dont understand.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely it is cheaper fuel-wise to at least buy horses of a similar ilk in this country?

[/ QUOTE ]

I said he did business in THIS COUNTRY also.

[ QUOTE ]
And  more profit to sell in this country too?  If they're not meat ponies, and certainly not riding ponies, what is the trade? 

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously DONT understand much about horse trading.
See above. Also, it was said that he sells alot of coloured horses in holland.

And yes, he did riding ponies too - as well as trotters.


----------



## Onyxia (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ask patty she will know 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]
She will tell us that although she has vital evidence to prove what the rest of the world  know to be fact is not true,but cant possibly tell 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

So YOU and the rest of the world KNOW that the ridiclous claims on this thread are FACTS? 

[/ QUOTE ]
See the 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 ? Means it's a cheeky post,not a serious one 
	
	
		
		
	


	




I dont know the ins and outs,and I doubt that you do.
If you knew and could prove as much as you say you would have been part of the trial not just in court to watch.
I have not tried to second guess any event,we dont know how or why the dead horses ended up on the ground half rotted away so dont see any value to trying to guess why that happened or trying to guess why there where horses in poor health at the farm.

I do,however trust the evidence provided by the Horse Trust and co,as did a court of law.
I cant see any gain to the charities from this but mostly,if I had been inJG's shoes with my personal and professional name being dragged through the shite the first thing I would do is get online and post EVERY photo of healthy horses I had on EVERY horse forum out there-and yes I know he couldnt have dont that one he was charged,but there was a fair while between the horses being taken and charges being made.
IF it is all lies,from the first second I would have been telling anyone who would listen my side of the story,JG diddnt seem to care


----------



## miss_bird (23 May 2009)

I cannot see why that man would pay for horses in bad condition and ship them to the uk for profit, i say this as i am moving back to the UK with my horses and it costs a fortune, so you would not be shipping horses in unless there was a profit, and seeing the way he left his horses i cannot see a profit in that as a dealer.
Yes there is either another reason or he is the most dumb business man on the planet


----------



## Paddywhack (23 May 2009)

I am loving this thread,a raw nerve has been touched and some people are getting very aggresive/defensive 
	
	
		
		
	


	




I don't know the inside out but living very locally to the smithies and the story is that J.G is in an illegal business using his ponies for a different purpose than we think,that's why he has been stopped so many times transporting his ponies,they are keeping an eye on him that.s the reason why some are neglected since they have served the purpose and are not needed anymore......His family in Iver wants nothing to do with him,they also use my local tack shop and are very chatty and are not being quiet about it..the local smithies are not happy J.G since not all traveler families are bad


----------



## M_G (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds a stupid question I know, but reading the transcript from the Court, what did he actually do with the horses he bought from markets?

Surely starving them would bring in less meat money, than fattening them up?

Or did he just have too many in, and couldn't cope with the turnover?


www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgment_guidance/index.htm <font color="red">  </font> 

It is said that he bought horses from Holland, but why?  And he sells back again.  But why?  

I don't understand where there is money to to be earnt here?

Surely it is cheaper fuel-wise to at least buy horses of a similar ilk in this country?

And  more profit to sell in this country too?  If they're not meat ponies, and certainly not riding ponies, what is the trade? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite a few dealers in the UK will take over to Holland/Belgium a lorry full of UK youngsters (usually coloured pikey ponys) and bring back a lorry load of warmbloods its common practice


----------



## gingermuffin (23 May 2009)

I'm so pleased to have brightened poor Patty's dreary night time hours!
I used to work in Dover and it was not uncommon for illegal good to be smuggled in horseboxes and trailers. The confiscated trailers were lined up underneath the viaduct and they and the horses went to auction after the trial.
And talking of trials Mr Gray is in Folkestone Mags on the 27th and 28th of May. The case is being brought by Kent Trading Standards and relates to tranportation offences. One charge I believe relates to travelling horses in a lorry with inadequate partitions. One has to ask why anybody travelling a horse with value, unlike a meat animal, would want to risk damaging it?


----------



## horseygirl28 (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion i think you are all talking a load rubbish. 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For what its worth, I think that the corpses found in the field was horses that were imports and were used to bring drugs into the country the same what they do with dogs, but then thats just my thoughts. 

[/ QUOTE ]
You are very close to the truth there 

[/ QUOTE ]

Paddywhack, what proof do you have of this to be able to make such a sweeping statment?? 

[/ QUOTE ]

NONE - PW is just full of verbal diarrhea. And going by some of the comments from other posters on this thread it seems it may be contagious. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with you patty.


----------



## horseygirl28 (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I am loving this thread,a raw nerve has been touched and some people are getting very aggresive/defensive 
	
	
		
		
	


	




I don't know the inside out but living very locally to the smithies and the story is that J.G is in an illegal business using his ponies for a different purpose than we think,that's why he has been stopped so many times transporting his ponies,they are keeping an eye on him that.s the reason why some are neglected since they have served the purpose and are not needed anymore......His family in Iver wants nothing to do with him,they also use my local tack shop and are very chatty and are not being quiet about it..the local smithies are not happy J.G since not all traveler families are bad 

[/ QUOTE ]

Paddywhack it seems clear to me you really like stirring up trouble.


----------



## Happy Horse (23 May 2009)

Interesting to see you changed your post horseygirl - why the change of heart?  I also see the odd lame sheep in a field but never two days running so presumably they are removed and treated.  Not many farmers have bodies of rotting animals lying about their farms to arouse interest either.


----------



## horseygirl28 (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting to see you changed your post horseygirl - why the change of heart?  I also see the odd lame sheep in a field but never two days running so presumably they are removed and treated.  Not many farmers have bodies of rotting animals lying about their farms to arouse interest either. 

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion i just think that everything Paddywhack is saying on this thread is total rubbish. And the statements that Paddywhack has made on this thread have NO proof to back them up, so in my opinion they are all false statements.


----------



## Happy Horse (23 May 2009)

Patty has nothing to back up her statements either yet you believe her!


----------



## the watcher (23 May 2009)

I have no idea how he made any money, since most of the horses he appeared to purchase were very much at the lower end of the scale and there was no real sign of them being brought on as suitable riding horses, or having their condition improved to the point where they would attract a higher price.

However, i have seen this before, having had dealings with people (almost exclusively travellers) who have horses - because they say it is in their blood, in their family and in their traditions, and often neglect those horses to the point of starvation and death. i don't understand those people either.

And when JG had horses removed from him and obviously didn't have the proper facilities or time or possibly funds to provide for those, he was seen out at sales buying more, by the lorry load.

It is all a bit beyond me.


----------



## Quadro (23 May 2009)

patty you say that PW has verbal diaorrea (sp) but the phrase "pot, kettle, and black" spring to mind !!!!!


----------



## dozzie (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Not many farmers have bodies of rotting animals lying about their farms to arouse interest either.   

[/ QUOTE ] 

That is because the disposal laws for farm animals are much clearer. Farmers are required, by law, to have fallen stock removed within 24 hours.  

In Europe the rules would be the same for horses but over here the situation is different as horses are not considered agricultural animals. 

It is partially explained on the Defra website.

TBH I couldnt find much out about the law in regards to disposal of horses.


----------



## Happy Horse (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 [ QUOTE ]
Not many farmers have bodies of rotting animals lying about their farms to arouse interest either.   

[/ QUOTE ] 

That is because the disposal laws for farm animals are much clearer. Farmers are required, by law, to have fallen stock removed within 24 hours.  

In Europe the rules would be the same for horses but over here the situation is different as horses are not considered agricultural animals. 

It is partially explained on the Defra website.

TBH I couldnt find much out about the law in regards to disposal of horses. 

[/ QUOTE ]

From the DEFRA website:

 [ QUOTE ]
ll horses when they die (unless they are kept as pets  see Q&amp;A below) must be disposed of without delay in accordance with the EU Animal By-Products Regulation 2002. This means they must be delivered to a premises approved under the regulation for proper collection and disposal (e.g. hunt kennels, knacker yard, incinerator operator).  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Clearly the quantity of animals he was keeping were not pets so he was in breach.  Details can be read here http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/by-prods/fallen/horses.htm

In theory if he applied to the local authority and managed to pursuade them that each and every animal that died was a family pet then he may be ok to bury them but I think it is safe to say the local authority knew nothing about the rotting bodies and that they were most definiteyl not family pets (unless Patty can prove otherwise!)

More info here http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/by-prods/fallen/disposalqa.htm#2

The DEFRA website also states that where fallen animals have to be kept awaiting collection FOR A REASONABLE TIME they should be securely covered to prevent access by carnivorous animals.


----------



## dozzie (23 May 2009)

That is what I read too. Some of the horses were part of his business and some were pets he had had for a long time. He may well have had permission to bury his pets. Again, our own prejudices make us assume he didnt.

Defra suggests that fallen stock should be covered in Tarpaulin or similar. Who can say they werent before the RSPCA took the photos? The RSPCA would have had to remove covers to get the photos.  Of course, if they were proved to have been covered the likes of certain people would scream that he was trying to cover up the evidence. LOL! So a bit of a no win situation really!


----------



## Happy Horse (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
That is what I read too. Some of the horses were part of his business and some were pets he had had for a long time. He may well have had permission to bury his pets. Again, our own prejudices make us assume he didnt.

Defra suggests that fallen stock should be covered in Tarpaulin or similar. Who can say they werent before the RSPCA took the photos? The RSPCA would have had to remove covers to get the photos.  Of course, if they were proved to have been covered the likes of certain people would scream that he was trying to cover up the evidence. LOL! So a bit of a no win situation really! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

It is easy enough to find out if there was permission to bury any animals.  It has to be granted by the local authorities.  Either way the bodies were not going to be disposed of within a 'reasonable time' to get in that state - covered or not although it does say in the court documents that the dogs were eating the carcasses.  Patty has also said the rain affected the decomposition so it sounds from her as if they were uncovered as well.  I think I have read about one dead animal that was a pet (a shetland or a donkey) and he was supposed to be getting a part for a machine.  There was no mention at all the other dead ones were pets.

I am sorry I can't see any justification for it and I don't see how anyone else can although you are entitled to your opinion.  By the way I asked you if in your opinion the horses I posted pictures of from the video with the damaged eye and the severe diarrhoea were suffering - I'd be interested to hear your views?  What would your advice be if someone posted them on the forum looking for advice?


----------



## siennamum (23 May 2009)

I'm quite suprised you are defending JG/Patty tbh Dozzie. You always strike me as 'normal' and yet are agreeing with a poster who is delusional &amp; has a wierd agenda and a man who starved and abused hundreds of horses. Don't get it tbh.

When travellers move on from sites it's not unusual to find dead horses shoved in ditches, by and large their animals are worm ridden half starved and abused.
Why it's difficult for you to accept that JG did all of the above but on a more industrial scale is odd.
Those of us who know what travellers do to their poor horses are entirely unsuprised at his actions and can see why the RSPCA &amp; the like went out of their way to shut him &amp; his vile family down.
Shame they can't be starved, beaten and made to live in their own [****] really.


----------



## Paddywhack (23 May 2009)

Paddywhack it seems clear to me you really like stirring up trouble.  

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah right and you are not ??????? I am local here and it's very obvious that I  know hell of a lot more than you do,It's COMMON knowledge around here so unless you live in this area please be quiet


----------



## brighteyes (23 May 2009)

Well, there are always two sides to a story.  Just can't imagine a good enough one in this instance.


----------



## RantBucket (23 May 2009)

Yes that's true, one side that thinks animal cruelty is totally unacceptable and must be punished, and the other that spends lots and lots of time searching for reasons why they must tell us that good old JG is an OK sort of guy, and all this is some terrible misunderstanding and that the courts have made a ghastly mistake in finding him and his lovely family guilty.


----------



## teddyt (23 May 2009)

Just feel like putting my view on this forward. Havnt followed all of his closely, so have only just watched the video of all the dead horses, thin ones, etc. It actually bought a lump to my throat, the suffering was sickening. How anyone can justify the apalling state of those horses is beyond me. There IS NO JUSTIFICATION. So....
I appreciate the drug smuggling story may seem far fetched to some but not to me. Its a distinct possibility. There has to be a sideline there somewhere. I just dont get that a dealer would be so addicted to buying horses that he just left some to die because he had so many. Others taking pot luck if they were sold on or left to rot. Maybe it was a numbers game, JG literally just picking random horses to move on and make a few quid. If one got ill he just left it to recover or die. However i strongly suspect there is more to this whole story. 

Whatever the situation the Gray family are sick. They have no morals, conscience or sense of shame. Anyone who can keep animals in those conditions (or in the case of PATTY - anyone justifying those conditions) deserves to experience those conditions themselves. They should suffer, as the horses have. Word actually fail me to describe how apalled i am.


----------



## patty19 (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

See the 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 ? Means it's a cheeky post,not a serious one 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, my bad - sorry.


----------



## Fizzimyst (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it was urine too. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep its PMU Pregnant Mares Urine


----------



## RantBucket (23 May 2009)

Well said teddyt, you have said exactly what the great silent majority must be thinking. It's a shame the rather too vocal minority of JGs loyal disciples dont keep their ludicrous ideas to themselves! After all he has just lost the case  show a bit of decency and keep silent until after JG is in prison please you are embarrassing yourselves.


----------



## siennamum (23 May 2009)

Ditto, quite right Teddyt.


----------



## patty19 (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I am loving this thread,a raw nerve has been touched and some people are getting very aggresive/defensive 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Aggresive? By telling people what I'm sure some of them already know - that you are full of [****]?


[ QUOTE ]
I don't know the inside out

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the truest thing I have seen come from you in the past 16 months. Keep it up  
	
	
		
		
	


	




.


[ QUOTE ]
but living very locally to the smithies and the story is that J.G is in an illegal business using his ponies for a different purpose than we think,that's why he has been stopped so many times transporting his ponies,they are keeping an eye on him that.s the reason why some are neglected since they have served the purpose and are not needed anymore......

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh silly me - I was starting to think you were recovering from verbal diarrhea. The "Smithies" who you keep banging on about are friends of JG. The 3 brothers A. Smith, J. Smith, and the other A. Smith. There are more of this family but here's just 3 to keep you on your toes. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[ QUOTE ]
His family in Iver wants nothing to do with him,they also use my local tack shop and are very chatty and are not being quiet about it..the local smithies are not happy J.G since not all traveler families are bad 

[/ QUOTE ]


Bla bla bla......more [****] flies from didcot. Oh, and just incase like most things that you have not got a clue about - JG is NOT a traveler.  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 One of his sisters is a school teachter - something I doubt very much would be the career choice of a traveling woman.  
	
	
		
		
	


	






I apologize to any Traveler who may be on this forum. I'm not prejudice in any way shape or form....


----------



## patty19 (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea how he made any money, since most of the horses he appeared to purchase were very much at the lower end of the scale and *there was no real sign of them being brought on as suitable riding horses, or having their condition improved* to the point where they would attract a higher price.

[/ QUOTE ]

MH, how the hell can you make such a comment? Please at least give some reason as to why you believe as you do?


[ QUOTE ]
However, i have seen this before, having had dealings with people (almost exclusively travellers) who have horses - because they say it is in their blood, in their family and in their traditions, and often neglect those horses to the point of starvation and death. i don't understand those people either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the traveling community are believed to not take much care of their animals but I can tell you right now, that the travelers who I have encountered take pride in their animals. A traveling man is the envy of others if he has a good horse in a good condition.

[ QUOTE ]
And when JG had horses removed from him and obviously didn't have the proper facilities or time or possibly funds to provide for those, he was seen out at sales buying more, by the lorry load.

[/ QUOTE ]

MH, if he was short of funds how the hell would he have the means to buy lorry loads more?  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[ QUOTE ]
It is all a bit beyond me. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I suggest you quit making sweeping comments.


----------



## tania01 (23 May 2009)

Why Dont you patty start answering questions  that people keep asking instead of going the same crap you keep on repeating?


----------



## patty19 (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Why Dont you patty start answering questions  that people keep asking instead of going the same crap you keep on repeating? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I have answere questions but why the hell should I answer more when YOU LOT have not got a decent bone in your bodies talk to me in a civilized manner?


----------



## competitiondiva (23 May 2009)

I think you'll find that the vast majority here are civilized and decent people that cannot understand how or why you back up JG after that number of horses and donkeys were found dead and emaciated suffering from all sorts of conditions at his premises under his and/or his relatives' care, he's been found guilty in a court of law so please stop defending him,  and if he is innocent (like you say he is) he has a right to appeal so lets see if he does!!!


----------



## Happy Horse (23 May 2009)

Because you don't have the answers? You have still to prove anything at all yet the evidence in the video and given in court by the prosecution is there for all to see and read.  Once you come up with some actual proof people may start listening to you.


----------



## Amymay (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no idea how he made any money, since most of the horses he appeared to purchase were very much at the lower end of the scale and there was no real sign of them being brought on as suitable riding horses, or having their condition improved to the point where they would attract a higher price.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



MH, how the hell can you make such a comment? Please at least give some reason as to why you believe as you do?  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Patty, what _exactly_ do you know about horses?


----------



## patty19 (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Yes that's true, one side that thinks animal cruelty is totally unacceptable and must be punished,

[/ QUOTE ]

I am completely and utterly with you here.  Animal cruelty is totally unacceptable and should be punished severly. And I think the law in this country needs shaking up a bit and harsher punishments should be handed to those who ARE cruel to animals.

The crimes JG has been accused of are despicable and the punishment for such cruelty should most certainly fit the crime. Sadly that is not so in my honest opinion.

That said, I think the law should scrutinize every piece of evidence to every accusation and those found to be making unjust accusations should also be punished. Sadly, this is not the case either.

[ QUOTE ]
and the other that spends lots and lots of time searching for reasons why they must tell us that good old JG is an OK sort of guy, and all this is some terrible misunderstanding and that the courts have made a ghastly mistake in finding him and his lovely family guilty. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not defending another side to those who will not accept animal cruelty. I too will not accept it like I have already stated.

As for the rest of your comment: Yes you are correct.


----------



## tania01 (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why Dont you patty start answering questions  that people keep asking instead of going the same crap you keep on repeating? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I have answere questions but why the hell should I answer more when YOU LOT have not got a decent bone in your bodies talk to me in a civilized manner? 

[/ QUOTE ]

 Sorry but if you bother to check my posts please quote me as you do everyone. where the hell i have been rude to you?

Im not rude to anyone.


I have asked and asked you the same questions and still not had an answer.
The same as alot of people have also asked you alot of questions but still not answered.


----------



## patty19 (23 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Patty, what _exactly_ do you know about horses? 

[/ QUOTE ]

If I told you I knew every detail of every horse I would be lying because I dont. Though I know the majority of the animals were in good condition and a couple were on antibiotics and another was given bute until the farriar could get out. He had concerns about a little Gray so he called Katie Robinson out to look at it and she said it was ok - that little Gray died on  the morning of the raid.

However, I know more about JG and his business.

Most of the siezed animals were purchased in the couple of months leading up to the raid - a couple he had owned for longer. Some of the animals were pets which he had owned for many years - some were pets that he had owned for less time. 

Mr Gray would buy and sell horses from the UK, Holland and Belgium. He is also a member of several equine organizations. He sold alot of colourds in Holland which he would purchase from the UK. 

Some of the horses Mr Gray would buy may be in less than great condition but he would build them up and sell them on. This he was doing when the raid took place. One horse was actually rescued by him and he was treating it with antibiotics - that horse would have gone to the knacker man if Mr Gray had not taken it - that horse was seized by the RSPCA. Another horse had a bad eye and that too was being treated. Mr Gray gave evidence of this in court.

Mr Gray was not into the meat trade and anyone who knows him and has had dealings with him (and I have spoken to a hell of alot of people) will tell you how outrageous this whole thing is. Then the court case just confirmed the information that I had already gathered from many sources and from the SF yard itself.

I got intouch with my contact and went to SF the following day. TBH, I had a very baised idea about horse traders until I entered the yard of SF. The beds were NOT in the condition as reported, and I believe this one little thing got me to dig deeper and ask more questions. I do not reget a moment of it.

Oh, and the women of the family have no dealing what so ever with the horses. If PW knows as much as he says he does then he will confirm this. But being he just bangs on about [****] he'll probably tell you different.


----------



## patty19 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why Dont you patty start answering questions  that people keep asking instead of going the same crap you keep on repeating? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I have answere questions but why the hell should I answer more when YOU LOT have not got a decent bone in your bodies talk to me in a civilized manner? 

[/ QUOTE ]

 Sorry but if you bother to check my posts please quote me as you do everyone. where the hell i have been rude to you?

Im not rude to anyone.


I have asked and asked you the same questions and still not had an answer.
The same as alot of people have also asked you alot of questions but still not answered. 

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
*Why Dont you patty start answering questions  that people keep asking instead of going the same crap you keep on repeating?* 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but I see this comment as anything but civilized.


----------



## dozzie (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 It is easy enough to find out if there was permission to bury any animals. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

I wouldnt know how easy it is tbh. I am also not sure as to when the law changed requiring owners of horse to have permission to bury them. Some of the animals could have been buried before the law changed. 

I agree that disposal was an issue but not sure whether it was against the law as it stands. So the law should be changed. Bring it into line with farm animals and there would be no haziness. All fallen stock has to be disposed of within 24 hours or face a fine unless there are mitigating circumstances. Stop any burials of horses. 


Re the horse with severe diarrhoea

TBH I looked at it and thought bloody hell. How can anyone let that happen. Then I thought if I was presented with that what would I think and do. (If the horse had been ok previously) The first thing I would think was a flush of grass had upset the horses gut or it had a worm problem. If it had come on suddenly I would go for grass first. (If I had wormed the horse a few weeks previously I honestly dont think I would have expected a huge redworm burden in January. Knowing what i now know about encysted redworm eruption, I would now!) I would have cleaned the horse up, fed it hay, and monitored it. I would not have had an emergency call out. If it had continued I would have called the vet. I think my vet would have done blood tests to establish the cause. I honestly dont think my vet would have PTS that mare without blood tests. 

My advice to anyone posting would be monitor it and discuss it with your vet, not the forum! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





There is a post in vets at the moment about it. 

RE the eye injury

TBH I cant actually work out from the picture what has happened and what is wrong so cant say what I would do. I cant work out whether the horse has an eye missing (Could be the blind mare they talked about)  and an injury underneath or whether the eye is closed with conjunctivitis. 
So if someone presented that picture on here my advice would be clean it up with salt water initially and then ask a vet!


----------



## Amymay (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Patty, what exactly do you know about horses? 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If I told you I knew every detail of every horse I would be lying because I dont. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

Sorry, you've misunderstood my question - which was in response to Mother Hen's assertion that these animals were low end stock, to which you sounded suprised at.

I think my question could have been better phrased to perhaps something like 'Do you know the difference between quality stock, and that which is not quality?' as clearly the equine stock being purchased by Mr Gray was inferior.  Part of his defence was based on this fact.


----------



## Natch (24 May 2009)

Ok I'll bite tonight.

Patty. People started off civilly toward you. They then got extremely frustrated with your posting style, demanding a lot but never really coming up with the goods when questionned yourself. That is why there are comments that you find unvcivilised. Your tactics are fascinating if a little repetitive. 

With regards to the original topic here, A man killed a dog. Straight out, without it going through any suffering before it died.

People have pointed out why the RSPCA cannot act. Quite frankly, yes I am appauled that he kicked the dog, but there are far greater instances of animal cruelty going on every day that I would rather the RSPCA prossecuted for. At least the dog did not suffer for any length of time. 

The dispatch of rabbits via shotgun and rats with a shovel was discussed. You appear not to have a problem with rabbits being shot, but you seem to think there is a difference between that and a rat being hit with a shovel (something you may not be familliar with but frankly I have used this flipping method and the rodents die instantly). You by default of being involved in a food chain that sees thousands of animals killed every day, accept that killing animals that are not pets is ok. So you seem to be saying that it is cruel if the animal is a pet or if the dispatch method is not a shotgun.

I repeat what others have said: does the method really matter if the animal is killed instantly?


----------



## SpruceRI (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Patty, what _exactly_ do you know about horses? 

[/ QUOTE ]



Most of the siezed animals were purchased in the couple of months leading up to the raid - 

Mr Gray would buy and sell horses from the UK, Holland and Belgium. 
 He sold alot of colourds in Holland which he would purchase from the UK. 

Some of the horses Mr Gray would buy may be in less than great condition but he would build them up and sell them on. 

Mr Gray was not into the meat trade 




[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that Mr Gray is in the Riding Pony trade then?

Or is he a breeder?

He builds some of them up and sells them onto Holland etc, and some he allows to fail, fall ill, die and rot away?

This doesn't sound like a normal stud breeding operation to me, nor that of a horse dealer in the normal sense.

They normally clean the horses up, break and school them and sell on and hopefully make a tidy profit.

So do buyers in Holland want horses with matted coats and bones sticking out everywhere?

Sorry Patty if you think I'm being thick.  But this still doesn't add up.


----------



## patty19 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Sorry, you've misunderstood my question - which was in response to Mother Hen's assertion that these animals were low end stock, to which you sounded suprised at.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not suprised at that MH said they were low end stock. But MH made a comment to which she has no evidence what so ever of.

MH said&gt;&gt;&gt;I have no idea how he made any money, since most of the horses he appeared to purchase were very much at the lower end of the scale and *there was no real sign of them being brought on as suitable riding horses, or having their condition improved to the point where they would attract a higher price.*

How does she know that Mr Gray was not trying to improve their conditions?

How does she know that they had not improved since Mr Gray brought them?

How does she know that none of the animals were riding horses? 

How does she know that none of them were riding horses when Mr Gray brought them?

That was the reason for my question.


----------



## Amymay (24 May 2009)

F*ck this is boring now......


----------



## horseygirl28 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty has nothing to back up her statements either yet you believe her! 

[/ QUOTE ]

But Pattys statements do not need backing up because i know they are all true.


----------



## patty19 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I'll bite tonight.

Patty. People started off civilly toward you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please!!! If their inital posts to me is their idea of being civil I'd hate to see their ideas of being uncivil.

[ QUOTE ]
They then got extremely frustrated with your posting style, demanding a lot but never really coming up with the goods when questionned yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

They got frustrated because I was defending JG. And I have answered questions and posted photos but 2 of those photos have been questioned as being ungenuine. I know they are.

They have questioned the photos but have not answered how the animal welfare officers, police officer and others, are supposed to have got in the pictures if they were not genuine.

[ QUOTE ]
That is why there are comments that you find unvcivilised. Your tactics are fascinating if a little repetitive. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, they are uncivilised because I am defending JG.

[ QUOTE ]
With regards to the original topic here, A man killed a dog. Straight out, without it going through any suffering before it died.

People have pointed out why the RSPCA cannot act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please!!! If the RSPCA wanted to act then they could have.

How long was it before the police got the RSPCA involved?


[ QUOTE ]
Quite frankly, yes I am appauled that he kicked the dog, but there are far greater instances of animal cruelty going on every day that I would rather the RSPCA prossecuted for. At least the dog did not suffer for any length of time. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but kicking a little dog to death is nothing but evil and cruel and no one should get away with such a despicable crime against a defencless animal. I dont know how his girlfriend kept her hands off him tbh.

[ QUOTE ]
The dispatch of rabbits via shotgun and rats with a shovel was discussed. You appear not to have a problem with rabbits being shot, but you seem to think there is a difference between that and a rat being hit with a shovel (something you may not be familliar with but frankly I have used this flipping method and the rodents die instantly).

[/ QUOTE ]


You have most certainly misunderstood me somehow. There is no way in this world would I ever believe it was okay to shoot rabbits just for the sake of it.  And as for hitting rats with a shovel, I personally feel that is cruel but being I am petrified of them if I was put into a no way out possition I may well do the same but would probably feel bad after. 

[ QUOTE ]
You by default of being involved in a food chain that sees thousands of animals killed every day, accept that killing animals that are not pets is ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. However I dont disagree with animals being instantly killed for food. But I do disagree with live export where animals are crammed tight into lorries then driven 100's of miles. I only buy british meat.

[ QUOTE ]
So you seem to be saying that it is cruel if the animal is a pet or if the dispatch method is not a shotgun.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure how I have given you that idea. I dont agree with killing any animal just for the sake of killing.

I'll probably be pounced upon now but I dont agree with fox hunting either. That said, I dont know too much about it and my idea of the sport may be baised. 


[ QUOTE ]
I repeat what others have said: does the method really matter if the animal is killed instantly? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no.

Yes, if the animal is killed for no good reason, and no, if the animal is killed for a good reason.


----------



## patty19 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I'm so pleased to have brightened poor Patty's dreary night time hours!

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure did - thank you.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[ QUOTE ]
I used to work in Dover and it was not uncommon for illegal good to be smuggled in horseboxes and trailers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont disbelieve you. I would'nt think twice of grassing on a drug dealer/smuggler. They are scumbags who dont care for the fact that those drugs get into the hands of children. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[ QUOTE ]
The confiscated trailers were lined up underneath the viaduct and they and the horses went to auction after the trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good!!!


[ QUOTE ]
And talking of trials Mr Gray is in Folkestone Mags on the 27th and 28th of May. The case is being brought by Kent Trading Standards and relates to tranportation offences. One charge I believe relates to *travelling horses in a lorry with inadequate partitions.*

[/ QUOTE ]

First I've heard of it - I'll try to find out.


[ QUOTE ]
One has to ask why anybody travelling a horse with value, unlike a meat animal, would want to risk damaging it? 

[/ QUOTE ]

All this about JG being a meat man is total rubbish. He told the court that he was not in the meat trade and the prosection seemed happy that he was not. Even the RSPCA know he's not into the meat business.

There is no law against it anyway so why would he have to deny it?


----------



## patty19 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


So you're saying that Mr Gray is in the Riding Pony trade then?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO - he was a horse trader. That means he buys ALL types.

[ QUOTE ]
Or is he a breeder?

[/ QUOTE ]

No but sometimes brought mares that were already in foal. However, I do believe he had a stallion which he used on several mares in the past. But buying and selling was what he did.


[ QUOTE ]
He builds some of them up and sells them onto Holland etc, and some he allows to fail, fall ill, die and rot away?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only Holland - and no he never allowed any to fail and die. John Parker made a suggestion in general about some horse traders but Mr Gray believed that to be cruel. JG brought and sold horses of all breeds, shapes, and sizes. He did not parcifically aim to buy animals in less than great condition. He would sometimes buy horses to build up if he though they had a chance. But like I said, he did not parcifically aim to buy such horses.

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't sound like a normal stud breeding operation to me, nor that of a horse dealer in the normal sense.

They normally clean the horses up, break and school them and sell on and hopefully make a tidy profit.

So do buyers in Holland want horses with matted coats and bones sticking out everywhere?

Sorry Patty if you think I'm being thick.  But this still doesn't add up. 

[/ QUOTE ]

JG did not sell horses with matted coats and bones sticking out. So if people in holland brought such animals then they would not have brought them from JG.

A vet needs to examine and issue health certifcates for every animal for export so therefore, JG could not possibly have taken such animals abroad.

How many of those animals that were published can be described in the way you have described them?


----------



## Happy Horse (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patty has nothing to back up her statements either yet you believe her! 

[/ QUOTE ]

But Pattys statements do not need backing up because i know they are all true. 

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this how exactly?


----------



## Happy Horse (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 The first thing I would think was a flush of grass had upset the horses gut or it had a worm problem. If it had come on suddenly I would go for grass first. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

In January!!  You must have some pretty amazing grass where you come from!


----------



## Happy Horse (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
The beds were NOT in the condition as reported  

[/ QUOTE ] 

They quite clearly are in all the images with horses in shown in the video.  You have shown a picture of an empty barn and a close up of some fresh straw.  Like I say you have shown nothing to prove what you are saying - the video shows the evidence to be correct.


----------



## Happy Horse (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I got intouch with my contact and went to SF the following day.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

So you went the day after the seizures so had no idea of the conditions the horses were actually being kept in as you did not see any horses in any of the barns during your visit?  Is this correct?


----------



## tania01 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why Dont you patty start answering questions  that people keep asking instead of going the same crap you keep on repeating? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I have answere questions but why the hell should I answer more when YOU LOT have not got a decent bone in your bodies talk to me in a civilized manner? 

[/ QUOTE ]

 Sorry but if you bother to check my posts please quote me as you do everyone. where the hell i have been rude to you?

Im not rude to anyone.


I have asked and asked you the same questions and still not had an answer.
The same as alot of people have also asked you alot of questions but still not answered. 

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
*Why Dont you patty start answering questions  that people keep asking instead of going the same crap you keep on repeating?* 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but I see this comment as anything but civilized. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry so your civilized then?as you yourself have used that before.

Why dont you stop beating around the bush and answer the questions that you keep avoiding?


----------



## Stateside (24 May 2009)

Maybe a MP in the making,  
MP's never answer a question they are asked,


----------



## brighteyes (24 May 2009)

<font color="blue">In January!! You must have some pretty amazing grass where you come from!   </font> 

Global warming, don't y'know  
	
	
		
		
	


	




  ^^I was thinking that, too.

It's <font color="blue">parcifically</font> green down there after Christmas. 

This is a new word (we appear not to have learned) from our verbally unrestrained friend with all the details but none of the answers.  I am genuinely full of admiration (in a strange sense) over how patty can continue with this hocus pocus, carrot-dangling and unsubstantiated counter-claiming.

Someone else mentioned about transparency.  I bought my horse off a dealer.  My lad was, by all accounts, a lice-ridden skeleton before his arrival here in England and she admitted having kept him 'rugged up' and out of sight during his transformation to the shiny, bright and genuine little horse I saw on that day and which he remains.  Her others, on arrival from the same place, looked well-covered and were ready, after some schooling (which I also witnessed taking place) for almost immediate sale.  The population there changed every few weeks and I don't think there were ever any deaths (other than one pts on the premises and removed that afternoon) due to a tragic accident in the field.

I went a few times on such short notice that a mass tidy-up would have been impossible and everywhere was always clean and smart with an air of professionalism.  I bought my horse for well under £2k so we aren't talking specialist imports, just your middle range ponies and horses, cobs and the odd papered Connemara.

What I am getting at, if JG was a normal, active (as it appears) non-meat trade dealer, why has nobody heard of what happens to the horses and ponies he has had through his 'operation' or had any general behind the scenes experience? If he was a 'wholesaler' how many middle-men can such low-end animals stand before the price becomes simply unrealistic.

If it wasn't a cover for some illict other dealing, as has been suggested and _ might_ go some way towards maintaining/explaining some sort of profitability, how on earth did he ever make any money at all carrying on as it appears he did?

It is very odd and very sad when you remember all the unfortunate animals caught up in the operaton.


----------



## Jiffy (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
...

However, I know more about JG and his business.

...I got intouch with my contact and went to SF the following day. TBH, I had a very baised idea about horse traders until I entered the yard of SF. The beds were NOT in the condition as reported, and I believe this one little thing got me to dig deeper and ask more questions. I do not reget a moment of it... 

[/ QUOTE ]

Why were you allowed access to SF the day after the raid?  

You must have been very perceptive to decide to dig deeper after just seeing that some of the beds might have been in different conditions,  but should not make a generalised sweeping statement

[ QUOTE ]
...The beds were NOT in the condition as reported...

[/ QUOTE ]

Without evidence to support it, it means nothing and writing NOT in capital letters does nothing to reinforce the message.

What evidence was there to suggest that all the animals at SF were maintained in a well-run, well-kept, healthy environment?


----------



## brighteyes (24 May 2009)

Ha ha - the 'style' is very familiar isn't it!  Answer a question with another question, chuck in some rhetoric and a bit of side-tracking, and you come away bamboozled -_almost_, but not this time...


----------



## RantBucket (24 May 2009)

I cant for the life of me think why Patty Wainthropp thinks that JG and his family are such lovely people. JG was after all charged and found guilty of animal cruelty in 2006, he also was charged and found guilty of vandalising an RSPCA vehicle and found guilty of assault on PC Metcalfe, he also made a statement under oath saying his family were involved in the running of the family business, and later lied in court saying that he was solely responsible for the running of the business. We all saw on TV what sort of a person Jamie Gray junior is when he left the court after the verdict, and as for the female members of the family just look at their faces they are as hard as nails.


----------



## dozzie (24 May 2009)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [ QUOTE ]


In January!! You must have some pretty amazing grass where you come from! 

[/ QUOTE ] 

I do have good grass yes but probably should have said changes in the sugar levels which can occur at that time of year due to the frosts etc. Hence why some horses get laminitis in January even though they may not be overweight.

Whatever. 

I dont believe my vet would  have put down  that horse without further tests first. I will ask him at some point.


----------



## jhoward (24 May 2009)

im just going to point out that patty hasnt said anything new atall. 

every word that she has spat out has been near enough exactley the same info that is avalible to us all via the details of the case. 

she doesnt know anything guys, only the voices in her own head.


----------



## RantBucket (24 May 2009)

That's true jhoward, maybe she should have counselling for the voices!


----------



## gingermuffin (24 May 2009)

Patty, please don't trouble yourself with finding out about JG's attendance at Folkestone Mags this week. I shall contact the listings office first thing on Tuesday morning for confirmation of the date and exact charges.
Unfortunately I am unable to believe everything you have been told and passed on to this forum to be the truth, please note that I am not suggesting that you have lied.
You may remember your absolute denial that JG had a previous criminal conviction, you claimed he won on appeal whereas the truth was the 2006 conviction was upheld.
Following through with my legal thread, does anyone know the outcome of the hearing on the 20th April at High Wycombe Mags where JG was facing 3 charges of failing to disclose a criminal record when applying for a transportation licence and 2 counts of failing to dispose of animal carcasses?


----------



## brighteyes (24 May 2009)

<font color="blue">Patty Wainthropp   </font> 

Sorry, that's sooo funny


----------



## the watcher (24 May 2009)

patty, I am entitled as the next person to have a view and express it - you are just as entitled to believe i am wrong, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Setting aside anything I might have known about JG before the raid and seizures, there is no real mention in any of the court papers regarding JG having any interest in properly producing animals for sale. He should have been able to produce a passport of each and every animal, together with a vaccination record, together with some notes as to veterinary treatment if necessary, together with notes on how the animal is to handle and to ride or drive, whether it loads well, is good for the farrier (that's a laugh, but let's play this game a little longer) and dentist and some kind of schedule for feeding for condition and workload.

Workload - ha, there is no sign at all that any of these animals were ridden or driven regularly - they certainly were not being produced as working animals. This raises the question, what were they to be sold as?

So, my opinion stands. these were either cheap badly bred animals, or nicer horses that had fallen on hard times into the unsympathetic and cruel hands of this family.

To address your point on travellers and horses - do you see the world through rose tinted glasses? Yes, some have very nice horses - an equal number or more have skinny inbred knackers.

How did he have the money to buy more horses? Cr*p horses are cheap at auction, you could fill a lorry for £1000 - it would cost you a good deal more than that to keep and feed them though - this is where the effects of the economic crunch can be seen throughout the country as horses are being sold, sent to rescue centres or just discarded as they cost money to keep properly.


----------



## shellonabeach (24 May 2009)

*PATTY* 

Spaniel asked a question on the post started by jhoward which you omitted to answer:

 [ QUOTE ]
 PATTY.....Given that you are so adament that you saw all these proceedings in court and that YOU saw these photos when they were produced in court could you answer something for me please??

Exactly HOW were you able to SEE all this evidence given, you are not on either the prosecution or the defence team???

There was no jury in this case so I must assume you were in the public gallery....do you have xray vision or maybe binoculars??

I would like a proper answer please not just the standard I was there and I saw rubbish that you have been coming out with....  

[/ QUOTE ]

I for one would be very interested to hear your answer to this question.

And while you are at it please would you provide me with the information "from your notes" which you promised regarding the sick horses on the SF video.


----------



## horseygirl28 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patty has nothing to back up her statements either yet you believe her! 

[/ QUOTE ]

But Pattys statements do not need backing up because i know they are all true. 

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this how exactly? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I just do


----------



## gingermuffin (24 May 2009)

PMSL!!!!!
Now going back out into the sunshine to enjoy another Pimms
Cheers!


----------



## competitiondiva (24 May 2009)

Patty please could you answer me a question?...

You state that JG sold horses abroad to Holland and other countries and by your own admission he bought low end quality horses and ponies.  What was he selling these animals abroad for if not meat????  If this is the case he clearly is in the meat market.

This of course bares no relevance to the case, it's just that you have denied that he is in the meat trade so I wondered what he sold these horses for?

Also I just want to clarify one thing?

In your view then if JG is innocent of charges then can you guarantee that every horse, pony and donkey at SF which was sick, injured and/or underweight received the correct feeding, veterinary medication and care each needed? And this could be proved with veterinary records????


----------



## dozzie (24 May 2009)

http://www.irishcob.nl/IndexEng.htm

I thought the same as you but there clearly is a market for irish cobs on the continent.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





There are also organisations for Irish/traditionals in other European countries too.

ETA Found this too. 
http://irishcobsociety.net/Belgie/


----------



## teddyt (24 May 2009)

PATTY- Som more questions for you to answer please, seeing as you know so much about JG-

1) You are against animal cruelty and believe it should be punished. Can you explain, exactly, why you dont feel the horses in the videos of SF are suffering? I.e. why you think its acceptable for horses to have their eyes closed through infection, unable to stand, etc?
2) Just why were there so many dead horses? If JG treated poorly animals (as i expect you wil say in answer to Q1) then why were there so may dead and ill ones? And why werent they disposed of when dead?
3) If, as you say, JG was dealing in riding horses, why were so many of the horses either dead, half dead, seriously ill/emaciated, scared and unhandled. If he had these horses to make money how exactly was he making money on horses in such a state?
4) You said in a previous post that JG bought more lorry loads of horses, in response to someone who thought maybe he couldnt afford to keep the original ones. Why exactly did he do this when clearly the ones he already had were in a state?

All in all my point is that you maintain JG is not guilty of animal cruelty and dealt in riding horses. Yet the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise, hence he was found guilty. Exactly why he had those horses is unclear, but you certainly havnt presented any evidence to back up your claims they were well cared for and produced for riding. There is a sordid reason for his ownership of those horses and as i said earlier, no justification whatsoever for the state they were in.


----------



## Happy Horse (24 May 2009)

Patty still hasn't been able to answer the question why a supposedly genuine caring dealer didn't bother to have any post mortems carried out when his horses began dying of unknown causes.  He made no attempt to identify the cause and had no way of knowing whether it would spread to the other horses.  He was happy to just let them rot.


----------



## Happy Horse (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patty has nothing to back up her statements either yet you believe her! 

[/ QUOTE ]

But Pattys statements do not need backing up because i know they are all true. 

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this how exactly? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I just do  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

It must be true then!  Did you know the word gullible has been taken out of the dictionary?


----------



## RantBucket (24 May 2009)

I think nocturnal Patty will be jumping out of bed any time now, ready to give us the benefit of her pearls of wisdom  O goody gumdrops!


----------



## QUICKFIRE (24 May 2009)

IMO I think nocturnal pratty is in the same bed as JG and is as disillusional as him if she thinks thoses horses were well looked after, perhaps she is on the drugs he was smuggling,


----------



## patty19 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
The beds were NOT in the condition as reported 

They quite clearly are in all the images with horses in shown in the video.  You have shown a picture of an empty barn and a close up of some fresh straw.  Like I say you have shown nothing to prove what you are saying - the video shows the evidence to be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO they was not. That barn was not being used. I have explained this and this was given in evidence in court. Plus Claire Ryder told the court that she never had any concerns about the beds, feed, water..etc. That barn was used for those photos. I dont expect you to believe me but it's the truth. 


I showed you beds that were at the farm when I went there on the 10th of Jan 08. And I showed you a bed with a little donkey lying down and part of her mother can be seen standing beside her.

I am not disagreeing that the barn in the video was not good but that is not all Mr Grays barns.....those animals were moved into that barn by the RSPCA.

Mr Gray was having that barn cleared out on the 9th when the RSPCA arrived and got the police to stop the man in his machine from doing any more. Kirsty Hampton denied this in court but her peers didn't. They told the court exactly what Mr Gray told the court.

The photos of the haystack, a close up photo of the fresh straw, and the photo that looks a bit blury of a barn with straw, were taken by me on the 10th of Jan 08.


----------



## patty19 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


So you went the day after the seizures so had no idea of the conditions the horses were actually being kept in as you did not see any horses in any of the barns during your visit?  Is this correct? 

[/ QUOTE ]

That is absolutey correct.

However, Claire Ryder knew the conditions and how they were being kept, and she didnt have a problem with it. Kirsty Hampton like me, didnt have a clue but she saw one dirty bed and overlooked the rest which were clean. Notice how she didnt mention these beds nor the fact that she had a man removed who was cleaning that barn when they arrived at SF.

Who informed the media? 

Who wanted the publicity?

How did that news helicoptor know were to hover?

Where is the justification for the RSPCA to walk onto someones property, kill 3 horses plus a foal, refuse the owner the right to a second opinion, and not offer an independent post mortem, then destroy the evidence?

Then to make allegations that 111 horses were starved or emaciated. Some were emaciated without a doubt, but not 111!   (2 or 3 I believe - one was a rescue by JG)

The RSPCA had no idea at that time if JG had owned them a day a week or a month. They should not have made those allegations.

Yet good old KH and RS gave live press interviews claiming all this.


Please people dont ever be so naive to think you and your animals are safe - YOU'RE NOT!!


----------



## bexandspooky (24 May 2009)

*sighs* Patty, I shall ask my questions for the 3rd time - my post that was ignored in the other post is copied below in Purple writing.

If you want people to believe what you are saying, you are going to have to start answering some of this stuff 

 <font color="purple">Ok - I understand that you havent ever said all of the dead horses were dug up, but that wasn't actually the question I asked.

I shall break it down into a few more basic lines so that we are both clear what it is I am trying to establish 

1 - What connection do you have with the greys?

2 - Why do you have such an interest in this case?

3 - For what purpose are you collating this information?

4 - Do you have evidence of the horses that were dug up?

5 - Why did the horses in the above photo's remain decomposing for such a long period of time (note - due to the level of decomposition, I am assuming the length of time was more than say 'a couple of weeks' which would more than compensate for any christmas period delays)

As you say that you have answered these things before and they were lost, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering them again?!

Many thanks and look forward to your clarification! 
  </font>  

Your ignoring of questions like this make you difficult to believe.


----------



## Happy Horse (24 May 2009)

Don't be ridiculous - those barns had horses in them to get into those conditions and the barns with the horses in and the pony down by the trough are disgusting!  It's funny he complains about not being offered a post mortem when he chose not to have any done himself when the horses started dying.

If JG knew someone was going in for a look the next day he could well have put fresh beds down so you would try and convince people that is how they were.  The pictures tell a different story and you can't deny that.  Your pictures prove nothing at all and as you never actually saw any of the animals on the day they were seized you really know nothing at all about what the vets and Inspectors reported.  As has been said many times you haven't proved anything despite saying you have evidence that would do so.

Is there anyone in the case that you are not accusing of lying other than JG and his prosecution witnesses?  It is a cover up to end all cover ups if your story is to be believed.

Still I am sure the sentence will prove the case 
	
	
		
		
	


	





By the way other than spouting off on here are you doing anything else if you are so convinced he is innocent?


----------



## patty19 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Sorry so your civilized then?as you yourself have used that before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not - but then I'm not the one making the claim that I'm never rude.

[ QUOTE ]
Why dont you stop beating around the bush and answer the questions that you keep avoiding? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I have answered questions over and over again. But if people dont wish to reply like civilized adults then I wont answer like one. 

Sorry but I do not respect people being are uncivil to me - so they can stick their questions where the sun dont shine. Rude? Yes, I believe so.


----------



## RantBucket (24 May 2009)

F5
F5
F5
I wonder if Patty will answer bexandspooky questions, this will be interesting.....
F5
F5
F5
No not yet....


----------



## brighteyes (24 May 2009)

It's like Groundhog Day.


----------



## RantBucket (24 May 2009)

Come on people say pretty please when asking Patty a question
And thank you very much when she replies or you will never get a proper reply


----------



## teddyt (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
PATTY- Som more questions for you to answer please, seeing as you know so much about JG-

1) You are against animal cruelty and believe it should be punished. Can you explain, exactly, why you dont feel the horses in the videos of SF are suffering? I.e. why you think its acceptable for horses to have their eyes closed through infection, unable to stand, etc?
2) Just why were there so many dead horses? If JG treated poorly animals (as i expect you wil say in answer to Q1) then why were there so may dead and ill ones? And why werent they disposed of when dead?
3) If, as you say, JG was dealing in riding horses, why were so many of the horses either dead, half dead, seriously ill/emaciated, scared and unhandled. If he had these horses to make money how exactly was he making money on horses in such a state?
4) You said in a previous post that JG bought more lorry loads of horses, in response to someone who thought maybe he couldnt afford to keep the original ones. Why exactly did he do this when clearly the ones he already had were in a state?

All in all my point is that you maintain JG is not guilty of animal cruelty and dealt in riding horses. Yet the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise, hence he was found guilty. Exactly why he had those horses is unclear, but you certainly havnt presented any evidence to back up your claims they were well cared for and produced for riding. There is a sordid reason for his ownership of those horses and as i said earlier, no justification whatsoever for the state they were in. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Patty, here is my previous post, maybe you missed it so havnt answered my questions? They are genuine questions and it would be helpful if you could answer them.


----------



## bexandspooky (24 May 2009)

Anything Patty? 

Do you have me on user ignore perhaps? 

I hope not as I believe that I have been nothing but civil and inquisitive - look forward to your reply.


----------



## patty19 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
patty, I am entitled as the next person to have a view and express it - you are just as entitled to believe i am wrong, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you are but when you say things like....

*there was no real sign of them being brought on as suitable riding horses, or having their condition improved to the point where they would attract a higher price.*

I have to ask the following questions.....

How do you know that Mr Gray was not trying to improve their conditions?

How do you know that they had not improved since Mr Gray brought them?

How do you know that none of the animals were riding horses? 

How do you know that none of them were riding horses when Mr Gray brought them?

[ QUOTE ]
Setting aside anything I might have known about JG before the raid and seizures, there is no real mention in any of the court papers regarding JG having any interest in properly producing animals for sale.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell there's no evidence that he starved his animals to death - that he's a meat man or drug smuggler. Thats all nothing but rubbish.


[ QUOTE ]
He should have been able to produce a passport of each and every animal, together with a vaccination record, together with some notes as to veterinary treatment if necessary, together with notes on how the animal is to handle and to ride or drive, whether it loads well, is good for the farrier (that's a laugh, but let's play this game a little longer) and dentist and some kind of schedule for feeding for condition and workload.

[/ QUOTE ]

And he showed none of the above? Nor explained where some of those documents were? Or the court could not have got those documents as Mr Gray suggested they do?

Sorry to burst your bubble MH but all the documents Mr Gray produced to the court refuted every claim the RSPCA bought against him.


[ QUOTE ]
Workload - ha, there is no sign at all that any of these animals were ridden or driven regularly - they certainly were not being produced as working animals. This raises the question, what were they to be sold as?

[/ QUOTE ]

What proof do you expect then?

[ QUOTE ]
So, my opinion stands. these were either cheap badly bred animals, or nicer horses that had fallen on hard times into the unsympathetic and cruel hands of this family.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did tell the forum that PW's condition was contagious.

Have you seen those colts? They dont look to badly bred to me tbh. Have you seen the shetlands and donkys? They look pretty good bred too.

[ QUOTE ]
To address your point on travellers and horses - do you see the world through rose tinted glasses? Yes, some have very nice horses - an equal number or more have skinny inbred knackers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.....dont mean they starve or neglect them though. And a good horse makes a traveling man very proud.

[ QUOTE ]
How did he have the money to buy more horses? Cr*p horses are cheap at auction, you could fill a lorry for £1000 - it would cost you a good deal more than that to keep and feed them though - this is where the effects of the economic crunch can be seen throughout the country as horses are being sold, sent to rescue centres or just discarded as they cost money to keep properly. 

[/ QUOTE ]

So Mr Gray was short of money but brought horses by the lorry load to do what with them exactly?


----------



## tania01 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Sorry so your civilized then?as you yourself have used that before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not - but then I'm not the one making the claim that I'm never rude.

[ QUOTE ]
Why dont you stop beating around the bush and answer the questions that you keep avoiding? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I have answered questions over and over again. But if people dont wish to reply like civilized adults then I wont answer like one. 

Sorry but I do not respect people being are uncivil to me - so they can stick their questions where the sun dont shine. Rude? Yes, I believe so. 

[/ QUOTE ]



PATTY i will ask you nicely yet again for the 5th  time.


How can you prove what you know when you never knew of the grays before this came to light.?

You never knew of there lifestyle before but seem to or been fed crap before, can you prove ther innocent before this came to light?

Can you answer the questions that everyone keeps asking you that you keep on avoiding?


----------



## dozzie (24 May 2009)

Patty has stated she didnt know them and isnt related to them. 

She has answered the question time and time again.


----------



## patty19 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
*PATTY* 

Spaniel asked a question on the post started by jhoward which you omitted to answer:

[/ QUOTE ]

 [ QUOTE ]
 PATTY.....Given that you are so adament that you saw all these proceedings in court and that YOU saw these photos when they were produced in court could you answer something for me please??

Exactly HOW were you able to SEE all this evidence given, you are not on either the prosecution or the defence team???

There was no jury in this case so I must assume you were in the public gallery....do you have xray vision or maybe binoculars??

I would like a proper answer please not just the standard I was there and I saw rubbish that you have been coming out with....  

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I for one would be very interested to hear your answer to this question.


[/ QUOTE ]

I saw the evidence BEFORE the judge. 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 Like I said, my contacts got me further than I gave them credit for. I also saw the evidence again after the trial. 


[ QUOTE ]
And while you are at it please would you provide me with the information "from your notes" which you promised regarding the sick horses on the SF video. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant provide anything from my notes because I have not get them with me yet and wont have them with me for a while, but I will try to get this information another way.


----------



## teddyt (24 May 2009)

Patty, patty, where thou art thee patty? Tania, bexandspooky, myself (and probably others) all have perfectly straight forward questions that remain unanswered. Or are you avoiding the questions because you cant actually answer them? I will try and answer your questions, although i do not profess to being such an expert on the whole affair, as you are.

You wrote- I have to ask the following questions.....

How do you know that Mr Gray was not trying to improve their conditions?
ANSWER- If he was, he didnt try hard enough. Evidenced by the infected eyes, horses unable to stand, ill fitting rugs, dead bodies left lying around. That is hardly the actions of improving a horses welfare.

How do you know that they had not improved since Mr Gray brought them?
ANSWER- Many couldnt have been in a worse state.

How do you know that none of the animals were riding horses? 
ANSWER- The odd one or two maybe. But many were unhandled, scared, too thin, etc to be ridden

How do you know that none of them were riding horses when Mr Gray brought them?
ANSWER- im sure some were. They unluckily ended up at SF due to other people not caring sufficiently for their welfare too.

Right, ive answered some of your questions. Please can you answer mine?


----------



## dozzie (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 So Mr Gray was short of money but brought horses by the lorry load to do what with them exactly? 

[/ QUOTE ] 

Well obviously to smuggle drugs with them!


----------



## tania01 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 Patty has stated she didnt know them and isnt related to them. 

She has answered the question time and time again. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if i seem to of missed this as i dont seem to recall HER answering this.

If that is the case SHE  may answer what i still keep asking how can she prove there lifestyle before?


----------



## competitiondiva (24 May 2009)

For anyone interested here is the link to the case, it makes very interesting reading.  And yes JG did have a prior conviction for causing unnecessary suffering in 2006 and received a £3500 fine and was deprived of ownership of the animal and the conviction was upheld upon appeal.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others.pdf


----------



## tania01 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty, patty, where thou art thee patty? Tania, bexandspooky, myself (and probably others) all have perfectly straight forward questions that remain unanswered. Or are you avoiding the questions because you cant actually answer them? I will try and answer your questions, although i do not profess to being such an expert on the whole affair, as you are.

You wrote- I have to ask the following questions.....

How do you know that Mr Gray was not trying to improve their conditions?
ANSWER- If he was, he didnt try hard enough. Evidenced by the infected eyes, horses unable to stand, ill fitting rugs, dead bodies left lying around. That is hardly the actions of improving a horses welfare.

How do you know that they had not improved since Mr Gray brought them?
ANSWER- Many couldnt have been in a worse state.

How do you know that none of the animals were riding horses? 
ANSWER- The odd one or two maybe. But many were unhandled, scared, too thin, etc to be ridden

How do you know that none of them were riding horses when Mr Gray brought them?
ANSWER- im sure some were. They unluckily ended up at SF due to other people not caring sufficiently for their welfare too.

Right, ive answered some of your questions. Please can you answer mine? 

[/ QUOTE ]

She will get  the hump and beat about the bush as she does with alot of questions on here.

Teddyt do you expect an answer ?

She claims to know so much but for some unknown reason cant get the prove(there is a shock) not.

She has claimed for a long while to prove everyone   wrong,yet we are all waiting a year on and she now seems not to get hold of anything.

If she knew anything it would of come out by now.


----------



## patty19 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Why were you allowed access to SF the day after the raid? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I know some pretty cool contacts.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[ QUOTE ]
You must have been very perceptive to decide to dig deeper after just seeing that some of the beds might have been in different conditions,  but should not make a generalised sweeping statement

[/ QUOTE ]

Hand on heart I can honestly say that after seeing the condition of those beds I truely believe that this is what drove me dig and search deeper.

As many people I was aware that the RSPCA had been at SF on the 4th. My mother mentioned something about a fallen shetland and my reply to her was, no wonder the b&amp;stard got beat. 

[ QUOTE ]
...The beds were NOT in the condition as reported...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Without evidence to support it, it means nothing and writing NOT in capital letters does nothing to reinforce the message.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted photos to support it but those photos have been questioned. 

I have said some pretty bold things on this forum and I'm very aware of the trouble I could be in if I told a single lie let alone post fake photographs. I would not lie anyway, and certainly would not lie for someone who committed the crimes JG has been accused of. NEVER!!!!!  
	
	
		
		
	


	






[ QUOTE ]
What evidence was there to suggest that all the animals at SF were maintained in a well-run, well-kept, healthy environment? 

[/ QUOTE ]

That evidence was provided to the court. And I saw it before the trial but I dont have that evidence with me, and I have never had it soley to myself. I dont know if I ever will ever get my hands on it, but if and when I do - I will most certainly post it.


----------



## teddyt (24 May 2009)

No tania, i am new to this discussion but have now realised that genuine questions are not answered. Maybe patty should read competitiondivas link and realise that much of what she says is totally contradicted. I am disgusted. A horse dragged and kicked into a trailer and later found dead tied up in it, yet patty sees JG has done nothing wrong! Patty is obviously as sick as the gray family.


----------



## tania01 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
No tania, i am new to this discussion but have now realised that genuine questions are not answered. Maybe patty should read competitiondivas link and realise that much of what she says is totally contradicted. I am disgusted. A horse dragged and kicked into a trailer and later found dead tied up in it, yet patty sees JG has done nothing wrong! Patty is obviously as sick as the gray family. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn agree with you more she is in such  a world of her own she thinks the sun shines out of there backsides,they feed her so much rubbish she believes it.


----------



## tania01 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Why were you allowed access to SF the day after the raid? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I know some pretty cool contacts.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[ QUOTE ]
You must have been very perceptive to decide to dig deeper after just seeing that some of the beds might have been in different conditions,  but should not make a generalised sweeping statement

[/ QUOTE ]

Hand on heart I can honestly say that after seeing the condition of those beds I truely believe that this is what drove me dig and search deeper.

As many people I was aware that the RSPCA had been at SF on the 4th. My mother mentioned something about a fallen shetland and my reply to her was, no wonder the b&amp;stard got beat. 

[ QUOTE ]
...The beds were NOT in the condition as reported...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Without evidence to support it, it means nothing and writing NOT in capital letters does nothing to reinforce the message.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted photos to support it but those photos have been questioned. 

I have said some pretty bold things on this forum and I'm very aware of the trouble I could be in if I told a single lie let alone post fake photographs. I would not lie anyway, and certainly would not lie for someone who committed the crimes JG has been accused of. NEVER!!!!!  
	
	
		
		
	


	






[ QUOTE ]
What evidence was there to suggest that all the animals at SF were maintained in a well-run, well-kept, healthy environment? 

[/ QUOTE ]

That evidence was provided to the court. And I saw it before the trial but I dont have that evidence with me, and I have never had it soley to myself. I dont know if I ever will ever get my hands on it, but if and when I do - I will most certainly post it. 

[/ QUOTE ]

As  said before and keep saying you can prove things yet funny how you cant get hold of actual FACTS.


----------



## brighteyes (24 May 2009)

I'd say this little excerpt alone from the case for the defence shows how crap a businessman he is to buy stock he is hopelessly unqualified to judge the quality of - and that he apparently did so on a regular basis to have suffered so many losses and have such problems keeping them alive! 
 <font color="blue">In essence, she asserts that the horses James Gray buys are often compromised from their poor husbandry, before he gets them. He may not have them long and may not be aware of particular problems. He worms them routinely on his account, but he could not be expected to know whether equines had salmonellosis or cyathostomiasis, infections or parasite burdens which can breakout very quickly and cause death within 48 hours, especially during adverse weather conditions. She makes the point that conclusions reached by the veterinary surgeons at Spindles Farm and at the refuges and charities on starvation due to a failure to provide enough food should only have been reached after a full clinical examination. She relies upon levels of urea:creatinine having to fall below 0.07 to indicate starvation.The more obvious explanations for the loss of weight are parasitism and enteric gut infection.  </font>

Did he perhaps find a couple of world-beaters for the Whitakers once to offset the huge worming and veterinary costs he faced on a seemingly regular basis?


----------



## brighthair (24 May 2009)

I've just watched this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjYu-Wm5H8s

and I see malnourished horse, shitty beds, diarrhoea that is so severe it is caked on the tail, dead horses, skeletons

Patty - is that ok? Do you have horses, and would you keep them like that? Is it ok for me to?

I have had a malnourished horse on my yard before, and I have had one with diarrhoea. Both were seen promptly by the vet

Are you seriously deluded to think that the videos freely available to view show good living conditions for any animal?


----------



## patty19 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty please could you answer me a question?...

You state that JG sold horses abroad to Holland and other countries and by your own admission he bought low end quality horses and ponies.  What was he selling these animals abroad for if not meat????  If this is the case he clearly is in the meat market.

[/ QUOTE ]

By my own admission I have stated that he sometimes brought such animals if he thought they had a chance. He sold colourds in Holland. I doubt the colour of the animals would matter very much if he was taking them for meat. And like I have stated already - the meat trade is not against the law so why would there be a need to deny it?  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[ QUOTE ]
This of course bares no relevance to the case, it's just that you have denied that he is in the meat trade so I wondered what he sold these horses for?

[/ QUOTE ]

When he did have such animals he would improve on their condition and sell them. 

[ QUOTE ]
Also I just want to clarify one thing?

In your view then if JG is innocent of charges then can you guarantee that every horse, pony and donkey at SF which was sick, injured and/or underweight received the correct feeding, veterinary medication and care each needed? And this could be proved with veterinary records???? 

[/ QUOTE ]

After seeing the evidence and sitting through the case seeing the prosecutor trying to rip into Mr Gray, and seeing how that prosecutor failed, I absolutely without a shadow of a doubt believe so. But the red worm burden was not picked up on.


----------



## dozzie (24 May 2009)

Did you shoot the horse with severe diarrhoea without actually finding out what was wrong with it?


----------



## patty19 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
PATTY- Som more questions for you to answer please, seeing as you know so much about JG-

1) You are against animal cruelty

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, in every way, shape and form. 

[ QUOTE ]
and believe it should be punished.

[/ QUOTE ]

ABSOLUTELY!!! And severly punished too. Sadly the punishment for animals cruelty does not fit the crime.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain, exactly, why you dont feel the horses in the videos of SF are suffering? I.e. why you think its acceptable for horses to have their eyes closed through infection, unable to stand, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

If JG was not treating that eye then I believe he would be guilty of cruelty. But he was treating it and gave evidence. There was only 1 animal that was unable to stand and that went down on the 4th and Mr Gray took it in and tried to get it up then the RSPCA arrived.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Just why were there so many dead horses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please read my other posts.

[ QUOTE ]
If JG treated poorly animals (as i expect you wil say in answer to Q1) then why were there so may dead and ill ones?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, read my other posts. 

[ QUOTE ]
And why werent they disposed of when dead?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same as above.

[ QUOTE ]
3) If, as you say, JG was dealing in riding horses, why were so many of the horses either dead, half dead, seriously ill/emaciated, scared and unhandled.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that so? Please show me all the half dead, seriously ill/emaciated animals?

[ QUOTE ]
If he had these horses to make money how exactly was he making money on horses in such a state?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. Maybe you should ask the RSPCA that question if it is true that all those animals were in the state the RSPCA has had the nation believe.

[ QUOTE ]
4) You said in a previous post that JG bought more lorry loads of horses, in response to someone who thought maybe he couldnt afford to keep the original ones. Why exactly did he do this when clearly the ones he already had were in a state?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may have misunderstood that dialogue. I did not say he was buying lorry loads of horses - MH said it.

[ QUOTE ]
All in all my point is that you maintain JG is not guilty of animal cruelty and dealt in riding horses.

[/ QUOTE ]

JG was a horse trader  - he traded in all sorts of horses.


[ QUOTE ]
Yet the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise, hence he was found guilty. Exactly why he had those horses is unclear, but you certainly havnt presented any evidence to back up your claims they were well cared for and produced for riding.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the overwhelming evidence which suggests what it is you believe.

And I didnt say they were all produced for riding. JG would sometimes buy riding horses in. They, like most of his animals were sold on again.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a sordid reason for his ownership of those horses and as i said earlier, no justification whatsoever for the state they were in. 

[/ QUOTE ]

The state? 111?


----------



## patty19 (24 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty still hasn't been able to answer the question why a supposedly genuine caring dealer didn't bother to have any post mortems carried out when his horses began dying of unknown causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you LOOK you will see that I have replied to another poster who asked the SAME question. 

[ QUOTE ]
He made no attempt to identify the cause and had no way of knowing whether it would spread to the other horses.  He was happy to just let them rot. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Did he?


----------



## jhoward (24 May 2009)

PATTY 

JG had a half decent colt that was the reason he caused such a fuss with the police. he didnt want it removed. HOWEVER having seent the said colt it was in an awful condition, now why would he do that to a valuble colt? it was removed from the same [****] pit as the others. 

QUESTION 2 

you still have not answered my original question on the other thread.. 

HOW DO YOU EXPLAINE THE DIFFERNT HORSES IN THE DIFFERENT PICTURES. 

many many thanks for takign the time to reply to these TWO questions


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
IMO I think nocturnal pratty is in the same bed as JG and is as disillusional as him if she thinks thoses horses were well looked after, perhaps she is on the drugs he was smuggling, 

[/ QUOTE ]

1, JG did not smuggle drugs.

2, I am totally anti drugs and would love the pleasure of shopping a druggie to the police.

3, Gray headed men just dont do anything for me. So na, I would not be in bed with JG.

Think of something else you may just get something right - there's a first time for everything.


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
*sighs* Patty, I shall ask my questions for the 3rd time - my post that was ignored in the other post is copied below in Purple writing.

If you want people to believe what you are saying, you are going to have to start answering some of this stuff 

 <font color="purple">Ok - I understand that you havent ever said all of the dead horses were dug up, but that wasn't actually the question I asked.

I shall break it down into a few more basic lines so that we are both clear what it is I am trying to establish 

1 - What connection do you have with the greys?

2 - Why do you have such an interest in this case?

3 - For what purpose are you collating this information?

4 - Do you have evidence of the horses that were dug up?

5 - Why did the horses in the above photo's remain decomposing for such a long period of time (note - due to the level of decomposition, I am assuming the length of time was more than say 'a couple of weeks' which would more than compensate for any christmas period delays)

As you say that you have answered these things before and they were lost, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering them again?!

Many thanks and look forward to your clarification! 
  </font>  

Your ignoring of questions like this make you difficult to believe. 

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG, I cant believe I am being asked these exact same questions. LOOK for them or ask someone else who I have replied to concerning these questions. 

I'm starting to think people are just trying to wind me up by repeating the same old questions.


----------



## SpruceRI (25 May 2009)

Most dealers will advertise their satisfied customers.

Where does JG advertise his?


----------



## jhoward (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Most dealers will advertise their satisfied customers.

Where does JG advertise his? 

[/ QUOTE ]

potters? 

pedigree chum maybe? 

NOOOOOOOOOO i no he sells to france, then all the french rescue sites sell back to the uk.. sounds plausable to me!


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

QR

Jhoward dont be two faced by PM'ing me pretending to be all sweet and innocent. Along with PW you have got to be the most ungenuine person here.

As much as I disagree with the majority of posters here I respect them for that fact that they are not slagging me off in public whilst sending me polite little PM's.

You showed me your true colours last year after I spoke with you on the phone.

Grow up and have some respect for you friends here.


----------



## PalominoMare (25 May 2009)

I too have always wondered what the "business" was here. The drug smuggling idea didnt sound too off the wall to me but would there not have been traces of drugs found in the dead/rescued horses? Unless of course they were hidden in the lorry. I'm not sure how he could have been a dealer - would we not have seen adverts for him or heard of him as a "dealer" and not needed to ask these questions? We've all even heard of the dodgy dealers and know to steer clear. I also dont see why they would of wanted his horses in Holland or Belgium - even for their colouring, why would these countries (who breed an awful lot each year themseleves) take the conformational risk to breed from these horses, especially when theres only a 50% chance, at most unless homozygous, of a coloured foal. And they surely wouldnt want these coloureds to ride?? I think the evidence shows that they werent performance horses. 
I'm sure Samber and his progeny have left enough of a stamp to ensure good quality offspring over there - unless your meaning coloured as in palomino (or appys maybe?) but then we come face to face with the same genetic problems. 

I'm sure patty some people could agree with you if you constructed you argument properly, stopped saying "why the HELL" and ****, proved your knowledge of dealings and breeding and horse care. 

If anyone had seen "the 40 year old virgin" they will be aware of a scene where he chats up a girl in a bookstore. He doesnt know what to say to her so he asks he the question back i.e. Beth would say "are you single" and he would reply "are YOU single" (not a direct quote) but this thread is reminding me more and more of this movie! 

I guess no body can say your not a martyr but sometimes enough is enough!


----------



## SpruceRI (25 May 2009)

That's exactly what my original post was asking?

Why would people in Holland and Belgium buy JG's horses when no doubt they can produce horses of a similar type in their own country at less cost?


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Don't be ridiculous - those barns had horses in them to get into those conditions and the barns with the horses in and the pony down by the trough are disgusting!  It's funny he complains about not being offered a post mortem when he chose not to have any done himself when the horses started dying. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it had lots of horses in and out of there. But they were not kept in there. The pony lying down near the trough went down that day 4th Jan. JG tried to get it up. That pony had been in a field. Before JG could move it again the RSPCA arrived. Those horses were put in that barn by the RSPCA. I know you wont believe this but it's the truth.

The RSPCA were very selective as to which animals and beds they allowed to be published. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Every trader loses some stock, but JG lost more than he normally did. Was he stupid for not having PM's carried out? I believe so, but then I'm not a trader. I dont think traders have PM's carried out when they loose animls. Surley if he though they were dying of anything but natural deaths he would have done something to save his stock. He wanted PM's carried out on the animals that were PTS because being that they were shot he knew they did not die of natural causes and wanted to know the reason why the vet thought they needed to be PTS.. However, he was denied this oppertunity. I think there were 2 horses that JG believed had probably died of worms even though he worms them before he takes them off the lorry.



[ QUOTE ]
If JG knew someone was going in for a look the next day he could well have put fresh beds down so you would try and convince people that is how they were.

[/ QUOTE ]


If that was the case then he would have also put a fresh bed in the barn which is on the video. Plus the vet who often went to SF would have seen them and Claire Ryder who used to pay unexpected visits to the farm would have seen them.



[ QUOTE ]
The pictures tell a different story and you can't deny that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not denying that. The RSPCA did a good job at telling a story that would be fitting to those photos. It's not true though.

[ QUOTE ]
Your pictures prove nothing at all and as you never actually saw any of the animals on the day they were seized you really know nothing at all about what the vets and Inspectors reported.

[/ QUOTE ]

By such reasoning, if that is the case then the judge had no business judging the case because he was not there either - nor had he even visited the farm after the raid.

Sounds stupid when you look at it like that does it not?


[ QUOTE ]
As has been said many times you haven't proved anything despite saying you have evidence that would do so.

Is there anyone in the case that you are not accusing of lying other than JG and his prosecution witnesses?  It is a cover up to end all cover ups if your story is to be believed.

Still I am sure the sentence will prove the case 
	
	
		
		
	


	





By the way other than spouting off on here are you doing anything else if you are so convinced he is innocent? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I am indeed.


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Anything Patty? 

Do you have me on user ignore perhaps? 

I hope not as I believe that I have been nothing but civil and inquisitive - look forward to your reply.







[/ QUOTE ]

I dont have anyone on ignore.


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
PATTY 

JG had a half decent colt that was the reason he caused such a fuss with the police. 

[/ QUOTE ]

As per Jhoward you are wrong.



[ QUOTE ]
he didnt want it removed. HOWEVER having seent the said colt it was in an awful condition, now why would he do that to a valuble colt? it was removed from the same [****] pit as the others. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again kiddo.

[ QUOTE ]
QUESTION 2 

you still have not answered my original question on the other thread.. 

HOW DO YOU EXPLAINE THE DIFFERNT HORSES IN THE DIFFERENT PICTURES. 

many many thanks for takign the time to reply to these TWO questions 

[/ QUOTE ]

As I'm not quiet understanding your questions I would normally ask you to explain in a tad bit more detail, but as you think you are good at sarcasm I'd rather tell you to stick your questions else where and to come back once you've matured and grown a backbone.


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

QR

Horse and Hounds Maggy 14th May 2009.  

*"Rumours are that he sells horses for meat, but neither of the Uk's horse abbatoirs - Turners in Cheshire and Potters in Somerset- deals with him"*

And neither does anyother abbatoirs because he was not in the meat trade.


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Most dealers will advertise their satisfied customers.

Where does JG advertise his? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont know - dont care. But what are you suggesting by this?


----------



## siennamum (25 May 2009)

YAWN.....

What is the point of all this.

We all know you can't argue with fools like Patty and Dozzie. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience....... 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Not sure what satisfaction they get justifying JG or what the agenda is, but all this attention can't be good for them.


----------



## Happy Horse (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
YAWN.....

What is the point of all this.

We all know you can't argue with fools like Patty and Dozzie. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience....... 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Not sure what satisfaction they get justifying JG or what the agenda is, but all this attention can't be good for them. 

[/ QUOTE ]

You know you are right.  Patty has proved nothing at all and now the amazing evidence to prove her points is unlikely to appear, funny that!  There is no point expecting any proven evidence to support her statements, she was not there at the raid yet the vets and inspectors were and have evidence to support their findings.  I am just going to await the sentencing and be glad if the family are never allowed to have animals again.  Of course if this evidence from Patty does appear I'd be very interested in seeing it.


----------



## dozzie (25 May 2009)

Thank you for that insult Siennamum. 

I havent actually resorted to any insults so I would prefer it if people didnt insult me. 

I have spent so much time looking into this and other cases. There are huge issues IMO about  legal and civil rights which were abused and they are issues of which everyone should be aware. Because if they are not addressed, then anyone could have their animals seized/PTS by an RSPCA inspector without any way of stopping them. 

It is an offence to try to  stop an RSPCA inspector destroying your pet.

They can do this without consulting your vet, who may be involved in treating the animal. 

If you think that is right then that is your choice. 

Personally I dont. 

So it may well be that those horses were being treated by Jamie Gray. We dont actually know.


----------



## jhoward (25 May 2009)

PATTY i pmed you asking you to answer my questions seeing as you hadnt, so dont make it out that being nice to you. 

you dont actully answer any questions though do you. 

why would i be genuine to you when you have done nothing but spout out a load of garbage?


----------



## jrp204 (25 May 2009)

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others-witnesses.pdf

Don't know if this has been put on before.


----------



## Taboo1968 (25 May 2009)

good god is this debate still going????


----------



## jrp204 (25 May 2009)

So it seems, i haven't actually been following it up till this morning, so actually read through alot of it and then did a bit of googling, i'm not quite sure how anyone can defend any of the people at SF, but hey, i'm only saying that after reading the court stuff, so what do i know?


----------



## competitiondiva (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Because if they are not addressed, then anyone could have their animals seized/PTS by an RSPCA inspector without any way of stopping them. 

It is an offence to try to  stop an RSPCA inspector destroying your pet.

They can do this without consulting your vet, who may be involved in treating the animal. 



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you are wrong regarding the euthanasia, of course you cannot stop the seisure if they have warrants or with warranted officers but you can appeal, regarding euthanasia the rspca would only PTS an animal such as in this case under veterinary recommendation, this I can state as fact.  There are various cases where masses of animals have been seised (legally) and on being health checked by a VET quite often a euthanasia decision will be made immediately if their condition is that bad, others may be given a few more days for tests to come back etc but always in these cases under VET recommendation.

Dozzie the bay mare you state that the rspca shot without blood tests due to diahorea (sp?!!) was also the mare with the bad eye the review I have read said that both conditions lead to it's death.


----------



## teddyt (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


We all know you can't argue with fools like Patty and Dozzie. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience....... 
	
	
		
		
	


	







[/ QUOTE ]

So far i wouldnt say patty is beating anyone, quite the opposite. The idea of a good argument/debate/discussion is to get your point across and educate the other side about your way of thinking. Pattys argument has no credibility at all so far IMO. For example - stating JG worms all new arrivals on the lorry and he had vets treating his horses. Yet many apparently died of an undiagnosed worm infestation just like that. If thats the case the wormer was sh!t and so was his vet!

Pattys statements just dont add up. She (assuming patty is a woman) still comes on to defend the Grays and trys to go round in circles with a weak attempt at a game to wind people up. Patty certainly isnt helping JG, as she thinks she is, her evidence/statements just arent good enough. I think patty thinks she has good evidence and is making a good case in defence of JG but all she is actually doing is making herself look stupid and the Grays even more mentally weird than people think they are anyway. 

If patty is the vet and now trainee lawyer that someone earlier suggested then she definately needs more training. Her knowledge of animal welfare and ability to state a case are as dire as the conditions the horses were in.


----------



## gingermuffin (25 May 2009)

More than ever I'm now convinced that Patty is connected with an anti RSPCA group such as SHG and she's using JG's plight in an attempt to discredit them.
I wonder if the family are getting a bit twitchy about Patty's campaign which has lead to suggestions of dark dealings.
Are they now living in fear of a dawn raid by the drugs squad?


----------



## Taboo1968 (25 May 2009)

The suggestions of "dark dealings" has always been there since the start!!!


----------



## Tea_Biscuit (25 May 2009)

I'd begun to wonder the same thing myself after reading through the endless pages of the JG saga.  
According the Patty the RSPCA was wrong in their prosecution of JG even though they (the RSPCA) acted within the law and were able to provide sufficient evidence in court to get a conviction.  On the other hand, the RSPCA is wrong again for not pressing charges against the man who killed his dog despite the fact that they had no legal grounds to do so (sadly enough). 
So yes, I do agree that there is an anti-RSPCA theme underlying her posts.


----------



## competitiondiva (25 May 2009)

Oh most definately it was Patty who started the post of the man who killed the dog in order to drum up more anti rspca support!  There will always be those who disagree with the rspca but the fact is that they do act within the law despite what patty may say because if they didn't they would be the first to be strung up for any mistake, and any decent defense solicitor would be able to get the case thrown out of court for such acts.


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
PATTY i pmed you asking you to answer my questions seeing as you hadnt, so dont make it out that being nice to you. 

you dont actully answer any questions though do you. 


[/ QUOTE ]

Dont try to BS Jhoward.....I will C/P your PM to this thread if you wish? 

No I did not answer your questions. You need to grow up and have some respect.

[ QUOTE ]
why would i be genuine to you when you have done nothing but spout out a load of garbage? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Because being genuine comes naturally to those who are genuine people. I understand that the people here dont agree with me, and/or dont believe me but I believe most of them are genuine people. You on the other hand, are not genuine so therefore, you spout the garbage.

Like I said, you showed me your true colours last year after I spoke with you on the phone.

BTW, I'm not sure why you witheld the contents of that email from the forum - the email that was supposed to have come from Redwings.


----------



## jhoward (25 May 2009)

no the email came from the horse trust and i did not with hold the email, the person i emailed it to to get the pictures off had the full email and was told she was welcome to attch it. 

anyway jsut to shut you up, seeing as your attempting to suggest something the content of the mail said. 

..........................................................................................
Dear Supporter

You may recall the horrific incident at Spindles Farm in January last year where the RSPCA rescued 111 horses, ponies and donkeys.

Your generous donation contributed to the care of the horses brought to The Horse Trust for which we are very grateful. However the cost to the charity have been enormous and we have launched an appeal to raise £150,000 by September. Full details are attached.

If you are already a supporter of The Horse Trust you may have received this appeal by post in which case I apologise for this second communication.
To donate to the Spindles Farm Care Fund £150,000 Appeal please send your donation to:

The Horse Trust

Home of Rest for Horses

Speen

Princes Risborough

Bucks

HP27 0PP

 Or donate on line www.horsetrust.org.uk

Our very grateful thanks for your continued support

Regards

The Horse Trust

"Welfare Through Knowledge"

This message is intended for the addressee only and the sender must be
informed by return if it has been incorrectly addressed. All attachments
have been virus scanned before dispatch, but the recipient must ensure that
they have sufficient checks in place, as The Horse Trust cannot
be held responsible for any virus transmitted in error.
The Horse Trust, Registered charity number 231748, Home of Rest for Horses, Speen, Princes Risborough, Bucks, HP27 0PP.
Telephone 01494 488 464, fax 01494 488 767
Web site : www.horsetrust.org.uk


----------



## RantBucket (25 May 2009)

I still think Patty sounds like that discredited expert witness Madeleine Forsyth acting for JG with an axe to grind! Who else would be so desperate!


----------



## bexandspooky (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*sighs* Patty, I shall ask my questions for the 3rd time - my post that was ignored in the other post is copied below in Purple writing.

If you want people to believe what you are saying, you are going to have to start answering some of this stuff 

 <font color="purple">Ok - I understand that you havent ever said all of the dead horses were dug up, but that wasn't actually the question I asked.

I shall break it down into a few more basic lines so that we are both clear what it is I am trying to establish 

1 - What connection do you have with the greys?

2 - Why do you have such an interest in this case?

3 - For what purpose are you collating this information?

4 - Do you have evidence of the horses that were dug up?

5 - Why did the horses in the above photo's remain decomposing for such a long period of time (note - due to the level of decomposition, I am assuming the length of time was more than say 'a couple of weeks' which would more than compensate for any christmas period delays)

As you say that you have answered these things before and they were lost, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering them again?!

Many thanks and look forward to your clarification! 
  </font>  

Your ignoring of questions like this make you difficult to believe. 

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG, I cant believe I am being asked these exact same questions. LOOK for them or ask someone else who I have replied to concerning these questions. 

I'm starting to think people are just trying to wind me up by repeating the same old questions. 

[/ QUOTE ]

*Applauds Patty on her blatant sidestepping of simple questions*

Well done Patty. I can believe that I am asking the same questions as you said yourself in the other thread that you couldn't find where you had answered the questions - it seems they had magically dissapeared - perhaps adding to the scandal?! I have asked politely as least once if you would mind just giving me a few quick lines answering these again so that we can clear this part up and put it to bed.

As for being on the wind up by asking the same questions - could it be possible that it is you who is on the wind up by never actually answering them?!


----------



## RantBucket (25 May 2009)

Its gone very quiet, you can cut the tension with a knife, I wonder how Patty will get out of answering bexandspookys questions, the night is still young and the gauntlet has been thrown!


----------



## teddyt (25 May 2009)

I expect she will answer with another question. So far i am yet to read patty answering a question with an appropriate, factual answer


----------



## bexandspooky (25 May 2009)

I do hope I am not coming across as pushy!!


----------



## teddyt (25 May 2009)

I would say persistant, not pushy


----------



## RantBucket (25 May 2009)

No not at all, rest assured I think you are being entirely reasonable and patient under the circumstances bexandspooky, if I was you I think I would be reaching for the Solpadeine Plus!


----------



## bexandspooky (25 May 2009)

Well, I thought that as Patty has so much experience of the court room, a good persistant interrogation may help her feel at ease!


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
no the email came from the horse trust and i did not with hold the email, the person i emailed it to to get the pictures off had the full email and was told she was welcome to attch it. 

anyway jsut to shut you up, seeing as your attempting to suggest something the content of the mail said. 

..........................................................................................
Dear Supporter

You may recall the horrific incident at Spindles Farm in January last year where the RSPCA rescued 111 horses, ponies and donkeys.

Your generous donation contributed to the care of the horses brought to The Horse Trust for which we are very grateful. However the cost to the charity have been enormous and we have launched an appeal to raise £150,000 by September. Full details are attached.

If you are already a supporter of The Horse Trust you may have received this appeal by post in which case I apologise for this second communication.
To donate to the Spindles Farm Care Fund £150,000 Appeal please send your donation to:

The Horse Trust

Home of Rest for Horses

Speen

Princes Risborough

Bucks

HP27 0PP

 Or donate on line www.horsetrust.org.uk

Our very grateful thanks for your continued support

Regards

The Horse Trust

"Welfare Through Knowledge"

This message is intended for the addressee only and the sender must be
informed by return if it has been incorrectly addressed. All attachments
have been virus scanned before dispatch, but the recipient must ensure that
they have sufficient checks in place, as The Horse Trust cannot
be held responsible for any virus transmitted in error.
The Horse Trust, Registered charity number 231748, Home of Rest for Horses, Speen, Princes Risborough, Bucks, HP27 0PP.
Telephone 01494 488 464, fax 01494 488 767
Web site : www.horsetrust.org.uk 

[/ QUOTE ]

So they sent you this email with photos of those 2 animals (16 &amp; 17) attached after you made enquiries concerning the photos I posted on Photobucket?

Jhoward - YOUR thread.


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I still think Patty sounds like that discredited expert witness Madeleine Forsyth acting for JG with an axe to grind! Who else would be so desperate! 

[/ QUOTE ]


Oh please do get real!!


----------



## teddyt (25 May 2009)

Who are you then?


----------



## jhoward (25 May 2009)

no you plank, it had 2 attachements! i can see that your trying to accuse me of something here, well really dont bother. 

as i offered to send the email to anyone that could down load and post the attachements with many more pictures of the horses. theres clearly nothing amiss. so do me a favour and dont go down that route. i CAN PROVE what im saying you bloody well cant can you? huh.. no. so there! *sticks tounge out*


----------



## jhoward (25 May 2009)

sorry teddyt just to make it clear my reply was to patty not you.


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

QR

I have no problem what so ever answering any questions but you are all so up yourselves and think it's your God given right to put me down, be rude, and have dreadful attitudes. And I dont appreciate answering the same questions over and over again.

Now I see you are even starting on Dozzie who does not claim to know anything about the JG case. 

And you all think you are all so brilliantly witty and sarcastic. I've heard better coming from the disney channel. 

Have some respect and I too will show you respect.


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Who are you then? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly not a vet - I bloody wish.


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
no you plank, it had 2 attachements! i can see that your trying to accuse me of something here, well really dont bother. 

as i offered to send the email to anyone that could down load and post the attachements with many more pictures of the horses. theres clearly nothing amiss. so do me a favour and dont go down that route. i CAN PROVE what im saying you bloody well cant can you? huh.. no. so there! *sticks tounge out* 

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I give you my email address will you send it to me?


----------



## teddyt (25 May 2009)

Now patty, i started off with respect for you. Unfortunately i quickly lost it due to the fact you dont answer questions with a straight reply, either by ignoring them or replying with another question. If you answered a question appropriately it wouldnt get asked again, would it?
Many of your 'facts' also dont add up. If you are to gain respect you need to earn it. Horse welfare means alot to me, hence i have been drawn into this to try and gain an understanding of the horror of SF. As yet you have been unable to convince me that JG is innocent. Indeed i am more and more disgusted the more i learn.


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 huh.. no. so there! *sticks tounge out* 

[/ QUOTE ]

Jhoward, it is against my better jugement to debate/argue with children. May I ask your age? - because this is not the first time that I have thought you were younger than you sound but I have given you the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## bexandspooky (25 May 2009)

Oh come off it Patty, how many times would you like to avoid answering the same simple questions?

If you would like to recap on all of my previous posts, I asked nicely, and made every attempt to look at what you are trying to put across objectively.

You surely cannnot blame me for getting a little frustated, as you still have not actually managed to clarify one of the points that I have asked for clarification on directly.

You have stated that you have previously answered them, yet cannot find where these answers are in your posts, so how you expect me to is beyond me!

I have not replied to anything that Dozzie has said, as all I want to do is establish is these simple yet apparently unanswerable points.

As I have previously said - your silence makes you difficult to take seriously.


----------



## jhoward (25 May 2009)

sorry, couldnt resist. things get a bit tedious at times and being an adult very dull. 

my age is absoluty feck all to do with you. 

i am eternally grateful for your benefit of the doubt, but please dont worry yourself as i really dont need your approval.


----------



## jhoward (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no you plank, it had 2 attachements! i can see that your trying to accuse me of something here, well really dont bother. 

as i offered to send the email to anyone that could down load and post the attachements with many more pictures of the horses. theres clearly nothing amiss. so do me a favour and dont go down that route. i CAN PROVE what im saying you bloody well cant can you? huh.. no. so there! *sticks tounge out* 

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I give you my email address will you send it to me? 

[/ QUOTE ]

no.


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Now patty, i started off with respect for you. Unfortunately i quickly lost it due to the fact you dont answer questions with a straight reply, either by ignoring them or replying with another question. If you answered a question appropriately it wouldnt get asked again, would it?
Many of your 'facts' also dont add up. If you are to gain respect you need to earn it. Horse welfare means alot to me, hence i have been drawn into this to try and gain an understanding of the horror of SF. As yet you have been unable to convince me that JG is innocent. Indeed i am more and more disgusted the more i learn. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please!!! I'm not sure about you but from day 1 everyone saw JG as a monster.

Where are your questions and I will happy to go fine them and answer them but if you dont like the answers then it's fine to just say so instead of going off the deep end.

And as for respect having to be earned - I was very respectful and understanding to the outrage when I first came here but people just wanted to believe all the [****] so they were disrespectful to me from day one. Maybe you should tell others that in order for them to be respected they must earn it.

My personal opinion is that we should be respectful to all people unless they give us a reason not to be. And I was respectful to everyone on this forum even after they shouted me down and abused me - this was because I understood their outrage.

But now however, after telling the forum all this last year, they still felt it was fine to be disrespectful. 

There are two people on this forum who I dont have an ounce of respect for. Jhoward and Paddywhack. That said, if Jhoward is a child I will forgive her ignorance and just wont bother speaking to her anymore. Infact I'll put her on ignore - something I have never done to anyone.


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no you plank, it had 2 attachements! i can see that your trying to accuse me of something here, well really dont bother. 

as i offered to send the email to anyone that could down load and post the attachements with many more pictures of the horses. theres clearly nothing amiss. so do me a favour and dont go down that route. i CAN PROVE what im saying you bloody well cant can you? huh.. no. so there! *sticks tounge out* 

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I give you my email address will you send it to me? 

[/ QUOTE ]

no. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?


----------



## jhoward (25 May 2009)

no point in me replying to patty as shes put me on ignore *crys*


----------



## competitiondiva (25 May 2009)

I've now come to the conclusion that Patty may have answered the questions previously but cannot remember her answers and cannot find them on here.  She won't answer the questions again incase someone has saved the original answers and doesn't want the two compared!

As far as evidence is concerned.  If there were evidence proving JG's innocense it would have been given in court if not why??  If it was shown in court it obviously wasn't credible evidence or the evidence of the prosecution was more reliable.  Either way in a court of law he was found guilty.  If there is other evidence then I think JG might be taking it up with Patty himself as I'm sure he would want to know why evidence to prove his innocense was witheld!!


----------



## patty19 (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
sorry, couldnt resist. things get a bit tedious at times and being an adult very dull. 

my age is absoluty feck all to do with you. 

i am eternally grateful for your benefit of the doubt, but please dont worry yourself as i really dont need your approval. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Jhoward, I know your age has F*CK all to do with me but I simply wanted to know if you were a child as I'd prefer not to debate/argue with a kid. As an adult who should be respectful of children, I would have thought you would have understood why I asked. Obviously I was wrong.


----------



## jhoward (25 May 2009)

yes you are very wrong.


----------



## teddyt (25 May 2009)

I like to know the facts before i make a judgement. I do not see life through rose tinted glasses and i know the difference between pet horses and those that are farmed. But as i have said many times, i am yet to be convinced of genuine reasons why those horses were in that state. 

That is because there is no genuine reason why over 20 out of 115 horses were found dead in various states of decomposition. Your explanation of cyathostome infestation just doesnt work, especially as you maintain the horses were wormed and seen to by vets. No, encysted cyathostomes dont show up on worm counts but if you use an appropriate wormer they can be treated.

There is no justification for dragging and kicking a horse unable to stand and leaving it to die tied to a trailer.

A large number of horses were emaciated/very thin. One pony doubled its weight in a couple of weeks at a sanctuary. If JG was really building these poor horses up why couldnt he do this?

I could go on and on about the reasons why JG is guilty of cruety to these horses. I have developed this point of view from reading your posts and others. I havnt jumped to conclusions, nor assumed the worst. Just looked at the evidence (or lack of it from you, in JGs defence) and summised that there is no justification for the state the horses were in.


----------



## dozzie (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 Actually you are wrong regarding the euthanasia, of course you cannot stop the seisure if they have warrants or with warranted officers but you can appeal, regarding euthanasia the rspca would only PTS an animal such as in this case under veterinary recommendation, this I can state as fact.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Not actually true as the RSPCA do have the right to PTS without veterinary recommendation. See the Animal welfare Act. But it would be in extreme circumstances and I would like to assume that it would be justified. In some cases it hasnt been justified. We are all human after all and we all make mistakes. But  I  think most RSPCA inspectors would make a judgement based on what they believe is best for the animal. 

But surely there lies within that right to make the decision to euthanise an element of accountability to the owner of the animal and the animal itself. An accountability which shows  that the RSPCA was right to make that decision. The owner should have the automatic right to an independent thorough post mortem and should be encouraged to do so if the RSPCA want to appear transparent. A post mortem done on the back of a knackers lorry in a cruelty case is just not acceptable.


----------



## Taboo1968 (25 May 2009)

QR - Pardon the pun but..... talk about flogging a dead horse!!!!  Is there any REAL proof that he is innocent?  NO, thats why he was found GUILTY...... and the conversation is just going round in circles and is turning exactly the same way as it did last year, with people constantly having a go at each other...... Maybe this time could be better spent with the horses or doing housework!!!


----------



## dozzie (25 May 2009)

I am not doing the horses at this time of night 
	
	
		
		
	


	





And I am certainly not doing housework!


----------



## JanetGeorge (25 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I am not doing the horses at this time of night 
	
	
		
		
	


	





And I am certainly not doing housework! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I am - just off to do late night stables - always do about 11.30 pm!  AND just ironed half a dozen shirts for the OH!


----------



## dozzie (25 May 2009)

FGS woman! Make your OH iron his own shirts! He has arms doesnt he?   
	
	
		
		
	


	









ETA Apologies to your OH if he doesnt have any arms. How assuming was that comment. Sorry.


----------



## Brandysnap (26 May 2009)

Hi Quickfire,

I believe you.

Would you be happy to make this more public? I'm thinking Jeremy Vine here.

It's been a huge welfare issue, with lots of questions, in our own H+H forum. Maybe RSPCA + BHS may like to get involved?

If they don't, then we really need to think about how many of them are listening, how much of charity money is actually given to causes which us donors think are important, rather than to admin costs/salaries? (Closely allied with how much of our taxes are spent on MPs' luxuries?)

Doubt if anyone's listening, but i'm voting Independent Party next time! BS x

PS: Is Patty really Jamie Gray?

PPS: Let's watch this post disappear, as did Quickfire's.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
More than ever I'm now convinced that Patty is connected with an anti RSPCA group such as SHG and she's using JG's plight in an attempt to discredit them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not connected to the SHG but I think they are fantastic for their efforts. They publish some pretty interesting stuff and advice. But it would seem people here would rather turn a blind eye to anyone or anything that has anything negative to say about the RSPCA. But I would advise anyone who ownes animals to have a look at their advice about your rights were the RSPCA is concerned.


[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if the family are getting a bit twitchy about Patty's campaign which has lead to suggestions of dark dealings.
Are they now living in fear of a dawn raid by the drugs squad? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you are aware that if any of that family did happen to look at this forum and saw these ridiculous accusations, that they could do something about it.

I get whats going on here. Because you all believe what you have been told, and believe the fictitious story behind the images, you cant see how he made a living so you'll just make something up that you think could be the truth.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
no point in me replying to patty as shes put me on ignore *crys* 

[/ QUOTE ]

_IF_ it turned out that you were a child.

But you have told me you are not a child and I can see no reason why you would lie about you age. Therefore, I'm not putting you on ignore.

Why will you not send me that email if I give you my email address?


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Jhoward, I know your age has F*CK all to do with me but I simply wanted to know if you were a child as I'd prefer not to debate/argue with a kid. *As an adult who should be respectful of children, I would have thought you would have understood why I asked. Obviously I was wrong.* 

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
yes you are very wrong. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought as much after you announced my daughters name and means of education on this public forum last year after I had a phone conversation with you in which was interupted by my daugher who's name and education I mistakenly mentioned. Yet again I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you only did that because you were angry with me, even though that is no excuse for you publishing my childs name and means of education on a public forum. However, I no longer will give you the benefit of the doubt after this admission concerning your lack of respect for children..  - Which tbh, I think is a disgrace.


----------



## Brandysnap (26 May 2009)

Please let's get back to real things.

And away from Pony Club Mother tantrums.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Quickfire,

I believe you.

Would you be happy to make this more public? I'm thinking Jeremy Vine here.

It's been a huge welfare issue, with lots of questions, in our own H+H forum. Maybe RSPCA + BHS may like to get involved?

If they don't, then we really need to think about how many of them are listening, how much of charity money is actually given to causes which us doners think are important, rather than to admin costs/salaries? (Closely allied with how much of our taxes are spent on MPs' luxuries?)

Doubt if anyone's listening, but i'm voting Independent Party next time! BS x

PS: Is Patty really Jamie Gray?

PPS: Let's watch this post disappear, as did Quickfire's. 

[/ QUOTE ]

The question has risen before but to answer you - no I am not JG.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

1 - What connection do you have with the greys?


2 - Why do you have such an interest in this case?

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG, you cannot be for real surely? I have answered these question in much detail and telling how I became so interested in the case. You either have not been reading what I have said or you just simply do not like or believe the answer I have given.


[ QUOTE ]
3 - For what purpose are you collating this information?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I have said before, I did not set out to do this. I have explained this in detail to MH. I cant remember which thread but if you ask her she may remember.

[ QUOTE ]
4 - Do you have evidence of the horses that were dug up?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean by way of photographs then no I dont but if they found in the way the RSPCA claim they were found, then Claire Ryder and Katie Robinson should both be sacked from their jobs for not doing anything about it prior to the RSPCA arriving at the farm on the 4th of Jan 08.

[ QUOTE ]
5 - Why did the horses in the above photo's remain decomposing for such a long period of time (note - due to the level of decomposition, I am assuming the length of time was more than say 'a couple of weeks' which would more than compensate for any christmas period delays)

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter green was speaking of his experience of a decomposing deer. It was said that although JG put fallen stock in places away from the live animals and covered them as best he could they were still exposed to the elements. The severe weather around that time was also mentioned as playing a part in the rapid decomposition. I dont have my notes with me which is very frusterating but this is what I remember off the top of my head. I do believe I have answered this question before but I cant find it.


[ QUOTE ]
Many thanks and look forward to your clarification!

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome.


----------



## Brandysnap (26 May 2009)

So why do you feel so strongly that you have to defend what most of us perceive as a total [****]? I teach in uni, in non-horsey sphere, just curious, your comments re horsey world will help my teaching (maybe). Working towards positivie things always, + thanks for giving me a new (albeit old) perspective one. And may you think a little wider in future...

We either tolerate the current situation, or we make our views clear.

Putting it another way, we either accept what we have now, or we fight for something better. I'm personally of the mind that we should neither tolerate the likes of Jamie Gray  
	
	
		
		
	


	












in our society, any more than we should tolerate MPs who've taken the piss out of us, by using our money, thinking we'd never know... 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 

Well, that's just me. I'm just a simple country girl from Liverpool,  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 who's going to vote Independent Party. And if there isn't a candidate locally, i want to know why, and i'll request a different voting system. 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 BS x


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I still think Patty sounds like that *discredited* expert witness Madeleine Forsyth acting for JG with an axe to grind! Who else would be so desperate! 

[/ QUOTE ]

And who was she discredited by? - A  judge who has no veterinary experience. Same goes for John Parker, not a shred of his evidence was relied upon either. Funny that!!!


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I've now come to the conclusion that Patty may have answered the questions previously but cannot remember her answers and cannot find them on here.  She won't answer the questions again incase someone has saved the original answers and doesn't want the two compared!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please. I have no reason what so ever to lie. There is enough people on here to remember what I have said - surely not all of them would forget what I have said.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as evidence is concerned.  If there were evidence proving JG's innocense it would have been given in court if not why?? 

[/ QUOTE ]

It most certainly was give in court.


[ QUOTE ]
If it was shown in court it obviously wasn't credible evidence or the evidence of the prosecution was more reliable.  Either way in a court of law he was found guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really wish people from this forum were in that court.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is other evidence then I think JG might be taking it up with Patty himself as I'm sure he would want to know why evidence to prove his innocense was witheld!! 

[/ QUOTE ]

And why exactly would JG take anything up with me?Please do behave yourself.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
So why do you feel so strongly that you have to defend what most of us perceive as a total [****]?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont care what most of you percieve. If I know different then I will go against the grain for what I know is right. I am not a follower unless I have good reason to be. And in this case I have good reason not to be.

I dont feel so strongly that I _have_ to defend. I am defending because I know what is right. I would do the same for anyone in any circumstace. I know the person that I am often offends people but I will always defend what is right. Most people will go with the flow for an easy life and/or popularity but I'm not like most people.


[ QUOTE ]
I teach in uni, in non-horsey sphere, just curious, your comments re horsey world will help my teaching (maybe). Working towards positivie things always, + thanks for giving me a new (albeit old) perspective one. And may you think a little wider in future. BS. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh believe me.......I have thought as wide as wide could possibly get.

You may want to teach your students to stand for what they know is right no matter what the rest of the world may think or say.

Just noticed there is more to your post - answering it now.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


We either tolerate the current situation, *or we make our views clear*.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I have done just that.

[ QUOTE ]
Putting it another way, we either accept what we have now, or we fight for something better. I'm personally of the mind that we should neither tolerate the likes of Jamie Gray  
	
	
		
		
	


	












in our society, any more than we should tolerate MPs who've taken the piss out of us, by using our money, thinking we'd never know... 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 

[/ QUOTE ]

People who do actually commit the crimes JG has been accused of should never be tolerated in any way shape or form.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that's just me. I'm just a simple country girl from Liverpool,  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 who's going to vote Independent Party. And if there isn't a candidate locally, i want to know why, and i'll request a different voting system. 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 BS x 

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Good on you!!


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Oh most definately it was Patty who started the post of the man who killed the dog in order to drum up more anti rspca support!  There will always be those who disagree with the rspca but the fact is that they do act within the law despite what patty may say because if they didn't they would be the first to be strung up for any mistake, and any decent defense solicitor would be able to get the case thrown out of court for such acts. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you take a look at the SHG then tell me you wouldnt have issues with the rspca.

Just because it has not personally happened to me does not mean I should find such actions towards decent hard working people and their animals acceptable. Infact it infuriates me.


----------



## Brandysnap (26 May 2009)

Post deleted by Brandysnap


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Oh for heavens' sake Patty, go to bed! You're worse than me! (You must have as much on your mind as me, albeit different spheres. I heard tonight in pub that a dear old friend died last Thursday - let's enjoy our horses, our country, our friends, as our laughs, while we can, hey?)

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL......dont concern yourself with what may be on my mind. Maybe you should take your own advice. I have insomnia.

I agree we should enjoy life while we have the chance. I am sorry about the loss of your friend.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's all have a great gallop, next time we are on a lovely horse, in open country, and raise a glass of his favourite Weetwood Ales local brew to dear Norman. He was Cheshire Forest area, but didn't hunt, tho i returned his dog, using my pretty bitch as bait!!!

We've just lost Ian, now we lost Norman. 

We must kick on, f*** to Jamie Gray! 

[/ QUOTE ]

I no longer have a horse.

As for you comment about JG - I dont want to.


----------



## Brandysnap (26 May 2009)

I think we need the moderator to step in ASAP.

I have no intention of posting here again, as it feels so threatening, and just full of aggressive plonkers! who don't have a clue. Will write by old pigeon-post to editor's letters, using my full name, and hoping we return to sensible ways of communication.

I strongly suspect that 'Patty' is an MP. cos he/she bangs on and on and on and on, so i got fed up feeding (+paying for) printer, so i will be putting in my expenses claim, as i feel it's part of my job as a self-employed lady to claim for all, including printer costs. I have receipts for all £120 i've spent, let's hope Darling et al's lot account for all theirs...

There's going to be one huge revolution in our country, believe me. I hope there's no blood spilt, but there will be.

We need a total, utter change in how we have a say in who rules our countries. (Ie, Scotland, England, Wales + Ireland)

In meantime, i'm disappointed that H+H moderator hasn't intervened before now  Well i ain't buying H+H next week, or week after, or after, or after .......


----------



## Happy Horse (26 May 2009)

Guys I know how tempting it is to keep winding Patty up but it is clear no proof of JG's 'innocence' is ever going to come to light from her.  Why don't we let this lie, wait for the sentencing and be happy when justice is served.


----------



## Taboo1968 (26 May 2009)

Oh FGS GROW UP!!!!  I remember the name being mentioned, it was her first name only and the fact that she had a private education.....
Mentioning her first name is hardly going to identify her is it???  But you forget the county she attends school in, was also mentioned...... SO WHAT, people are mentioning my first name all the time, they mention my sons first name as well, hardly a crime and definately not a lack of respect either!


----------



## Paddywhack (26 May 2009)

I had promised myself not to write anything more on this thread since we are away on holiday,but had to come in and have a peak and could not beleive that Patty is still ranting on,i read somewhere that she accused me of having verbal problems,but she is clearly the one that needs to take some immodium,i am sure that they got that across the atlantic. I am adament that she does not even live in this country,and just look when she is posting,she will probarly set her alarm now so that she will post an AM post just to prove me wrong.
She is winding everyone up,she knows chicken SH*T about J.G,the case or the trial..
I am now going back to enjoy my holiday,and its about time that this thread and Patty comes to an end.
He was found guilty = FACT
Sentencing is in a couple of weeks lets wait and see what happens then !
And also when anyone brings up some facts that is close to the thruth Patty insults that person straight away,also she is so bl00dy stupid quoting people that got her or him on ignore and she/him/it still thinks that I am a man 
	
	
		
		
	


	




Over and out


----------



## Ellies_mum2 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Peter green was speaking of his experience of a decomposing deer. It was said that although JG put fallen stock in places away from the live animals and covered them as best he could they were still exposed to the elements. The severe weather around that time was also mentioned as playing a part in the rapid decomposition. I dont have my notes with me which is very frusterating but this is what I remember off the top of my head. I do believe I have answered this question before but I cant find it.



[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will, but doesn't the weather slow down decomposition in Winter not speed it up. 

I have always been led to believe that warm weather speeds up decomp due to insects etc and the heat causing the tissue to break down quicker. The cold preserves tissue 

So therefore the dead horses could have lain there longer than a 'couple of weeks'


----------



## competitiondiva (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 [ QUOTE ]
 Actually you are wrong regarding the euthanasia, of course you cannot stop the seisure if they have warrants or with warranted officers but you can appeal, regarding euthanasia the rspca would only PTS an animal such as in this case under veterinary recommendation, this I can state as fact.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Not actually true as the RSPCA do have the right to PTS without veterinary recommendation. See the Animal welfare Act. But it would be in extreme circumstances and I would like to assume that it would be justified. In some cases it hasnt been justified. We are all human after all and we all make mistakes. But  I  think most RSPCA inspectors would make a judgement based on what they believe is best for the animal. 

But surely there lies within that right to make the decision to euthanise an element of accountability to the owner of the animal and the animal itself. An accountability which shows  that the RSPCA was right to make that decision. The owner should have the automatic right to an independent thorough post mortem and should be encouraged to do so if the RSPCA want to appear transparent. A post mortem done on the back of a knackers lorry in a cruelty case is just not acceptable.   
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are talking about this clause of the animal welfare act dozzie:

An inspector or a constable may act under subsection (3) without the certificate
of a veterinary surgeon if it appears to him
(a) that the condition of the animal is such that there is no reasonable
alternative to destroying it, and
(b) that the need for action is such that it is not reasonably practicable to
wait for a veterinary surgeon.

Please take note of the 'and' between (a) &amp; (b) was there not a vet on site during the seisure???

Also from the defra website. 
Inspectors are people appointed by local authorities or, in England, by the Secretary of State (in England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in Wales) with responsibility for animal welfare. In practice this can mean a local authority employee with responsibility for animal welfare, or an Animal Health (formerly State Veterinary Service) Officer.

RSPCA officer is not listed there.

And ontop of all this have you actually read Vet Robert Edgar Baskervilles evidence??  Please especially take note of the last sentence... 

Robert Edgar Baskerville  Veterinary surgeon  senior partner Baskerville Hogan
Called by Katie Robinson at Mr. Grays request to assist . Arrived at Spindles Farm 6.30pm on 4th January 08. Describes the scene on arrival. Mr. Gray, Police Officers and RSPCA officials.  Yard, barn .. at Spindles Farm ..3-4 inches deep in equine faeces and slurrypens 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 &amp; 10 several inches deep in wet bedding, urine, faeces ..no dry areas for animals to lie down.a number of carcasses. .approx 8-10 in varying states of decay. Understood 90 horses in yard .. more in fields.three horses severely emaciated within hours of deathother .horses were dirty, underfed..impossible to carry out convention identificationKH1 KH3 euthanised because death imminent and would not respond to treatment KH2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,16,17,18,18a,19,and 20 considered at risk of death within hours unless removed to obtain urgent attention
Attended Spindles Farm on 5th Jan identified further animals requiring removal. KH15 so distressed and terminally ill, euthanized on his direction

So please apologise for the accusation that rspca officers shot this horse without a vets authorisation....


----------



## jacks_mum (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it had lots of horses in and out of there. But they were not kept in there. The pony lying down near the trough went down that day 4th Jan. JG tried to get it up. That pony had been in a field. Before JG could move it again the RSPCA arrived. Those horses were put in that barn by the RSPCA. I know you wont believe this but it's the truth.


[/ QUOTE ]

sorry if someone else has already asked this - i am playing catch up after a weekend playing somewhere else but how do you KNOW it is the truth? By your own admission you didn't visit SF until the day following the raid, and that was your first visit according to what you have said on here. So as I see it, all you are passing on to us is heresay not proof, just another persons version of the truth which you have chosen to champion. Can you provide incontravertable PROOF that what you say and present to us as TRUTH is actually that?


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Oh FGS GROW UP!!!!  I remember the name being mentioned, it was her first name only and the fact that she had a private education.....

[/ QUOTE ]

And as the mother of the mentioned minor I chose not to mention her on a public forum, so no one else should have done so either. Unless of course you feel that is not a mothers right?


[ QUOTE ]
Mentioning her first name is hardly going to identify her is it???  But you forget the county she attends school in, was also mentioned...... SO WHAT, people are mentioning my first name all the time, they mention my sons first name as well, hardly a crime and definately not a lack of respect either! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if it's cool by you that your childs name is mentioned then thats just fine. If you remember the context in which Jhoward published this information you'll remember that she did so in a way to try and p!ss me off. BTW, she is the one who says I was very wrong to assume that as an adult who should be respectful of children she would understand my reason for asking her age. I said - Obviously I was wrong - meaning she lacked respect for children. She agreed to that.


----------



## Amymay (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Robert Edgar Baskerville  Veterinary surgeon  senior partner Baskerville Hogan
Called by Katie Robinson at Mr. Grays request to assist . Arrived at Spindles Farm 6.30pm on 4th January 08. Describes the scene on arrival. Mr. Gray, Police Officers and RSPCA officials.  Yard, barn .. at Spindles Farm ..3-4 inches deep in equine faeces and slurrypens 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 &amp; 10 several inches deep in wet bedding, urine, faeces ..no dry areas for animals to lie down.a number of carcasses. .approx 8-10 in varying states of decay. Understood 90 horses in yard .. more in fields.three horses severely emaciated within hours of deathother .horses were dirty, underfed..impossible to carry out convention identificationKH1 KH3 euthanised because death imminent and would not respond to treatment KH2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,16,17,18,18a,19,and 20 considered at risk of death within hours unless removed to obtain urgent attention
Attended Spindles Farm on 5th Jan identified further animals requiring removal. KH15 so distressed and terminally ill, euthanized on his direction  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Nothing more to be said really - apart from roll on sentencing.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

More crap from PW. I have spoken to several people on this forum by phone - If they wish to make themselves known then  they could verify that what PW is saying in regards to my location is nothing but rubbish. But tbh, I would not blame them if they did not make themselves know seeing that they will probably be pounced upon.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will, but doesn't the weather slow down decomposition in Winter not speed it up. 

I have always been led to believe that warm weather speeds up decomp due to insects etc and the heat causing the tissue to break down quicker. The cold preserves tissue 

So therefore the dead horses could have lain there longer than a 'couple of weeks' 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no expert so all I can go by is what was said in the court room.

I would agree with you as I believe the hot weather speeds decomposition. But it wasnt the cold whether which was being refered to but rather the wet. Also, wild animals were mentioned too.

Thats all I can tell you and it's your right to take what you will from this. And I mean this in the nicest possible way.


----------



## dozzie (26 May 2009)

Inspectors are people appointed by local authorities or, in England, by the Secretary of State (in England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in Wales) with responsibility for animal welfare. In practice this can mean a local authority employee with responsibility for animal welfare, or an Animal Health (formerly State Veterinary Service) Officer.

RSPCA officer is not listed there.

Sorry. I had assumed it meant RSPCA inspector.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





I never said the horse was shot without authorisation by a vet. NOT ONCE! EVER! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





What I said was I believed my vet would have wanted further tests. However I had not registered it was the same horse as the one with the eye injury. I will also add that I dont think I am the only one to assume that the horse with the diarrheoa was a different horse to the one with the eye injury. 

The pictures presented made me jump to a conclusion which was incorrect. Which is what I have been trying to say all along!  
	
	
		
		
	


	





But we dont know if this horse was one being treated. I honestly cant make out from the picture of the eye injury what has actually happened. We dont know when it happened either. Not from the evidence. So we cant assume it has been left for weeks and we cant assume it has happened recently because we dont actually know.

We dont know the whole story.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





In the same way we all assumed from what was written in the press that he was a meat man! He bought ponies for £1 and sold them to the meat trade. Yet there is no evidence of that. 

But that created an image in our minds as to what sort of man he was right from the start and has continued to do that. 

You and I both assumed he had to be selling to the meat trade abroad, but again there is no proof. There is clearly a market on the continent for traditional cobs, as there is a market over here. 

So many comments have been made regarding the sort of trader he is and most of those comments have been based on media representation, village gossip and chinese whispers, and prejudice about travellers and meat dealers. 

I dont know him at all so I wont make a judgement on the type of man he is. I did in the beginning but have come to realise that it was my own prejudices that led me to think what I thought. But other people, who also dont know him, are making comments which are so steeped in prejudice it beggars belief. 

As for the drug smuggling...how would you feel if he was a member of your family and people were starting rumours like this? It is awful.  
	
	
		
		
	


	






I do think it is time admin pulled this thread.


----------



## bexandspooky (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1 - What connection do you have with the greys?


2 - Why do you have such an interest in this case?

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG, you cannot be for real surely? I have answered these question in much detail and telling how I became so interested in the case. You either have not been reading what I have said or you just simply do not like or believe the answer I have given.
 <font color="blue"> Yep - I am afraid I am for real - I have read the threads right though and from what I can gather, you just happened upon Spindles Farm the day after the raid and came over all Nancy Drew, and thought that you would spend the next year and a half of your life investigating every detail, attending every court session and coming to the exact opposite conclusion to the rest of the country? I just dont get it!! I was asking those same questions again, in the hope that you could clarify why so that I might understand things from your point of view - at least I tried  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 </font> 

[ QUOTE ]
3 - For what purpose are you collating this information?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I have said before, I did not set out to do this. I have explained this in detail to MH. I cant remember which thread but if you ask her she may remember.

 <font color="blue"> MH - Care to help me out? Thankies!!  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 </font> 
[ QUOTE ]
4 - Do you have evidence of the horses that were dug up?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean by way of photographs then no I dont but if they found in the way the RSPCA claim they were found, then Claire Ryder and Katie Robinson should both be sacked from their jobs for not doing anything about it prior to the RSPCA arriving at the farm on the 4th of Jan 08.

 <font color="blue"> Well maybe they should!! Although, to be fair on them, it depends on which fields contained the bodies, and which fields they visited - could be opposite ends of the farm, I am not familiar with the layout. My vet visited me the other day to a lame pony and never once looked at the stables - I could have had a stack of little bodies just rotting away and he wouldn't have been any the wiser - Luckily I am a good girl and no rotting corpses for me  
	
	
		
		
	


	




</font> 

[ QUOTE ]
5 - Why did the horses in the above photo's remain decomposing for such a long period of time (note - due to the level of decomposition, I am assuming the length of time was more than say 'a couple of weeks' which would more than compensate for any christmas period delays)

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter green was speaking of his experience of a decomposing deer. It was said that although JG put fallen stock in places away from the live animals and covered them as best he could they were still exposed to the elements. The severe weather around that time was also mentioned as playing a part in the rapid decomposition. I dont have my notes with me which is very frusterating but this is what I remember off the top of my head. I do believe I have answered this question before but I cant find it.

 <font color="blue"> As someone mentioned previously, I would expect cold weather to delay the decomposition of a carcass, but then, I am no expert. I just base my assumption on the fact that we keep food cold to prolong it's use  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 Full of science, me!! 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 </font> 


[ QUOTE ]
Many thanks and look forward to your clarification!

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome. 

[/ QUOTE ]

 <font color="blue">  Why, thank you.  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 It hasn't helped me change my opinion of what may have happened at SF, but I appreciate you trying. I do reiterate that if you feel a real injustice has been done, maybe sending a report of your findings to the media would be an interesting test - they do have alot of investigative power behind them</font>


----------



## devonlass (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Oh please do get a life. Drugs????? Get real for goodness sake. 

And you all have the nerve to accuse me of being unreal!?

PLEEEEEZ!!!!!!



[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea if smuggling drugs was a motive in this instance,but your disbelieveing reply makes me wonder what kind of bubble you live in.
Do you have any perception of the influence and impact drugs have currently in our society??
Massive is the answer!!
You imply that the idea is far fetched that people would use animals to smuggle drugs into the country to make a quick buck,get real,people do it all the time.I have no idea if JG was doing this but it doesn't seem that it would be outside of his moral scope from what I have heard about him.Would actually make a lot of sense in regards to the state of the animals and how little he seemed bothered by it.

BTW in regards to your comment about shopping a drug dealer,my only advice would be be careful which one you shop or defending JG may be the least of your worries,mind you at least we would get a break from your irrational devotion for a while 
	
	
		
		
	


	





I really still can't understand your mentality patty,you have to be saying that the RSPCA fabricated an entire case,at massive cost and effort just to get a conviction for JG,WHY??
It makes no sense whatsoever for them to do that,why would they bother??
I suppose it's also a coincidence that he had a previous conviction for animal cruelty?? I suppose that was all lies as well?? I do believe in coincidence,but there is a limit,or at least there is to any rational,logical thinking person.

I can confirm one thing for you anyway,jhoward is most definitely not a child (although she is quite short I'll admit 
	
	
		
		
	


	




)
I have never found her disrespectful to children either as you mentioned,well not my children anyway,and she has seen them often enough.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
sorry if someone else has already asked this - i am playing catch up after a weekend playing somewhere else but how do you KNOW it is the truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Claire Ryder gave evidence that she had never had any problems with the beds at SF. This leads me to believe that what Mr Gray said concerning that barn is the truth. Those photos were taken on the 4th of Jan, that barn was being cleared on the 9th but KH had a stop put to it. She denied this of course but her peers did not.

[ QUOTE ]
By your own admission you didn't visit SF until the day following the raid, and that was your first visit according to what you have said on here. So as I see it, all you are passing on to us is heresay not proof, just another persons version of the truth which you have chosen to champion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I saw the beds for myself when I went to SF the day after the raid - That is not another persons version of truth.


[ QUOTE ]
Can you provide incontravertable PROOF that what you say and present to us as TRUTH is actually that? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously not as the photos I presented have been questioned.

What incontravertable proof have the RSPCA provided to back up it's claims that the story it gave behind the images is actually the truth?


----------



## spaniel (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 PATTY.....Given that you are so adament that you saw all these proceedings in court and that YOU saw these photos when they were produced in court could you answer something for me please??

Exactly HOW were you able to SEE all this evidence given, you are not on either the prosecution or the defence team???

There was no jury in this case so I must assume you were in the public gallery....do you have xray vision or maybe binoculars??

I would like a proper answer please not just the standard I was there and I saw rubbish that you have been coming out with....  

[/ QUOTE ]



I saw the evidence BEFORE the judge. 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 Like I said, my contacts got me further than I gave them credit for. I also saw the evidence again after the trial. 


. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple questions.....HOW and UNDER WHOSE AURTHORITY please.


----------



## jacks_mum (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sorry if someone else has already asked this - i am playing catch up after a weekend playing somewhere else but how do you KNOW it is the truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Claire Ryder gave evidence that she had never had any problems with the beds at SF. This leads me to believe that what Mr Gray said concerning that barn is the truth. Those photos were taken on the 4th of Jan, that barn was being cleared on the 9th but KH had a stop put to it. She denied this of course but her peers did not.

 <font color="blue">So as I speculated, you are going on hearsay as much as anyone else (most people (including yourself as you say you say you are neither a vet nor a legal person) not being directly involved in the case) here is  </font> 

[ QUOTE ]
By your own admission you didn't visit SF until the day following the raid, and that was your first visit according to what you have said on here. So as I see it, all you are passing on to us is heresay not proof, just another persons version of the truth which you have chosen to champion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I saw the beds for myself when I went to SF the day after the raid - That is not another persons version of truth.

 <font color="blue"> your assertion (sp) that the beds where fine before the raid is another persons point of view that you are presenting to us as fact and truth. You only saw by your own admission, with your own eyes, the beds AFTER the RSPCA and other agencies had been in, so you are presenting us with hearsay and stating it is truth </font> 


[ QUOTE ]
Can you provide incontravertable PROOF that what you say and present to us as TRUTH is actually that? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously not as the photos I presented have been questioned.

What incontravertable proof have the RSPCA provided to back up it's claims that the story it gave behind the images is actually the truth? 

[/ QUOTE ]

 <font color="blue">The images themselves are pretty damning, coupled with expert witness in the court rooms were enough proof to convince a judge that the evidence presented was truth. I appreciate that miscarriages of justice can and do happen  but until solid proof that is not based on hearsay and is presented to me by someone credible (apologies if you consider that an insult but I don't know who you are so cannot consider you credible to me) then I will continue to believe that in this case justice has been done correctly. </font>


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Simple questions.....HOW and UNDER WHOSE AURTHORITY please. 

[/ QUOTE ]

That is something I am not willing to disclose. It's not my place to name people.


----------



## devonlass (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Simple questions.....HOW and UNDER WHOSE AURTHORITY please. 

[/ QUOTE ]

That is something I am not willing to disclose. It's not my place to name people. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I would suggest not able,rather than not willing.Difficult to disclose information you don't actually have.Difficult also to name people who don't actually exist I guess.

Tell me patty,do you watch a lot of movies??


----------



## Happy Horse (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Simple questions.....HOW and UNDER WHOSE AURTHORITY please. 

[/ QUOTE ]

That is something I am not willing to disclose. It's not my place to name people. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Fairly vital though if you want any credibility at all.


----------



## Dahlia (26 May 2009)

I have just about read all of the threads re: JG and all I can really say is WOW!

Patty - You seem to be really trying hard to push this point about the disgusting barns the horses were pictured in wern't the actual ones that they usually resided in, these barns had lots of nice straw (very helpfully photgraphed by you - though this seriously could have been taken just about anywhere, in your own shed for all we know.... but I digress) To be honest, even if they had been photgraphed in luxurious stables, with lots of lovely bedding, the CONDITION of some of the horses pictured is still absolutely appalling and show prolonged neglect and animal abuse. 

I seriously cannot see how you are so blind to cruelty pictured?

You said the fallen bay by the water trough, came in from the field and collapsed there where JG tried to move it? - WHY was the poor pony allowed to get into such an advanced emaciated state in the first place? 
Just looking at the picture of that creature, it is a bagful of skin and bones - that deterioration does not happen over night -  so stop banging on that the barns were switched for better snaps, even IF that is true, it is barely of any relevance!

An image speaks a thousand words.

Secondly, you kinda remind me of those crazy women who write letters to convicts on death row - I am sure they believe their beloved murder etc was totally innocent too! It is so bally bizarre that you are defending this piece of scum to the death, what is in it for you Patty?

People have all seen and read about Animal Horders, and I reckon JG is one of them.


----------



## sam1am (26 May 2009)

I just found this online, not sure if u have all seen it already but i though i'd share....i found it interesting anyway.



Press Release
For Immediate Release
7th April 2008

EQUINE LAWYERS HAIL AN HISTORIC VICTORY AGAINST RSPCA

ALL SPINDLES FARM RESCUE HORSES TO BE RETURNED OR SOLD

The action for the return of his horses brought by James (Jamie) Gray 
against the RSPCA has taken a dramatic turn.

All twenty nine donkeys and Shetland ponies which the RSPCA seized must 
be returned to the Grays, as the court ordered, forthwith.

The remaining ninety-six animals, including some valuable thoroughbreds, 
will, as Mr Grays lawyers requested, be sold at auction.

Commenting on the courts findings, Anne Kasica of the SHG said:

Despite the case having been made a cause celebre by the RSPCAs Head 
of Media, Henry Macaulay, the RSPCA faces yet another public relations 
disaster following Judge Sandeep Kainths ruling on Friday in Oxford.

This is an enormously positive ruling. It shows that the RSPCAs whole 
approach to welfare cases is wrong - it will not accept advice from 
independent vets, for fear that they might say something it doesnt want 
to hear.

The RSPCA prefers to take its aggressive courses of action, no matter 
how unreasonable and wasteful they might be, just as long as they 
increase the pressure on defendants.

Let us hope that this result will force the RSPCA to reconsider its 
belligerent approach to cruelty cases.

Referring to the claim by Kirsty Hampton of the RSPCA that they had 
intended to seek new owners for these horses before trial, Ms. Kasica 
went on to say:

This is laughable. The RSPCA only seek new owners when they have a 
court order for confiscation following a successful criminal prosecution 
- so they can rehome expensive animals with acceptable people for a 
substantial donation and then try to recover huge boarding costs from 
the defendants.

As a result of the RSPCAs refusal to deliver up any of Mr. Grays 
animals the RSPCA faces another huge costs bill from its own lawyers  a 
specialist firm instructed privately to present the RSPCAs case.

And yet the RSPCA accepted that all of the donkeys and ponies which 
have been ordered back were in "good condition and claimed that they 
were seized, not because of their condition, but because of concerns 
about Mr Gray and his family.

As to the remainder, there was, the judge rightly ruled, no evidence 
to show they were in any danger" and that a sale at auction was a 
respectable, and traditional, way for horses to change ownership.

The idea of a sale in this case never arose until Mr Grays 
application, and then the RSPCA resisted it. The RSPCAs idea was to 
ensure that Mr Gray never got any money for his investment in the 
horses, and that he should face a massive costs bill.

Kirsty Hampton is well-known to us. She has been involved in 
considerable controversy and was responsible for making serious and 
untrue allegations of cruelty against Mr and Mrs David Burden.

In their case, the RSPCA organised a meeting of witnesses, at which the 
RSPCA ghosted a report which was later claimed to have been written by 
an independent expert in sheep. Ms Hampton was present at that 
meeting, and her case against the sheep farmers was thrown out.

Ernest Vine, also of the SHG, said:

There are countless defendants who are experiencing massive 
high-profile seizures by the RSPCA, who are very aggressive and threaten 
massive costs orders against them, whilst engaging in a huge media 
campaign to increase the pressure still further.

For those still awaiting a private prosecution for cruelty by the 
RSPCA, which usually takes six months to emerge, this must be very 
heartening news.

Only this week David and Margaret Heading have had over a hundred 
cattle seized from them by the RSPCA from East Farm in Thetford.

Their animals were transported to a place of safety by the RSPCA and 
I understand that, as with Jamie Grays case, the RSPCA have not yet 
suggested their sale.

Mr. Vine concluded:

The court in Mr. Greys case may have been persuaded to make the order 
by the fact that the RSPCA claimed to have spent an incredible £153,000 
boarding his animals so far.

Evidence given during the hearing by independent equine specialist vet 
John Parker contrasted starkly with the RSPCAs highly prejudicial 
press-releases.

Mr. Parker stated that none of the horses, donkeys and ponies had been 
"caused unnecessary suffering, although some animals had arrived at Mr 
Grays farm from a semi-feral origin. He found the bedding and general 
condition of the farm to be of an "extremely good quality." And when 
asked if he believed any animals would be at risk of cruelty if they 
were returned, Mr Parker simply said "No".

The RSPCA is now under severe pressure to withdraw its private 
prosecution against the Grays who face allegations of animal cruelty. 
They are due before Oxford Magistrates on 28 April 2008.

The RSPCA is believed to be considering an appeal against Judge Kainths 
ruling.


Ends

Word Total: 798



Notes to Editors: -

1. The result is another landmark victory for Jacqui Fulton, of Blythe 
Liggins, who has represented Mr Gray and his family throughout

2. The RSPCA spends 44% of its annual income of over £100,000,000 (one 
hundred million pounds) on its prosecutions department.

3. In the light of Judge Kainths findings, the RSPCA, which claims to 
apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors, will have to satisfy Sally Case, 
Head of Prosecutions, that it has considered whether each of the 
allegations stands a reasonable prospect of success and is in the 
public interest.

4. The RSPCA is a private body so there is no mechanism to challenge the 
decision which Ms Case reaches.

5. Mr. Grays animals had been placed with organisations such as the 
International League for the Protection of Horses (ILPH) and Redwings, 
with whom the RSPCA has a special relationship and with whom it worked 
on the raids which it conducted against Mr Gray.

6. Many of Mr Grays animals were seized on advice from independent 
expert Nic de Brauwere, who is Head of Welfare at Redwings. Mr de 
Brauwere claims to have been on hundreds of unannounced visits with 
the RSPCA. He was severely criticised by District Judge Philip Browning, 
when the RSPCAs private prosecution against Gina and Martin Griffin was 
thrown out in Norwich.

7. Launching the RSPCAs usual attack on judges who have found against 
them, Kirsty Hampton, who was responsible for the raids, said:

The decision to return the horses to the Grays is devastating. We had 
hoped that the court would ask us to seek new owners for them who were 
guaranteed to provide for their future welfare. An open sale to an 
unknown bidder means that we cannot be sure of the level of future care 
they will receive.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An email received January 15 2008 maintains that the RSPCA is far from what the public tend to perceive. 
"The RSPCA is corrupt. Those horrible people have told so many lies it's unreal. 
My uncle is Jamie Gray, the man accused of animal cruelty recently in the press. I'm sure you must have heard about the case. 

Here's just a little info to show how corrupt the RSPCA, and certain other Animal Welfare Organisations, are.

My uncle has all his vets' reports for his animals - receipts for the stacks of haylage he has delivered on a regular basis.

My uncle makes every effort to ensure that the wellbeing of his animals is second to none. An independent vet gave very good reports after vetting the animals, but the RSPCA officer in charge of the case wasn't happy with that so she had an RSPCA vet also check them. Apparently, this is "the worse case of animal cruelty he has seen in his 30 years as a vet". If this was the case then he must have been walking around with his eyes closed for the past 30 years. 

I'm no expert but even I could see those animals were not neglected. 

The RSPCA and other welfare organizations involved in this case have all seen the food on site - alone with fresh water and clean dry bedding. But they chose to leave this out of their speeches to the press. 

The family has been hounded by the press - the very press who have published cruel, wicked lies about them. Their children can no longer go to school, and my aunt can't go to her local shops. Their entire village think they are guilty - and some of the villagers have too made up lies. Their phone is constantly ringing with either the press hounding them to say something or people calling and spouting abuse. 

I understand the anger the public are expressing concerning the farm in Amersham, Buckenhamshire. However, the public have not been told the truth. The RSPCA and other AWO's, are lying through thier teeth, as are the villagers, who my uncle will most certainly want to see in court. He loves his animals and there is no way he would do what he is being accused of. One of the horses that was taken away was one my uncle actually rescued himself just a week before the RSPCA came in to his farm. But the RSPCA have not mentioned this although they have been made very aware of it.

All of his animals were checked by the vet just days before the RSPCA moved in. 
They told the press that 30+ dead animals were found piled up against a fence. That is mammoth lie on its own. 

I seriously do not know how these people sleep at night.
There are just too many lies reported in the press for me to mention. 

These people should never be allowed to do this to innocent people. They are meant to be concerned about the welfare of animals not targeting good people who are animal lovers.

In the past I have made donations to the RSPCA, but NEVER AGAIN. Not after witnessing the kind of organization it actually is.

The public are donating millions of pounds to the RSPCA, yet don't actually know the facts about it. The RSPCA needs to be exposed for the corrupt organization that it is. 

Instead of spending the donations of the good hearted public, in targeting innocent animals lovers, they should be using those resources to help the thousands of poor animals who truly do need their help. I'm sure there are some good officers on the ground who are trying to do a good job but sadly, none were in charge when the RSPCA entered my uncle's farm. It would seem that those officers trying to do a good job are a minority within the organization. 

Thank you. 

Charmaine.


----------



## tania01 (26 May 2009)

Jack mum i have asked the same  questions about 5 times now,patty still goes round the houses answering it,

She has NO proof and now seems not to be able to get hold of ANY proof about anything.(funny that)

She has only heard from others about the grays life before.


----------



## Amymay (26 May 2009)

Thankfully, Sam, Judge Sandeep Kainths order was suspended.


----------



## dozzie (26 May 2009)

I assume you are talking about this clause of the animal welfare act dozzie:

[ QUOTE ]
 An inspector or a constable may act under subsection (3) without the certificate
of a veterinary surgeon if it appears to him
(a) that the condition of the animal is such that there is no reasonable
alternative to destroying it, and
(b) that the need for action is such that it is not reasonably practicable to
wait for a veterinary surgeon.

Please take note of the 'and' between (a) &amp; (b) was there not a vet on site during the seisure???  

[/ QUOTE ] 

I have never said there wasnt. 

[ QUOTE ]
Also from the defra website. 
Inspectors are people appointed by local authorities or, in England, by the Secretary of State (in England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in Wales) with responsibility for animal welfare. In practice this can mean a local authority employee with responsibility for animal welfare, or an Animal Health (formerly State Veterinary Service) Officer.

RSPCA officer is not listed there.   

[/ QUOTE ] 

So if the RSPCA is not listed, why have they any right to do any of what it says in the AWA? 

I am genuinely puzzled. On one hand you are saying they dont have the right to euthanise without a vet because they are not appointed inspectors. Yet on the other hand they have the right to seize under the animal welfare act, according to the RSPCA. So they must be appointed inspectors surely? 

Very confusing.


----------



## spaniel (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Simple questions.....HOW and UNDER WHOSE AURTHORITY please. 

[/ QUOTE ]

That is something I am not willing to disclose. It's not my place to name people. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Fairly vital though if you want any credibility at all. 

[/ QUOTE ]


  PMSL   Credibility????     Its not happening is it.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





I can see someone sailing very, very close to legal proceedings here.


----------



## Amymay (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I can see someone sailing very, very close to legal proceedings here.   

[/ QUOTE ] 

Yes, I must admit that was my initial reaction reading Patty's response to you Spaniel.


----------



## jacks_mum (26 May 2009)

surely seeing the evidence BEFORE the judge gets to see it unless you are a part of the legal teams is stepping on VERY dodgy ground?


----------



## teddyt (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


My uncle makes every effort to ensure that the wellbeing of his animals is second to none.   <font color="blue"> [ more likely that the welfare is next to nothing] 

 <font color="black">  I'm no expert but even I could see those animals were not neglected. 

 <font color="blue">  You dont have to be sherlock holmes to see the horses werent exactly in top notch condition  

 <font color="black">  The RSPCA and other welfare organizations involved in this case have all seen the food on site - alone with fresh water and clean dry bedding. But they chose to leave this out of their speeches to the press.  <font color="blue">   Shame the horses never saw enough of the food and clean bedding 

 <font color="black">  Their entire village think they are guilty 
 <font color="blue">  Thats because they were found guiltyin a court of law 

 <font color="black">  He loves his animals and there is no way he would do what he is being accused of.  <font color="blue">  I love my animals. When one dies i dont leave it to rot. I dont leave them tied to trailers to die either.  Funny ways of expressing love


 <font color="black"> I seriously do not know how these people sleep at night.
 <font color="blue">  I seriously dont know how the Grays sleep at night with those horses suffering outside their house

  <font color="black"> They are meant to be concerned about the welfare of animals not targeting good people who are animal lovers. <font color="blue">   If those horses were loved i would hate to see what JG does to things he hates  



[/ QUOTE ]


----------



## dozzie (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 surely seeing the evidence BEFORE the judge gets to see it unless you are a part of the legal teams is stepping on VERY dodgy ground?  

[/ QUOTE ] 

But isnt that exactly what happened when the RSPCA released the footage to the media? 

I think we all saw some of  the evidence before the judge saw it.


----------



## jacks_mum (26 May 2009)

all we saw were some photo's, snatches of video. Patty gives the impression she saw ALL the evidence that was presented in court before the judge saw it. That's a very different thing IMO


----------



## RantBucket (26 May 2009)

If I needed to go to court for any reason, I doubt that I would show everything to someone like Patty first, and then afterwards, what good did it do JG after all!?


----------



## gingermuffin (26 May 2009)

Have just been on the forum connected with the SHG website.
What a boring lot they are on there, all 3 of them. Funny though 'charsy' seems strangely familiar!!!!????


----------



## spaniel (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

But isnt that exactly what happened when the RSPCA released the footage to the media? 

I think we all saw some of  the evidence before the judge saw it. 

[/ QUOTE ]

The media made a request to the Court for something they could release.  This would have been sanctioned.  The RSPCA didnt just make a random press release off its own back.


----------



## spaniel (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 Funny though 'charsy' seems strangely familiar!!!!???? 

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be the delightful Charmaine then.


----------



## teddyt (26 May 2009)

Dozzie- could you please summarise your opinion of JG and the horses? This is a straight question, would just like to clarify where you stand


----------



## sam1am (26 May 2009)

how do i get on to the shg forum??


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
surely seeing the evidence BEFORE the judge gets to see it unless you are a part of the legal teams is stepping on VERY dodgy ground? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come off it!!!! I dont believe there is a single person here who would not have used the oppertunity to see the evidence if the oppertunity was there to grab.

But hey - may be I'm wrong, maybe I'm the only nosey b!tch around here.


As for the rest of the posts, I will answer them when I can be bothered because tbh, I'm tired.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
If I needed to go to court for any reason, I doubt that I would show everything to someone like Patty first, and then afterwards, what good did it do JG after all!? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to inform you - it was not JG who showed me the evidence.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
how do i get on to the shg forum?? 

[/ QUOTE ]


It's not a forum but here's a link to the site.

SHG


----------



## spaniel (26 May 2009)

Patty nobody has said they would or would not have taken a peek if it was available ......the point here is that you are implicating SOMEONE by saying you had sight of it prior to proceedings and I for one would like to know WHO and HOW.


----------



## sam1am (26 May 2009)

Thank you


----------



## Dahlia (26 May 2009)

Hey Patty - Do you have a crush on JG or something?  I find it tres bizarre your defending him so much!

Maybe it's a bit like a twisted Lady Chatterly's Lover - you with your kid in private education, obviously a VERY bored housewife the amount of time you're dedicating to this, perhaps had an animal taken away by the RSPCA (Hence the crusade) you see yourself as Constance and good ol' rough and ready JG as Morell  
	
	
		
		
	


	





What does your family feel about your devoting so much time and energy on some man you have never met? Bet your hubby must be a bit jealous that JG is the main man in your life!


----------



## teddyt (26 May 2009)

PMSL


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Patty - Do you have a crush on JG or something?  I find it tres bizarre your defending him so much!

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL....na, he's gray headed. Plus I'm a happily married woman. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's a bit like a twisted Lady Chatterly's Lover - you with your kid in private education, obviously a VERY bored housewife the amount of time you're dedicating to this, perhaps had an animal taken away by the RSPCA (Hence the crusade) you see yourself as Constance and good ol' rough and ready JG as Morell  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Have never had an animals taken away by anyone. 

[ QUOTE ]
What does your family feel about your devoting so much time and energy on some man you have never met? Bet your hubby must be a bit jealous that JG is the main man in your life!  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Hubby is not jealos but does get a bit p!sses at the amount of attention I give to the JG case.


----------



## gingermuffin (26 May 2009)

Would it be churlish of me to suggest he might be enjoying a bit of peace for a change?
You must be hell to live with, always right and always having to have the last word.
And just for the record I stated that the forum was connected to the Shg site.
Time for tea, have a lovely evening everyone.


----------



## jhoward (26 May 2009)

PATTY 

i have never confirmed anything to you. as for mentioning your kids name i think you may need to show proof of that. 

why wont i send the email to you? cause it has feck all to do with you., i will however send it to the other 27000 members of the forum. 

you provided no evidence for us you spout rubbish that is public information, yet you think any of us will prove anything to you.. not a chance. 

as for my age etc.. i really couldnt give two rotting jamie grays what you think of me. my loyality lies with the horses and charities nobody else.


----------



## WoopsiiD (26 May 2009)

Patty, sorry pry but where in the world do you live?
A few people have said you are not even in the Uk and I am as you also (quoted by you, so not being rude) a nosey bitch!
I have noticed that some of your spellings are not quite the Queens English.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
PATTY 

i have never confirmed anything to you. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems you have a very short memory.


[ QUOTE ]
as for mentioning your kids name i think you may need to show proof of that. 

[/ QUOTE ]

You are full of BS and you know it. Another poster even remembers that you did.

[ QUOTE ]
why wont i send the email to you? cause it has feck all to do with you., i will however send it to the other 27000 members of the forum. 

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's feck all do with me, what makes it any business of the other 27000 members of the forum?

[ QUOTE ]
you provided no evidence for us you spout rubbish that is public information, yet you think any of us will prove anything to you.. not a chance. 

as for my age etc.. i really couldnt give two rotting jamie grays what you think of me. my loyality lies with the horses and charities nobody else. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Make your mind up Jhoward. Why did you even bother trying to prove anything to me then?

You need to chill out before you blow a blood vessel.


----------



## jhoward (26 May 2009)

i was proving to the rest of the forum you were as per normal talking total rubbish. 

point proven me thinks


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty, sorry pry but where in the world do you live?

[/ QUOTE ]

UK. 

[ QUOTE ]
A few people have said you are not even in the Uk

[/ QUOTE ] 

That was just something PW picked from the top of his soft head.

[ QUOTE ]
and I am as you also (quoted by you, so not being rude) a nosey bitch!

[/ QUOTE ]








[ QUOTE ]
I have noticed that some of your spellings are not quite the Queens English. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure I'm not the only person on the forum to mithpell a few words hear and their.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
i was proving to the rest of the forum you were as per normal talking total rubbish. 

point proven me thinks 

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay if you say so.  
	
	
		
		
	


	








BTW, you didnt answer as to whether or not you would like me to C/P your PM to the forum?


----------



## jhoward (26 May 2009)

are you trying to blackmail me.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
are you trying to blackmail me. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please FGS do get real women!!!

Do you want me to post it to the forum or not? 

If you would like me to post it to the forum then I will - if not then I wont. The choice is yours and yours alone.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

QR


http://www.warmwell.com/rspcapowers.html

Memorandum submitted by the Self-Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA

Examination of Witnesses



Witnesses: Ms Anne Kasica, Member, Mr Ernest Vine, Member, Mr David Arthur, Member, Ms Joan Jackson, Self-Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA, Mr Christopher Day, Homeopathic Vet, and Mr Jonathan Cairns, Solicitor from Shulmans Solicitors, examined.

Q770  Chairman: I will not say we are quite outnumbered but you have certainly brought a large number of people.  We have before us the Self-Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA.  I do not want you to give your life history but might you just identify yourself for the record and let us know, if you hold a position in this organisation, what it is or if you are a farmer or animal keeper, just give us a brief introduction.  We will start with Ms Jackson.  

Ms Jackson: I am the owner of the pet shop in Doncaster.  I have come with Jonathan Cairns.

Q771  Chairman: You are an owner of a pet shop in?  

Ms Jackson: In Doncaster and we have had experience of the RSPCA. 

Q772  Chairman: Mr Cairns, tell us about you. 

Mr Cairns: My position here is I have been asked by three separate groups to attend, the Self-Help Group, Ms Jackson and Mr Christopher Newman, whom I believe has been assisting the Committee with other matters.  I believe I can assist the Committee with matters of practical application as far as the stages of investigation of the RSPCA are concerned and in particular with section 11(3) in the draft Bill.  

Q773  Chairman: When you are not doing all of this what do you do? 

Mr Cairns: I am a solicitor, sir, from Shulmans Solicitors.  

Q774  Chairman: Mr Arthur, where do you fit in?  

Mr Arthur: I am very much new to all this.  I do not form an actual part of the SHG.  I am just a private individual, I sit on the periphery of the SHG and discuss various matters with them, in other words I interact with the SHG.  

Q775  Chairman: And what do you do to keep body and soul together?  

Mr Arthur: Whatever I can, sir.  

Q776  Chairman: What are you doing at the moment or are you like an actor in between roles?  

Mr Arthur: I have been known to be an actor in between roles but yes, basically I am putting together a business at the moment.  

Q777  Chairman: Right.  Mr Day?  

Mr Day: I am a veterinary surgeon in a referral practice.  I write books and I lecture and I am an expert witness on occasions and I use alternative medicine.  I have been asked on occasions by this organisation to offer advice and counsel.  

Q778  Chairman: Right.  Mr Vine?  

Mr Vine: I might make a suggestion that you ask Ms Kasica next because she actually founded it and I help with it, dealing with people, people phone in, they need help, they need &amp;#8209;

Q779  Chairman: So you are part of the organisation? 

Mr Vine: I am part of the organisation.  

Q780  Chairman: Right, well, now we have found the fount of all knowledge.  

Ms Kasica: I founded the organisation when I was prosecuted back in 1989.  I found there was no help anywhere.  Solicitors I went to had no clue how to deal with an RSPCA investigation and prosecution.  I saw in the Farmers Weekly that another farmer had been prosecuted in similar circumstances.  I tried to contact him and in the end rang the magazine, spoke to a journalist, who said, Oh, you want to start a self-help group.  I did not but he wrote an article to that effect and calls came in literally from Southampton to the Shetlands.

Q781  Chairman: And how long have you been helping each other?  

Ms Kasica: Since 1990.   

Q782  Chairman: Since 1990.  Right, now we have got an idea of your backgrounds and where you are coming from, the role of the RSPCA in prosecution mode &amp;#8209; and I am not going to ask you the standard question we started with because I think your focus is very much on the prosecution side of the Bill and you would not be here if you did not have reservations about those aspects &amp;#8209; the Bill does appear to bestow upon the RSCPA a special status.  Perhaps you might like to just comment by way of opening about the role that you perceive that the RSPCA might undertake in the context of this particular measure and the reservations you might have.  Obviously all of you I guess must have had some experience in terms of prosecutory activity by the RSPCA and I think the Committee might find it helpful to know the type of problems that you come up against that you might wish to alert us to.  Ms Kasica, shall we start with you.  Obviously we cannot on every question have everybody speaking so a little bit of self&amp;#8209;discipline would be helpful.  

Ms Kasica: Do you want me to stick to my specific case or do you want me to tell you about the whole range of cases from people who just ring us with a question, a query, a worry, right through the line to the people who commit suicide?  

Q783  Chairman: We are not in the role of an agony aunt for those who have been subject to prosecutory activity but I think what we are looking for are some general points which arise from your various experiences with the RSPCA.  You have had some problems.  They do have a special role in terms of prosecutions of animal welfare and if you have some general reservations that you wish to illustrate by way of actions that have occurred to those along the table or others who have been in touch with you, fine.  I think the only thing that I would caution you on is please stick to the facts of the matter.   Normally on these occasions when people have differing views, we have the benefit of the other side sitting alongside to publicly rebut whatever is said.  I have no doubt that the RSPCA will in their usual way be taking very careful note of what is being put forward and I would just for the record say that they are coming back to see us tomorrow morning to deal with some of the issues that have come up so far in our proceedings so if you would care to reflect upon those points in framing any of your replies.  Right, fire away. 

Ms Kasica: Our worry is that you are going to empower an organisation &amp;#8209;&amp;#8209;&amp;#8209; 

Q784  Chairman: May I say we are not.  The Government have put forward the draft Bill and they may. 

Ms Kasica: --- may empower an organisation which is often campaigning politically to end the very activities that they are going to be investigating in their prosecutarial role.  That is somewhat biased from the very beginning.  How can they be non&amp;#8209;judgmental?  How can they go in from ground level and do this?  If you then go on to look at a typical prosecution where the RSPCA starts an investigation, seizes animals (often unlawfully and often in very strange circumstances) you have the flow very much from the figures supplied to you of people who find they have signed their animals away when they did not even know what they were signing.  They swear that they thought they were just signing them over for a couple of weeks respite care.  You go on and on with this and then we have supplied you with some figures which should be in front of you.  We only obtained these figures in the past couple of days. They flow very much from the figures supplied to you by Jackie Ballard.  Yes, she is right, 96 per cent of their prosecutions are successful &amp;#8209; until they get to appeal.  Consider this: the number of defendants who appeal magistrates convictions is more than 26 times greater in RSPCA prosecutions than those progressed by the CPS and the number of successful appeals at crown court is almost three times greater in RSPCA prosecutions than those progressed by the CPS. Surely there is something wrong when you see such a vast discrepancy in those figures.

Q785  Chairman: Mr Cairns, you are the lawyer and you have watched the RSPCA as a prosecuting body and you have heard what Ms Kasica has had to say.  Give us your take on that. 

Mr Cairns: If I give you some early examples.  The practical position in the first instance is the defendants do not know where to go or how to get legal advice.  A very common story is that people come to me and say they have been to see a solicitor and they have simply been told to plead guilty.  These cases are quite difficult, they are quite complex.  What happens is that defendants are quite often questioned by RSPCA inspectors before there has been any form of disclosure, they are interviewed in their home addresses or in the street.  It is very difficult for those individuals to know exactly what the medical position is.  In practical terms what happens with these cases is that they can take up to four to six months before the real case papers are served on defendants, and I come back to clause 11(3) so far as that would apply in practical proceedings. These cases can take up to 12 months to come to a final hearing and in contested cases the typical shape of a case now is lasting anywhere from four to ten days.  It is being heard in a magistrates court with a number of expert witnesses and typically these cases are now being assigned to district judges.  The majority of district judges seem to have a good grasp and handle on the facts and issues before them and they are making what I would say are reasonably fair decisions. 

Q786  Chairman: Can I just ask Joan Jackson are you here because you have been the subject of prosecution?  

Ms Jackson: Yes. 

Q787  Chairman: What happened to you?  

Ms Jackson: Firstly, can I just say thank you to everybody who answered our submission.  We sent a submission to everybody on the Committee here, so thank you for replying.  Myself and my husband have a specialist reptile and fish shop in Doncaster and we were visited by the RSPCA in February 2003 and, like Mr Cairns said, it took a long time for our case to come to court.  It was six months before the papers were served and then it took 14 months before it came into court for a four&amp;#8209;day hearing which was then adjourned because only the prosecution evidence was heard and after two weeks of the judge deliberating the charges were then dropped and the case was dismissed.  During that time we found life very, very difficult.  We did not know how to go about it at first but we had heard who to contact and we progressed from there with the help of Mr Cairns and Mr Newman.  The powers that the RSPCA already have are quite worrying but to give them any more in the Animal Welfare Bill we think it is quite frightening from our point of view because they appear to be accountable to no&amp;#8209;one.  They seem to have the power to come in and they do not need to have a reason.  The reason they gave us on the day as different to the reason they gave in court.  It just begs the question what was the reason for coming in?  Was there a reason?  From the investigation that we made through the Data Protection Act there was no reason.  So we find it very, very worrying.  We also think that as far as seizures go the seizure itself was debatable.  They called the Police we were told so that the Police could seize the animals because under the law only they can seize animals but the Police came only under a breach of the peace request.  We have letters from South Yorkshire Police saying they did not seize the animals.  Our animals were taken, they died in their care, not in our care.  They were fine when they left us.  They were taken as a precautionary measure.  The animals died yet we were accused of neglect and cruelty for which we were prosecuted.  We find that very, very worrying.  It happened to us, it will happen to others, and it has happened to others.  

Q788  Paddy Tipping: I would just like to clarify what you think the Bill says about the RSPCA.  I cannot see the RSPCA mentioned at all in the Bill.  Presumably you are concerned that they might be appointed as inspectors by a local authority?  

Mr Vine: We know for a fact that the RSPCA has been approaching local councils and county councils and so on and saying, Can we have meetings to see how we can enforce these new powers.  We know that. 

Ms Kasica: Powers they have been granted as prosecutors under the 2000 amendment. Remember they have been saying for a long time they want no more powers, they do not want to be prosecutors and yet we suddenly find that they have been negotiating with Defra to obtain those powers.  Assuming those powers are going to be transported into this Act which I understand they will be &amp;#8209;&amp;#8209;&amp;#8209; 

Q789  Paddy Tipping: Can I just stop you there.  Why do you say you understand they will be?  

Ms Kasica: From the wording of the proposed Act. 

Q790  Paddy Tipping: Perhaps Mr Cairns can help you.  Just draw my attention to where it says that these powers are going to be imported across to the RSPCA. 

Mr Cairns: For my part I make no assumption it is going to be the RSPCA who will fulfil the full role of prosecution but in practical terms it is difficult to envisage any other organisation who on a national scale could actually take it on.  I accept there could be restrictions placed on the RSPCA in certain areas. 

Q791  Paddy Tipping: Okay.  Clearly all of you have had contact with the RSPCA and have a view, if I can put it like that, on the RSPCA.  Are you saying to us as a Committee you would not want the RSPCA validated as inspectors?  

Ms Kasica: Very much so, unless there are strict controls and proper safeguards so that where an investigator or prosecutor breaches someones human rights or destroys animals when they should not there should be some very severe comeback and there should be a requirement that the case is dropped.  Furthermore it should be that prosecutor who would be prosecuting. 

Q792  Paddy Tipping: Okay.  I think Mr Cairns has just told us that the RSPCA might be in the frame as a national body to do this.  You have told us very strongly that you do not want them to do so. 

Ms Kasica: No. 

Q793  Paddy Tipping: Just spell out for us who you think should.  You are all involved with animal welfare, you all care about animals.  Just sketch out for us who should be the inspectors. 

Mr Vine: Just now you said that we have all obviously had contact with the RSPCA.  I have never had any problem with the RSPCA except for the fact that I do not like the way they operate and take the law into their own hands. 

Paddy Tipping: That is a fairly definitive view.  Lets go forward.  You are involved with animals.  Just spell out for me what you would envisage under the Act as inspectors?  What kind of people?  

Q794  Chairman: Mr Day, you can add your two pennyworth after Mr Vine has finished.

Mr Vine: Properly qualified and trained people.  

Q795  Paddy Tipping: Help me with that.  That is a big catch&amp;#8209;all, is it not? 

Ms Kasica: Defra, local animal health, local &amp;#8209;&amp;#8209;&amp;#8209; 

Q796  Chairman: One at a time because Mr Day wants to get his bit in as well.  You finish, Mr Vine. 

Mr Vine: The RSPCA certainly know their law and how to walk round it but they themselves have been approaching all different animal groups and saying, We do not have the expertise in your animals.  We need help.  Will you collaborate with us?  They admit themselves that they do not have the knowledge of the animals so how can they be inspectors?  

Q797  Paddy Tipping: Help us with where we are at.  You were saying Defra, local authorities --- 

Ms Kasica: --- Local authorities, animal health organisations. 

Q798  Paddy Tipping: Vets, presumably?  Mr Day, you were going to add to the list?  

Mr Day: I have 32 years of experience of RSPCA prosecutions and I have acted as an expert witness on either side of the court because obviously my duty is to help the court.  I also have to declare that I was personally prosecuted by the RSPCA unsuccessfully and in fact the judge did exonerate me.  That case was a very typical example where the animal was seized unlawfully and it died very quickly in RSPCA care.  The owners had no right of redress and they were jointly prosecuted with me.  It has come to my notice that the RSPCA appear to have a bias against alternative medicine and appear to equate it with no veterinary treatment, which is a very unfortunate approach, and it has been the feature of several cases.  They also appear to have a bias against organic farming.  One of my big concerns as a constituent is that any inspector should not have any vested interest and the RSPCA have a vested interest in the publicity gained by prosecutions and they are in the market place with the Freedom Food brand.  Therefore, they have a very strong vested interest in that aspect of animal management and therefore I think that renders them unfit as an inspectorate. 

Q799  Paddy Tipping That is pretty clear - not the RSPCA - but who?  

Mr Day: Defra is clearly in a position that it could move into this area.  Otherwise one has to envisage setting up training for a dedicated inspectorate.  Typifying most of the cases I have been involved with is a lack of understanding of the issues and the bringing of the emotive side to court and not the factual side.  We are all affected emotively.  I have to support any attempt to improve animal welfare.  It is my duty as a vet and it is my first and foremost raison detre in my whole professional life, so I am not against the Act in itself or the Bill in itself.  I am against anything that would perhaps endanger both animal welfare, which I have seen happen in these cases, and human rights. 

Q800  Paddy Tipping: So are you telling me that the RSPCA is a force for bad rather than a force for good?  

Mr Day: From a lot of what I have seen it would appear that way. 

Q801  Paddy Tipping: Right, that is the view of all of you?  

Ms Kasica: Yes.  

Mr Arthur: Unfortunately, yes. 

Mr Day: I support the idea of an RSPCA.  I think we need an RSPCA in this country and in the world.  I just think that there are certain ways that it operates at the moment that are unsuitable to its purpose. 

Q802  Chairman: Just to sum up before I bring Mr Lazarowicz in on this, I think you would all agree they really should not have a role as prosecutor.  Is that the sum total of where you are coming from?  

Mr Day: That is where I am coming from certainly. 

Mr Cairns: If there were checks and balances in place.  If, for example, the RSPCA were an investigating body but the prosecutions were carried out by somebody independent such as the CPS that for me as a lawyer would satisfy the appropriate position. 

Ms Kasica: We accept that too. 

Chairman: Right, so it is independence from bias in the prosecutory process which is the key thing.  Mr Lazarowicz?  

Q803  Mr Lazarowicz: Just a point of clarification on the figures which you have produced to back up your presentation.  I see that you calculate the rate of guilty convictions in RSPCA prosecutions as being 26 times higher than that in the case of CPS prosecutions. 

Mr Vine: Mr Arthur, I think is the expert on this. 

Q804  Mr Lazarowicz: What I do not see in your figures is the absolute number of CPS convictions to compare with the absolute number of RSPCA convictions.  

Mr Arthur: The numbers in CPS cases are obviously far greater than they are in RSPCA prosecutions and these numbers are detailed quite clearly on the web sites of the sources that I have placed here.  What we have done is to take the percentages stated by the Crown Prosecution Service of convictions, of pleas of not guilty, of people then found &amp;#8209;&amp;#8209;&amp;#8209; 

Q805  Mr Lazarowicz: This is all CPS convictions that you are talking about here?  

Mr Vine: It does not stipulate they are all CPS but it is certainly confined to CPS convictions. It is information which is obviously supplied by the Lord Chancellors Department Crown Prosecution Service. 

Mr Lazarowicz: Thank you.  

Q806  Mr Wiggin: As I understand it, the RSPCA can prosecute at the moment and in this Bill their powers will be potentially strengthened but the law will be clearer certainly, and we have heard from everybody that there are good bits and bad bits.  I am just a little bit concerned about what they will do should you be right.  If we do go down the Defra/State Veterinary Service route what will the RSPCA do then?   

Mr Arthur: I must stress that along with everyone on this desk I am very much pro animal welfare.  I am also very much pro human welfare.  Sections 11, 13, 39 and 40 provide that an inspector or police constable, persons who in all probability would have little real knowledge or experience of animal husbandry, with the authority to enter a property that is not a private dwelling (and the definition of private dwelling I would suggest is again a hugely subjective area) seize an animal, kill that animal, possibly on the spot if in his personal opinion it appears to him that the animal is suffering or not being properly cared for or simply likely to suffer or not be properly cared for if its circumstances do not change, which I would suggest is again another highly subjective area, if it appears to him, a virtually lay person who will almost certainly be uneducated in the accurate or precise interpretation of observable signs, let alone produce a meaningful  diagnosis or prognosis.  The RSPCA for example would no doubt claim that all their inspectors are fully trained yet I know one renowned veterinary practice in Abergavenny that was contacted by an RSPCA inspector with a request that they attend a horse to put it down in consequence of it appearing to him, the RSPCA inspector, to be suffering with its feet.  The vet duly attended the animal and advised the RSPCA that the horses condition did not warrant its destruction but that corrective farriery would resolve the problem and that they would contact their own orthopaedic farrier in order that this be done.  The animals owner was present throughout all of this.  The vet then returned to the practices premises and contacted their farrier.  An appointment was arranged for the farrier to attend the following day, the slight delay causing the vet no concern whatsoever.  This information was then passed on to the horses owner and the RSPCA inspector.  However, the inspector insisted that tomorrow was too late, that the horse was suffering.  The inspector, despite the advice of an equine veterinary surgeon from a practice which provides the British Horse Society with a team vet for prestigious international events, shot the horse because of the way it appeared personally to him, effectively an unqualified layman.  So what if that horse had been a valuable thoroughbred, a breed with a recorded ancestry back into the 1600s so a horse that was a combination of over 300 years and approximately 28 generations of highly selective and capable breeding regimes, 300 years of hope, planning, dreams and aspirations. 

Chairman: That is very helpful, Mr Arthur, but I do not think that was the response to the question that Mr Wiggin asked so perhaps Mr Wiggin might like to restate it and seek an answer.  

Q807  Mr Wiggin: I will give you another chance here.  The problem is the RSPCA is not going to go away so if we have a separate inspectorate what do you think they are going to do?  

Mr Arthur: Precisely what I have just said, sir &amp;#8209;&amp;#8209;&amp;#8209; 

Q808  Mr Wiggin: I am sorry, I do not accept that.  I am pretty sympathetic to your case but I do not really want another lesson on an Abergavenny vet.  I want to know what you think the RSPCA should really be doing. 

Ms Kasica: Can I ask if you are saying if the RSPCA are prevented from taking part in prosecutions?  Is that what you are saying?  

Q809  Mr Wiggin: In this Bill if they are not allowed to be inspectors, because that is what the Bill says, what will they do?  

Ms Kasica: We cannot possibly answer that.  

Q810  Mr Wiggin: Tell me what you would like them to do. 

Mr Day: I would like to see them doing the role I always understood from childhood they fulfilled, which is to highlight areas of animal welfare problems or possible areas of animal welfare problems and bring them to the notice of the proper authorities and perhaps recommend education or recommend certain improvements, bring expertise into help, and not have prosecution as the first weapon, and it is used as a weapon unfortunately.  There are many cases from my practice career where a little education and a few words would have worked wonders whereas prosecutions brought distress to animals and to people and obviously it is where animals are concerned that I have to have my main concern. 

Q811  Mr Wiggin: I think in the drafting of this Bill the Governments approach seems to be one in which prevention is better than prosecution and I think you would all find favour with that.  What we want to achieve is to ensure that what we enshrine in the Act when it becomes an Act will allow the best animal welfare procedures to take place but without the persecution of people such as yourself by this charity, and therefore there has to be a role and we have to take it forward. 

Mr Day: I have concerns as a member of the public about the possibility of unrestricted access at whim and the way in which that would be done. 

Ms Kasica: I could further comment on the potential role of the RSPCA.  On the original role of the RSPCA, according to their founder Richard Martin at the inaugural meeting of what was to become the RSPCA, he said it would be a disaster if the RSPCA were to become known as a prosecuting society.  He said that their aim should be to alter the moral tone of the country.  What the RSPCA should be doing is going to people who have a problem, perhaps someone has died, perhaps they have become ill or unemployed, and they should say, You have run out of money.  Let us help you.  You have got arthritis, you cannot trim your dogs nails, let us send our volunteers round.  Not prosecution first and foremost. 

Q812  Mr Wiggin: I think they would probably agree with that so that is very helpful, thank you. 

Mr Day: In the recent foot and mouth disaster, for instance, there were many cases of acknowledged animal suffering where funds could have helped those animals through helicopter airlifts of food or something.  People had donated funds expecting them to go to animal welfare improvement and some of these animals could have been saved and their welfare enhanced by investment as opposed to just standing and watching.  We have had cases in Swindon, which is local to me, where private animal welfare activists have had to go in and help in cases where the RSPCA will not help because nobody will come forward and help in prosecution. 

Q813  Mr Wiggin: Certainly in the way that we have heard the modern pet shop will be selling exotic pets, there are very different levels of expertise that somebody who knows about dogs could not possibly have about the ultraviolet light requirements of some reptiles and various other problems.  So I think the Bill would like to take that into consideration.  It is how we do it that is the challenge. 

Mr Day: On the avoidance issue I would like to see an end to the practice for instance where another cat in Swindon was brought to me with a collar round its neck RSPCA aware rather like a car in a ditch saying Police aware.  This animal was dying of chronic kidney disease and four people had complained about that animal to the RSPCA to my knowledge and they had either released it again with its collar or given the collar to somebody to put on it to stop them being pestered.  You ask what role they should fulfil.  I think that is the role that they should be fulfilling &amp;#8209; enhancing animal welfare wherever animal welfare is threatened.  

Q814  Mr Lepper: It is helpful to have your view about what role you feel the RSPCA should be following.  You said I think, Ms Kasica, that the organisation has been in existence since 1990?  

Ms Kasica: Yes. 

Q815  Mr Lepper: You talked about numbers of people from Southampton to the Shetland Islands who have been in contact with you.  How many people nationally have been involved in the organisation, would you guess, since 1990? 

Ms Kasica: Oh crumbs, many hundreds.  I have three and a half filing cabinets full, to give you some idea. 

Q816  Mr Lepper: Okay.  It is my ignorance I am sure but until you put in your submission to this inquiry I had not heard of your group before over these 14 years.  That is my ignorance I am sure.  Could you just tell us briefly please what action you have taken over those 14 years to make the public perhaps aware of your concerns about the RSPCA? 

Ms Kasica: Initially we were in Farmers Weekly.  We have been on the Farming Today programme, in the Guardian.  Of course, it is very difficult to get the media to take up any cause that does not support the RSPCA so until we were able to get Internet access and a web site we did not take off as rapidly, but once of course we got a web site and a national helpline number the floodgates opened.  To be honest, the thought of this Bill terrifies me because we simply would not be able to cope.  We do not get a fraction the number of people who are being prosecuted in this country coming to us and our resources are stretched.  We are all self&amp;#8209;funding.  We have no outside income whatsoever and it would be impossible, especially if the number of prosecutions, as has been predicted, goes up. 

Q817  Mr Lepper: One final question, if I may, about the nature of the organisation and the people who have contacted you.  Have you any rough estimate of the proportions of those people who have contacted you over the years who are farmers, those who are ordinary members of the public, those who are pet shop owners?  

Ms Kasica: It changes depending on the current RSPCA campaign.  We tend to find that the type of animal or the type of activity that is being investigated goes with whatever publicity campaign is running.  Whether that is because those people get together, talk to each other and someone finds us and they pass it on amongst themselves, I do not know, or whether it is because the RSPCA looks more closely at those types of activities when they have a campaign on, again I do not know. 

Q818  Alan Simpson: Let me try and take the RSPCA out of this for a moment.  Who do you think should be prosecuting you?  

Mr Vine: The CPS. 

Ms Kasica: The Police/CPS or Defra/CPS or local authority/CPS.  There should always be a second assessment of the facts.  I think this is the fault that has led to the huge discrepancies in the appeals figures.  Originally the right to prosecute was taken from the Police because it was believed that they would have too great an interest in obtaining a successful prosecution having been involved in the initial investigation.  You are talking about a campaigning body who wants to end particular activities and then you are allowing that campaigning body to run riot.  You see where I am going?  

Q819  Alan Simpson: Sure, I just wanted to take that part out for a moment and just follow this one through.  Whoever you then give the rights of prosecution to, would you still have the same objections to unrestricted right of access? 

Ms Kasica: Yes, very much so. 

Q820  Alan Simpson: Can you explain to the Committee why you feel that in terms of animal welfare you should have rights that do not apply in other aspects of criminal law?  The Police currently have powers to enter someones premises where they have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence is being committed. 

Mr Vine: That is the Police and they are answerable to other bodies. 

Q821  Alan Simpson: Sure, but what I am saying to you is I first of all asked you to define who you would want to be the body that was prosecuting you and then you have to say okay and on what basis do you secure the evidence that you would need for a successful prosecution.  In other aspects of criminal law it is quite straightforward, the Police have unrestricted rights of entry where they have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed, so why should you be any different? 

Ms Kasica: Because in todays society the modern witch-hunt has become the suspicion of animal neglect and animal abuse.  Very much along the lines of child abuse where you have seen the scandals wherein the professionals do not listen, this is happening in animal cases. 

Q822  Alan Simpson: If we were doing this in terms of child care, if we were doing it in terms of other criminal activity, the response to that answer would be to say really you are wanting the law to give the criminal notice of your intention to turn up to look for the evidence that you have just told them you are going to be coming to look for and you have given them the time to hide.  Does that not make an ass of the law?  

Ms Kasica: No, because parts of this Bill are creating, for instance, licences and breach of licence conditions in itself will be a crime which has no effect on the animal welfare issues.  The animal may well be in perfect condition, better kept than by anybody who has a licence, and yet you will have powers of entry to anywhere that you think those licence conditions may be breached. 

Q823  Alan Simpson: Or the animal could be conveniently lost by the time the Police turn up.

Ms Kasica: That goes the same for any situation anywhere. 

Q824  Alan Simpson: No, the issue that I am trying to raise is that if you give notice in any other aspect of the law you give the person committing the offence the opportunity to hide or lose the evidence. 

Ms Kasica: I think the problem is that in these cases you very often are talking about peoples homes, their family life, their pets are part of their family.  You are then going to raid their premises on a minor issue.  I cannot see where you are coming from, I am sorry, we need a better definition of the question. 

Q825  Mr Wiggin: What I think my colleague is saying is that if you are breaking the law on animal welfare and it is not going to be the RSPCA, it is going to be the local authority, then they ought to have unfettered access, should they not? 

Ms Kasica: Only if there are proper and adequate controls. 

Mr Wiggin: Yes, but if it was the local authority and the Police --- 

Q826  Chairman: The main message that is coming through is whoever prosecutes it should be on the basis of a well&amp;#8209;founded and proper and logical approach.  Mr Day, you have been anxious to come in. 

Mr Day: I am possibly ignorant of the law on this, forgive me if I am but I am a veterinary surgeon.  I understand that the Police would have to seek those powers in certain instances in order to come in and gain access not from the owner or the proprietor or whoever but from the appropriate authority before they came in to seek their evidence.  I do not think the Police have the right to come and see my veterinary records of clients activities, for instance, without a search warrant.  I may be wrong but that is the attitude I take in client confidentiality and unless they have gone through the proper channels my clients confidentiality is sacrosanct.  Furthermore, if we look in this Bill we have the concept of the possibility of animal welfare problems in somebodys view inciting them to have unfettered access.  That would make me very frightened.  If there is a very genuine ground that animal welfare is being jeopardised then I can see the point but through the proper channels, not at somebodys whim who could then at 8 oclock in the evening decide to just pop in and have access because he knows the owners are not there and do what he wishes.  

Q827  Chairman: In fairness, you may not have had a chance to study all the evidence that the Committee has had.  Just for the record, at the beginning one of the questions that we originally asked the RSPCA was how do you go about the question of investigating and then subsequently prosecuting and they and others have made it clear that it is a whole myriad of information that comes from members of the public who feed this information in.  In other words I think what you are concerned about is are people going to go on fishing expeditions?

Mr Day: I am concerned about the possibility of abuse of process. 

Q828  Chairman: Ms Jackson wants to amplify that point. 

Ms Jackson: I must come in at this point because when we were visited by the RSPCA they had no reason to come in.  They came in under one pretext; in court they said something different.  According to them they had had a number of complaints against us &amp;#8209; a number of complaints &amp;#8209; and yet when we went through the Data Protection Act to investigate the number of complaints to find out where they came from and in what period of time there were none.  My concern is that they do come in perhaps without any particular reason but also they do not seem to be as knowledgeable as they should be in the area in which they are inspecting.  

Chairman: Mr Wiggin is going to ask one final question. 

Q829  Mr Wiggin: What I was concerned by was what you said earlier about the trends in prosecutions so when there is a campaign of some sort that is then presumably followed by a string of cases that go to prosecution.  I am very worried about a charitable organisation that needs to raise funds using its prosecutory powers to emphasise or in some way enhance its fundraising ability because they would, and it is not unfair, and if they are doing a good job they should tell people about it, however the cart must not come before the horse, if you see what I mean.  Is that what is going on because nobody else would be able to tell us?  

Ms Kasica: We can only tell you that we see a trend.  We do not have the figures for the entire country.  We had enough of a struggle to get the prosecution figures that we asked for.  It was only Charles Hendry, one of your colleagues, who obtained them for one of his constituents who passed them on to us. 

Q830  Mr Wiggin: I have certainly noticed in my constituency where there are a lot of poultry growers that this campaign about the strength of chickens legs comes up once every three or four years and there are some pretty horrible pictures.  The poultry sector responds but that is ignored and the campaign is run again.  I just wondered if that is the sort of thing you are seeing as well? 

Ms Kasica: Yes we do. 

Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.  I think without doubt you have alerted us clearly to your concerns about the way that prosecutions should be conducted under this Bill.  I have no doubt, as I said at the outset, that the RSPCA will have heard what you have had to say and it may well be that when they come before us for a brief session tomorrow they may wish to comment on some of the points that you have made it.  I think it might be quite helpful to hear what they do have to say.  Can I thank you again for the contribution you have made and for the written evidence you have sent us.  Thank you very much.


----------



## Paddywhack (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
are you trying to blackmail me. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Remember that Patty is the lowest out of the lowest and you got the support of the whole forum while Patty got 1 or 2 backing it up (Still stupid believing that I am male)
So just ignore Patty ! 
Remember that when Patty is threatened by the truth the insults and twisting starts !!!!!!
Patty is an expert to twist things and a Copy/Paste is very easy to alter/twisting. So if Patty decides to post something here from you its most likely altered,just think what it did with the photos with the horses,noone believed it anyway !


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

PW must be having one hell of a crap holiday.


----------



## horseygirl28 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
are you trying to blackmail me. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Remember that Patty is the lowest out of the lowest and you got the support of the whole forum while Patty got 1 or 2 backing it up (Still stupid believing that I am male)
So just ignore Patty ! 
Remember that when Patty is threatened by the truth the insults and twisting starts !!!!!!
Patty is an expert to twist things and a Copy/Paste is very easy to alter/twisting. So if Patty decides to post something here from you its most likely altered,just think what it did with the photos with the horses,noone believed it anyway ! 

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you were meant to be on holiday Paddywhack?? You clearly love reading this post and getting involved, you cant stay away. Strange.


----------



## jhoward (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
are you trying to blackmail me. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Remember that Patty is the lowest out of the lowest and you got the support of the whole forum while Patty got 1 or 2 backing it up (Still stupid believing that I am male)
So just ignore Patty ! 
Remember that when Patty is threatened by the truth the insults and twisting starts !!!!!!
Patty is an expert to twist things and a Copy/Paste is very easy to alter/twisting. So if Patty decides to post something here from you its most likely altered,just think what it did with the photos with the horses,noone believed it anyway ! 

[/ QUOTE ]

she can post what she likes. i know what shes like and ive no doubt she would edit something.. but thats ok i have all pms saved, 

ive decided to ignore patty, shes a nobdy that knows nothing, where as people like you and me have seen the horses and know that what we say is true...


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

she can post what she likes. i know what shes like and ive no doubt she would edit something.. but thats ok i have all pms saved, 

[/ QUOTE ]

I most certainly will not edit anything. And I have given you no reason to believe I would do any such thing.

I'm finding it difficult to understand why you dont want me to C/P your PM to the forum if you dont feel you were being two faced ?

But I respect your wishes if you would rather I didnt.


----------



## jhoward (26 May 2009)

where have i siad dont post it? 

patty your a fruit cake. your going to do what you what to do, and it will be twisted and minipulated to divert attention away from you. 

many people have asked you questions. you ignore them and asnswer them with another question. 

or you just say what was said in court, to which the entire world has information to.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
where have i siad dont post it? 

patty your a fruit cake. your going to do what you what to do, and it will be twisted and minipulated to divert attention away from you. 

many people have asked you questions. you ignore them and asnswer them with another question. 

or you just say what was said in court, to which the entire world has information to. 

[/ QUOTE ]

You have not said for me not to post it but neither have you given me permission to post it either.

Do you want me to post it or not?


----------



## jhoward (26 May 2009)

jesus woman, what sort of game are you trying to play!


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
jesus woman, what sort of game are you trying to play! 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not playing any sort of game. Do you want me to post it or not?


----------



## WoopsiiD (26 May 2009)

Sorry but reading that long essay......PADDY TIPPING???? 
Is that like Cow Tipping but you push over sleeping Irish men in the night??


----------



## Amymay (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I needed to go to court for any reason, I doubt that I would show everything to someone like Patty first, and then afterwards, what good did it do JG after all!? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to inform you - it was not JG who showed me the evidence.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Patty, at least three people on this forum know _exactly_ who you are, and therefore what your connection with the 'evidence' is.  

I'd shut up now, if I were you.


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I needed to go to court for any reason, I doubt that I would show everything to someone like Patty first, and then afterwards, what good did it do JG after all!? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to inform you - it was not JG who showed me the evidence.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Patty, at least three people on this forum know _exactly_ who you are, and therefore what your connection with the 'evidence' is.  

I'd shut up now, if I were you. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I have nothing to hide.


----------



## legend (26 May 2009)




----------



## Amymay (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 I have nothing to hide.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

No, I'm sure you don't.  However, the person who allowed you to see evidence prior to its presentation at court may have.


----------



## RantBucket (26 May 2009)

I wonder why Patty didnt speak up for JG while the case was being heard in court, or had she not finished conducting her exhaustive enquiries then.


----------



## Donkeymad (26 May 2009)

Sorry, but I have skipped the last three pages, the arguments are getting rather tedious.

patty, can I just ask, why do you not have your notes? Who has them? and why do you not have your own copies?


----------



## RantBucket (26 May 2009)

Exactly she can't be much of a legal executive if she has forgotten to put carbon paper in her typewriter!


----------



## Dahlia (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I needed to go to court for any reason, I doubt that I would show everything to someone like Patty first, and then afterwards, what good did it do JG after all!? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to inform you - it was not JG who showed me the evidence.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Patty, at least three people on this forum know _exactly_ who you are, and therefore what your connection with the 'evidence' is.  

I'd shut up now, if I were you. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I have nothing to hide. 

[/ QUOTE ]


So why don't you just fess up to what your REAL motives are for defending JG.

I wonder if he would actually be a bit freaked out that some random woman he has never met has taken such an unhealthy obsession in him and his family, and is devoting a whole heap of her free time (and neglecting her husband in the process) to his failed case?

Bit stalkerish / bunny boiler antics to me!


----------



## SpruceRI (26 May 2009)

I'm guessing that you're Anne Kasica then?


----------



## patty19 (26 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

I have no idea if smuggling drugs was a motive in this instance,but your disbelieveing reply makes me wonder what kind of bubble you live in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont live in a bubble - I live in the real world.

The reason I responded to that ridiclous comment the way I did is because it seems that everyone believes the stories about JG so therefore they cant seem to figure out how he made a living so they came up with that suggestion because it made more sense to them.


[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any perception of the influence and impact drugs have currently in our society??

Massive is the answer!!


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and I am totally anti drugs.

I know of one mother who lost 2 children to drugs. If the oppertunity ever came by for me to shop a dealer then I would grab it with both hands. I dont know the woman very well but I saw the pain in her face when she lost the last child, her only daughter. 

There are many victims of drugs and that includes the decent hard working people who are robbed to support a drug addicts habit.  
	
	
		
		
	


	














[ QUOTE ]
You imply that the idea is far fetched that people would use animals to smuggle drugs into the country to make a quick buck,get real,people do it all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont disbelieve you. I know there are sickos who would do such things.


[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea if JG was doing this but it doesn't seem that it would be outside of his moral scope from what I have heard about him.Would actually make a lot of sense in regards to the state of the animals and how little he seemed bothered by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And given the horror stories that were given behind the images I should think so too.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW in regards to your comment about shopping a drug dealer,my only advice would be be careful which one you shop or defending JG may be the least of your worries,mind you at least we would get a break from your irrational devotion for a while 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the advice but it would bring me great pleasure to shop a drug dealer - I hate drugs and those that push them. 

Along with child abuse, animal cruelty, and cruelty to the aged, this is my pet hate - these 4 things make my blood boil. And I would be proud to shop anyone for any of these crimes.

[ QUOTE ]
I really still can't understand your mentality patty,you have to be saying that the RSPCA fabricated an entire case,at massive cost and effort just to get a conviction for JG,WHY??
It makes no sense whatsoever for them to do that,why would they bother??

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter what I say it's thrown back in my face so all I can do is suggest you do a little searching for yourself and then come to your own conclusion.


[ QUOTE ]
I suppose it's also a coincidence that he had a previous conviction for animal cruelty?? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, whatever you say. I would not expect you to believe anything I say anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose that was all lies as well?? I do believe in coincidence,but there is a limit,or at least there is to any rational,logical thinking person.

I can confirm one thing for you anyway,jhoward is most definitely not a child (although she is quite short I'll admit 
	
	
		
		
	


	




)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah right!! Then maybe she suffers from little persons syndrome then.



[ QUOTE ]
I have never found her disrespectful to children either as you mentioned,well not my children anyway,and she has seen them often enough. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I found her very disrespectful to my child last year when she broadcasted her name and education on this public forum.


----------



## patty19 (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Tell me patty,do you watch a lot of movies?? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Only true movies.


----------



## patty19 (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 [ QUOTE ]
 I have nothing to hide.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

No, I'm sure you don't.  However, the person who allowed you to see evidence prior to its presentation at court may have. 

[/ QUOTE ]


What in the world would they possibly have to hide?


----------



## kickandshout (27 May 2009)

cruelty starvation and a total disrespect for an animals life whether it was to be meat or not.
also a severe lack of dignity for animal kind.
this topic is keeping one poster entertained  but what will she do when he's convicted and sentenced.
evidence ??? Ive seen and read enough that's already been released to the public to see quite plainly he's as guilty as hell. hanging would be too good for him.

the shame about it is all of this ranting will never bring back the dead horses.


----------



## patty19 (27 May 2009)

Hey peeps - you all luff me really doncha?


----------



## horseygirl28 (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Hey peeps - you all luff me really doncha?   
	
	
		
		
	


	

















[/ QUOTE ]


----------



## teddyt (27 May 2009)

PATTY- I have a question. You have said several times that people have jumped to the wrong conclusions (e.g. drugs)because they cant see how JG made money on the horses. Can you explain how he did make money then?

e.g. JG buys a horse for £1. Costs include travelling it at least once (diesel, lorry tax, lorry plating, driver wages), worming on the lorry (as you have said), Hay (£2.50+ bale, usually horses eat at least 1 bale a day), bedding, hard feed, water, business rates, veterinary treatment (as you have said) one call out &amp; examination is £50+ without treatment, farrier, time/wages.... 

Even at a purchase price of £1 there is a very tough job to make money on horses that were so thin and ill. So please explain how you think he did make his money? 

If, as the photos and videos suggested (you cant deny the horses were thin and ill), he didnt even use much of his hay, bedding, hard feed, sufficient veterinary treatment, etc, it makes it more of a possibility that money could be made by it being a numbers game. e.g 100 horses x £20 profit each compared to 5 horses x £100 profit each. You however deny that he didnt treat the horses badly.

Therefore please explain why you feel those horses were well looked after, as their body condition suggests otherwise, and how JG made money? Thank you, i am genuinely interested in your opinion and am waiting to be educated!


----------



## dozzie (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 JG buys a horse for £1. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

And  Katie Price is having an affair with Spencer Wilton!

I know it is true cos I read it in the Sun!


----------



## JM07 (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 [ QUOTE ]
 JG buys a horse for £1. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

And  Katie Price is having an affair with Spencer Wilton!

I know it is true cos I read it in the Sun!  
	
	
		
		
	


	















[/ QUOTE ]

teddyt did say e.g......for example..
you dont need to read the current bun to understand that, surely?


----------



## dozzie (27 May 2009)

ROTFPMSL!


----------



## Gingernags (27 May 2009)

Dozzie, 

you are so behind!  
	
	
		
		
	


	





Spencer Wilton was SO last week... it moved on to Andrew Gould after that!

Keep up woman!


----------



## Taboo1968 (27 May 2009)

Can you imagine the sun reading this?  The next thing will be JG is having an affair with KP!!!!  Or KP has turned lesbian and is having an affair with Patty!!!

LOL!!!


----------



## Paddywhack (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Can you imagine the sun reading this?  The next thing will be JG is having an affair with KP!!!!  Or KP has turned lesbian and is having an affair with Patty!!!

LOL!!!  
	
	
		
		
	


	









[/ QUOTE ]
LOVE IT..Mind you not even K.P would go so low


----------



## Gingernags (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
LOVE IT..Mind you not even K.P would go so low  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

MIAOW!!!!


----------



## Taboo1968 (27 May 2009)

Miaow - Yep!!  but definately worth the giggle tho!


----------



## Gingernags (27 May 2009)

You need to be careful though, with all her "contacts" anyone crossing Patty might end up with a concrete blanket somewhere under a new road bridge!!!


----------



## Taboo1968 (27 May 2009)

ROFL!!!!!


----------



## Paddywhack (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
You need to be careful though, with all her "contacts" anyone crossing Patty might end up with a concrete blanket somewhere under a new road bridge!!!  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]
Are you talking about her little gnomes from Pattyland ?  
	
	
		
		
	


	




I will take care of them in one BIG kick  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 And besides they got to catch me first and with their little legs I will outrun them in a flash


----------



## Janetterose (27 May 2009)

why does everyone keep going on  about this - everyone on both sides are sure that they are right, noone is getting anywhere and noone will be convinced that they are wrong. If people stops responding to Patty then who is she got to talk to? She is loving this! It just gives her more opportunity to air her views. Ignore her and eventually she will shut up and so will everyone else who has been supporting JG (hopefully)


----------



## Paddywhack (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
why does everyone keep going on  about this - everyone on both sides are sure that they are right, noone is getting anywhere and noone will be convinced that they are wrong. If people stops responding to Patty then who is she got to talk to? She is loving this! It just gives her more opportunity to air her views. Ignore her and eventually she will shut up and so will everyone else who has been supporting JG (hopefully) 

[/ QUOTE ]
You are SOO right,at the moment I am just taking the Mckey out of her,she has done that enough times with all of us.I am not discussing any J.G business,just having a bit of fun.
Hubby is watching football on our holiday,kids are playing with friends and I am bored 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 Will jump into the pool instead....


----------



## teddyt (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
why does everyone keep going on  about this - everyone on both sides are sure that they are right, noone is getting anywhere and noone will be convinced that they are wrong. If people stops responding to Patty then who is she got to talk to? She is loving this! It just gives her more opportunity to air her views. Ignore her and eventually she will shut up and so will everyone else who has been supporting JG (hopefully) 

[/ QUOTE ]

I enjoy a good debate. I am prepared to learn from Patty (although i havnt learnt anything worth knowing yet!) and likewise i aim to educate her that she is wrong! Whether that will ever happen i dont know but i do enjoy trying. Like PW, my OH is watching the football but i dont have a pool to jump in to


----------



## Donkeymad (27 May 2009)

QR

Patty, may I have answers to my questions please?


----------



## patty19 (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
PATTY- I have a question. You have said several times that people have jumped to the wrong conclusions (e.g. drugs)because they cant see how JG made money on the horses. Can you explain how he did make money then?

[/ QUOTE ]

How everyother trader makes money.

[ QUOTE ]
e.g. JG buys a horse for £1.

[/ QUOTE ]

So says the media.

[ QUOTE ]
Costs include travelling it at least once (diesel, lorry tax, lorry plating, driver wages), worming on the lorry (as you have said), Hay (£2.50+ bale, usually horses eat at least 1 bale a day), bedding, hard feed, water, business rates, veterinary treatment (as you have said) one call out &amp; examination is £50+ without treatment, farrier, time/wages....

[/ QUOTE ]

And??? Are you saying that every trader is up to no good because you believe they cant possibly make money while having all the above to pay for? 

[ QUOTE ]
Even at a purchase price of £1 there is a very tough job to make money on horses that were so thin and ill. So please explain how you think he did make his money? 

[/ QUOTE ]

You show me 111 animals that were so thin and ill and I'll ask the same question.

[ QUOTE ]
If, as the photos and videos suggested (you cant deny the horses were thin and ill), 

[/ QUOTE ]

How many thin and ill horses can be seen in the images?

[ QUOTE ]
he didnt even use much of his hay, bedding, hard feed, sufficient veterinary treatment, etc,

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this how exactly?

[ QUOTE ]
it makes it more of a possibility that money could be made by it being a numbers game. e.g 100 horses x £20 profit each compared to 5 horses x £100 profit each. You however deny that he didnt treat the horses badly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are 100% correct by saying that I deny he treated his animals badly.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore please explain why you feel those horses were well looked after, as their body condition suggests otherwise, and how JG made money? Thank you, i am genuinely interested in your opinion and am waiting to be educated! 

[/ QUOTE ]

He looked after them as well as any horseman should look after his horses. And looking after his stock is exactly how he made money.

I believe your questions are genuine - and good questions they are too, even if your opinion as to the why's and how's etc are wrong. 

I have some questions of my own if you dont mind.

How many horses did you see in bad body condition? And how long did he own those particular animals?

How do you know he was not treating those sick animals? 

How do you know those animals had not improved since he got them?

Thanks.


----------



## patty19 (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Dozzie, 

you are so behind!  
	
	
		
		
	


	





Spencer Wilton was SO last week... it moved on to Andrew Gould after that!

Keep up woman! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and how dreadful was that!? The Sun can say one thing one week and something different the next. And they name both men, one which is married. 

You'd have thought they would learn not to mention names knowing how wrong they can be and have been.

But hey, in for a penny in for a pound - it's no concern of theirs when they publish [****] and screw people's lives up. They dont give a damn.


----------



## patty19 (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Can you imagine the sun reading this?  The next thing will be JG is having an affair with KP!!!!  Or KP has turned lesbian and is having an affair with Patty!!!

LOL!!!  
	
	
		
		
	


	









[/ QUOTE ]

Na, if I was into women it certainly would not be with someone like KP.


----------



## tania01 (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but I have skipped the last three pages, the arguments are getting rather tedious.

patty, can I just ask, why do you not have your notes? Who has them? and why do you not have your own copies? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Little donkey do you also expect her to answer this?

She will not answer anything that she does not like.

She has been asked numerous times questions that she has still refused to answer because she cant .

I have also asked among others asked  some question yet will still not answer, yet if she wants an answer she will continue to ask.


----------



## patty19 (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

You are SOO right,at the moment I am just taking the Mckey out of her,she has done that enough times with all of us.I am not discussing any J.G business,just having a bit of fun.
Hubby is watching football on our holiday,kids are playing with friends and I am bored 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 Will jump into the pool instead.... 

[/ QUOTE ]

Bloody hell PW, I sure hope you didnt pay to much for that holiday.


----------



## Paddywhack (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but I have skipped the last three pages, the arguments are getting rather tedious.

patty, can I just ask, why do you not have your notes? Who has them? and why do you not have your own copies? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Little donkey do you also expect her to answer this?

She will not answer anything that she does not like.

She has been asked numerous times questions that she has still refused to answer because she cant .

I have also asked among others asked  some question yet will still not answer, yet if she wants an answer she will continue to ask. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course she can't answer,she is full of sh*t and knows absolutely nothing ..when will you people realise that


----------



## Donkeymad (27 May 2009)

I can but ask. Patty? Please


----------



## patty19 (27 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but I have skipped the last three pages, the arguments are getting rather tedious.

patty, can I just ask, why do you not have your notes? Who has them? and why do you not have your own copies? 

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has my notes I left them somewhere.


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Of course she can't answer,she is full of sh*t and knows absolutely nothing ..when will you people realise that  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Several times you have told the forum that I know nothing.

Was it not you PW who also told the forum that Baskerville would not work for the likes of JG? 

Bet you could have chewed ya foot off when you saw that it was you who knew nothing and was full of [****].

Enjoy ya holiday.


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Little donkey do you also expect her to answer this?

She will not answer anything that she does not like.

She has been asked numerous times questions that she has still refused to answer because she cant .

I have also asked among others asked  some question yet will still not answer, yet if she wants an answer she will continue to ask. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you care to show me the questions I have not answered?


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

Serial liar, aka Paddywhack, luffs me doncha?


----------



## Happy Horse (28 May 2009)

QR

I just can't help myself!

Patty it is such a shame you 'left your notes somewhere' and are not able to present any proof to the forum that you have been promising.

[ QUOTE ]
 Yes it had lots of horses in and out of there. But they were not kept in there. The pony lying down near the trough went down that day 4th Jan. JG tried to get it up. That pony had been in a field. Before JG could move it again the RSPCA arrived. Those horses were put in that barn by the RSPCA. I know you wont believe this but it's the truth. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

So JG bought the sick pony in to a filthy dirty barn intending to move it to one of the nice clean fluffy ones?  Why didn't he take it to one of the nice clean fluffy ones straight away if it was sick?

As you did not go to the farm prior to the raid, how did you know the horses were not living in the dirty barns seen on the video?  You say it is the truth - according to who as you didn't see it?

Again, what proof do you have that the RSPCA moved them into the dirty barns for the video?  With all the witnesses on site including police do you not think someone would have questioned it through the formal channels or are you saying that they were they all lying in court under oath?


----------



## TGM (28 May 2009)

Patty, you seem passionate about defending JG and rubbishing the RSPCA.  May I ask you three questions:

1.  Have you ever been convicted of any animal cruelty charges?

2.  Have you ever had animals seized by the RSPCA?

3.  Have you had any dealings with the RSPCA before the JG case?


----------



## TGM (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing that you're Anne Kasica then?  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

If you're right Madhossy, that would explain a lot:
_
"Anne Kasica (46) of Felindre, Llandysul was convicted of 12 cruelty charges on horses in her care by magistrates. But she immediately lodged an appeal against the convictions and fines of £17,200. This meant that the RSPCA, who had seized all 12 horses, was unable to find new homes for them until after the appeal. However, Kasica withdrew her appeal at Swansea Crown Court on 24/10/00. RSPCA officers found the 12 emaciated horses in boggy fields near Llandysul and took them into care but two later died. Magistrates in the original case at Carmarthen ordered Kasica to pay £600 for each offence and costs of £10,000 a total of £17,200. But after withdrawing from an appeal hearing Kasica was told she would have no fines to pay because she had no way of paying them. The 10 horses that have been in care are now fit and healthy. A 10-year ban on keeping horses, which was imposed on Kasica by the magistrates, still stands."_


----------



## jacks_mum (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

As you did not go to the farm prior to the raid, how did you know the horses were not living in the dirty barns seen on the video?  You say it is the truth - according to who as you didn't see it?



[/ QUOTE ]

I asked the same question some pages ago and the reply I got :
[ QUOTE ]
Because Claire Ryder gave evidence that she had never had any problems with the beds at SF. This leads me to believe that what Mr Gray said concerning that barn is the truth. Those photos were taken on the 4th of Jan, that barn was being cleared on the 9th but KH had a stop put to it. She denied this of course but her peers did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

so  basically hearsay


----------



## Gingernags (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As you did not go to the farm prior to the raid, how did you know the horses were not living in the dirty barns seen on the video?  You say it is the truth - according to who as you didn't see it?



[/ QUOTE ]

I asked the same question some pages ago and the reply I got :
[ QUOTE ]
Because Claire Ryder gave evidence that she had never had any problems with the beds at SF. This leads me to believe that what Mr Gray said concerning that barn is the truth. Those photos were taken on the 4th of Jan, that barn was being cleared on the 9th but KH had a stop put to it. She denied this of course but her peers did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

so  basically hearsay 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Which means - and Patty feel free to answer this - 

IT IS POSSIBLE that those conditions in the RSPCA photos are correct, that the horses were in filthy conditions as shows in the pictures taken there and then, and JG realising how much sh!t he was in (literally) could have cleaned out or bedded down empty barns so that when people came the next day - he could say look - take photos - my bedding is perfect?

So perfect there is not a dropping on it to show horses have been living in it...

That is possible isn't it?

And that Patty and others have seen just what JG wants them to see?

It might not be your opinion - but it IS possible as you were not there on the day of the raids or the day before, and all you have to go on is someone elses word?


----------



## SpruceRI (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As you did not go to the farm prior to the raid, how did you know the horses were not living in the dirty barns seen on the video?  You say it is the truth - according to who as you didn't see it?



[/ QUOTE ]

I asked the same question some pages ago and the reply I got :
[ QUOTE ]
Because Claire Ryder gave evidence that she had never had any problems with the beds at SF. This leads me to believe that what Mr Gray said concerning that barn is the truth. Those photos were taken on the 4th of Jan, that barn was being cleared on the 9th but KH had a stop put to it. She denied this of course but her peers did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

so  basically hearsay 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

If you were inviting Claire Ryder or any other vet to your premises to treat a horse, wouldn't you throw a bit of extra straw down and hide all the emaciated horses round the back out of sight?

Also, vets aren't in the habit of 'sniffing round'.  They come to do the job, treat the horse, and then go.


----------



## teddyt (28 May 2009)

<font color="black">    Patty, yet again you havnt actually answered a question. Youve given a reply but not answers. 

 [ QUOTE ]
<font color="black"> 
 e.g. JG buys a horse for £1.

[/ QUOTE ]

So says the media.

 <font color="red">  e.g means for example Patty. But what do you say he paid for the horses?

 <font color="black">  [ QUOTE ]
 <font color="black">  Costs include travelling it at least once (diesel, lorry tax, lorry plating, driver wages), worming on the lorry (as you have said), Hay (£2.50+ bale, usually horses eat at least 1 bale a day), bedding, hard feed, water, business rates, veterinary treatment (as you have said) one call out &amp; examination is £50+ without treatment, farrier, time/wages....

[/ QUOTE ]

And??? Are you saying that every trader is up to no good because you believe they cant possibly make money while having all the above to pay for? 

 <font color="red">  Blimey youre thick! No, i never said every trader is up to no good. I dont  _believe_  you cant make money giving the above example. I KNOW! Its not rocket science. Its not even GCSE maths. A child of ten can work out that if something costs more than they sell it for then you dont make money.

 <font color="black"> How many thin and ill horses can be seen in the images?
 <font color="red">  Too many

 <font color="black">  [ QUOTE ]
 <font color="black">   he didnt even use much of his hay, bedding, hard feed, sufficient veterinary treatment, etc,

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this how exactly?

 <font color="red">   Again, not exactly hard to work out. But as you are having trouble - Horses that are fed properly arent emaciated. Horses that are mucked out and have fresh bedding dont stand several inches in sh!t. 20% of horses in  yards that care for their animals dont drop down dead. 


 <font color="black">   He looked after them as well as any horseman should look after his horses. And looking after his stock is exactly how he made money.
 <font color="red">  Whose definition of looking after? Yours? JGs? Certainly not mine. My horses dont look anything like the ones from SF. But then they have enough food and vet treatment when needed so they dont drop down dead or need to be kicked to stand up.

 <font color="black">  I have some questions of my own if you dont mind.

How many horses did you see in bad body condition?  <font color="red">   Too many <font color="black">  And how long did he own those particular animals?  <font color="red">  You know the answer to this (apparently) so why are you asking me?

 <font color="black">   How do you know he was not treating those sick animals?  <font color="red">  Because over 20 were dead

 <font color="black">   How do you know those animals had not improved since he got them? <font color="red">  You obviously didnt pay attention when i answered this question earlier


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
QR

I just can't help myself!

Patty it is such a shame you 'left your notes somewhere' and are not able to present any proof to the forum that you have been promising.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt very much my notes would prove anything to you anyway. You wouldnt believe them anyway.

[ QUOTE ]


So JG bought the sick pony in to a filthy dirty barn intending to move it to one of the nice clean fluffy ones?  Why didn't he take it to one of the nice clean fluffy ones straight away if it was sick?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there were other animals in the nice clean fluffy barns that needed moving around. 

[ QUOTE ]
As you did not go to the farm prior to the raid, how did you know the horses were not living in the dirty barns seen on the video?  You say it is the truth - according to who as you didn't see it?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to witnesses from both sides.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, what proof do you have that the RSPCA moved them into the dirty barns for the video?  With all the witnesses on site including police do you not think someone would have questioned it through the formal channels or are you saying that they were they all lying in court under oath? 

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

No they were not ALL lying under oath - Some just came right out and said how the animals were taken from the field and moved into that barn.


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty, you seem passionate about defending JG and rubbishing the RSPCA.  May I ask you three questions:

1.  Have you ever been convicted of any animal cruelty charges?

[/ QUOTE ]

No never.

[ QUOTE ]
2.  Have you ever had animals seized by the RSPCA?

[/ QUOTE ]

No never.

[ QUOTE ]
3.  Have you had any dealings with the RSPCA before the JG case? 

[/ QUOTE ]

No never.


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As you did not go to the farm prior to the raid, how did you know the horses were not living in the dirty barns seen on the video?  You say it is the truth - according to who as you didn't see it?



[/ QUOTE ]

I asked the same question some pages ago and the reply I got :
[ QUOTE ]
Because Claire Ryder gave evidence that she had never had any problems with the beds at SF. This leads me to believe that what Mr Gray said concerning that barn is the truth. Those photos were taken on the 4th of Jan, that barn was being cleared on the 9th but KH had a stop put to it. She denied this of course but her peers did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

so  basically hearsay 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

In that case all the oral evidence given by the prosecution witnesses is all hearsay?


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As you did not go to the farm prior to the raid, how did you know the horses were not living in the dirty barns seen on the video?  You say it is the truth - according to who as you didn't see it?



[/ QUOTE ]

I asked the same question some pages ago and the reply I got :
[ QUOTE ]
Because Claire Ryder gave evidence that she had never had any problems with the beds at SF. This leads me to believe that what Mr Gray said concerning that barn is the truth. Those photos were taken on the 4th of Jan, that barn was being cleared on the 9th but KH had a stop put to it. She denied this of course but her peers did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

so  basically hearsay 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Which means - and Patty feel free to answer this - 

IT IS POSSIBLE that those conditions in the RSPCA photos are correct, that the horses were in filthy conditions as shows in the pictures taken there and then, and JG realising how much sh!t he was in (literally) could have cleaned out or bedded down empty barns so that when people came the next day - he could say look - take photos - my bedding is perfect?

So perfect there is not a dropping on it to show horses have been living in it...

That is possible isn't it?

And that Patty and others have seen just what JG wants them to see?

It might not be your opinion - but it IS possible as you were not there on the day of the raids or the day before, and all you have to go on is someone elses word? 

[/ QUOTE ]

No, thats a total stupid possibilty. The RSPCA never gave notice that they were going to the farm. They just turned up.


----------



## teddyt (28 May 2009)

Question for patty - Why did the RSPCA just turn up at SF?
They must have had a reason to be there in the first place. The RSPCA dont just turn up for no reason.


----------



## jhoward (28 May 2009)

it wasnt just the rspca though, it was also the police, which suggests that it was a well thought out raid. so... the answer .. beacuse somebody tipped them off? or because they had had previous dealings with jg and knew what was likly to be behind the closed doors.


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As you did not go to the farm prior to the raid, how did you know the horses were not living in the dirty barns seen on the video?  You say it is the truth - according to who as you didn't see it?



[/ QUOTE ]

I asked the same question some pages ago and the reply I got :
[ QUOTE ]
Because Claire Ryder gave evidence that she had never had any problems with the beds at SF. This leads me to believe that what Mr Gray said concerning that barn is the truth. Those photos were taken on the 4th of Jan, that barn was being cleared on the 9th but KH had a stop put to it. She denied this of course but her peers did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

so  basically hearsay 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

If you were inviting Claire Ryder or any other vet to your premises to treat a horse, wouldn't you throw a bit of extra straw down and hide all the emaciated horses round the back out of sight?

Also, vets aren't in the habit of 'sniffing round'.  They come to do the job, treat the horse, and then go. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Claire Ryder is RSPCA and she was never invited - she used to drop by to make sure everything was ok being the line of business JG was in. And there is nowhere at SF to hide anything.


----------



## teddyt (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
it wasnt just the rspca though, it was also the police, which suggests that it was a well thought out raid. so... the answer .. beacuse somebody tipped them off? or because they had had previous dealings with jg and knew what was likly to be behind the closed doors. 

[/ QUOTE ]

So there was a planned raid at SF with the police and the RSPCA? Very interesting. As far as i am aware (from watching The Bill 
	
	
		
		
	


	




) the police dont just rock up somewhere because they have nothing better to do. There must have been quite a compelling reason why the RSPCA and police would plan a raid. They would hardly go to all that effort (and cost) just because an old lady phoned up and complained.
Maybe Patty can enlighten us a bit as to why the RSPCA and police felt the need to make a raid.


----------



## jhoward (28 May 2009)

im not 100% sure about it being completely orginised but being that the police were in attendence and JG had tried to hit a police officer id suggest that it was pre empted.


----------



## Happy Horse (28 May 2009)

Maybe someone had seen the dead horses in the field buried under the rubbish and reported them to the RSPCA.  The police were probably in attendance in case things got out of hand, say for example someone threatened to release Rottweilers on the vets or RSPCA officers.


----------



## jacks_mum (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As you did not go to the farm prior to the raid, how did you know the horses were not living in the dirty barns seen on the video?  You say it is the truth - according to who as you didn't see it?



[/ QUOTE ]

I asked the same question some pages ago and the reply I got :
[ QUOTE ]
Because Claire Ryder gave evidence that she had never had any problems with the beds at SF. This leads me to believe that what Mr Gray said concerning that barn is the truth. Those photos were taken on the 4th of Jan, that barn was being cleared on the 9th but KH had a stop put to it. She denied this of course but her peers did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

so  basically hearsay 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

In that case all the oral evidence given by the prosecution witnesses is all hearsay? 

[/ QUOTE ]

as I understand it the prosecution witnesses were either present on the day - so definitely NOT hearsay - or examined the horses themselves - again NOT hearsay - or worked from photographs and video footage taken by people there on the day. Perhaps the last _could_ at a push be described as hearsay but not in my opinion. Do you have any dated pictures of the farm and horses prior to the raid that can be posted that show conditions?


----------



## teddyt (28 May 2009)

Well, i cant see PC Plod turning to his mate and saying "Im fed up with all these burglars. Why dont we go down to that beautiful farm with all those lovely horses and that nice family of animal lovers. We could get the RSPCA along for good measure, i rather fancy that blonde inspector. I love a good day out in the countryside and If anyone asks why we would go to so much effort to raid the place we could just say we were being nosey".


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
  <font color="black">    Patty, yet again you havnt actually answered a question. Youve given a reply but not answers. 

 [ QUOTE ]
<font color="black"> 
 e.g. JG buys a horse for £1.

[/ QUOTE ]

So says the media.

 <font color="red">  e.g means for example Patty. But what do you say he paid for the horses?

[/ QUOTE ]

All different prices but certainly not a £1.

[ QUOTE ]
 <font color="black">  [ QUOTE ]
 <font color="black">  Costs include travelling it at least once (diesel, lorry tax, lorry plating, driver wages), worming on the lorry (as you have said), Hay (£2.50+ bale, usually horses eat at least 1 bale a day), bedding, hard feed, water, business rates, veterinary treatment (as you have said) one call out &amp; examination is £50+ without treatment, farrier, time/wages....

[/ QUOTE ]

And??? Are you saying that every trader is up to no good because you believe they cant possibly make money while having all the above to pay for? 

 <font color="red">  Blimey youre thick! No, i never said every trader is up to no good. I dont  _believe_  you cant make money giving the above example. I KNOW! Its not rocket science. Its not even GCSE maths. A child of ten can work out that if something costs more than they sell it for then you dont make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the personal comment!!

JG was like any other trader. What more do you want me to say?

[ QUOTE ]
 <font color="black"> How many thin and ill horses can be seen in the images?
 <font color="red">  Too many

[/ QUOTE ]

How many?

[ QUOTE ]
 <font color="black">  [ QUOTE ]
 <font color="black">   he didnt even use much of his hay, bedding, hard feed, sufficient veterinary treatment, etc,

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this how exactly?

 <font color="red">   Again, not exactly hard to work out. But as you are having trouble - Horses that are fed properly arent emaciated. Horses that are mucked out and have fresh bedding dont stand several inches in sh!t. 20% of horses in  yards that care for their animals dont drop down dead. 

[/ QUOTE ]

How many emaciated horses were there?

1 barn which was in a bad way. How many more?

Those yards have not suffered a red worm burden. 


[ QUOTE ]
 <font color="black">   He looked after them as well as any horseman should look after his horses. And looking after his stock is exactly how he made money.
 <font color="red">  Whose definition of looking after? Yours? JGs? Certainly not mine. My horses dont look anything like the ones from SF. But then they have enough food and vet treatment when needed so they dont drop down dead or need to be kicked to stand up.

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence produced in court refuted all those claims.

If you brought a poor horse would you expect it to look how YOUR horse does NOW within the matter of weeks? How about the horses that were not published - does your horse look better than they looked when they were removed from SF?

JG produced his veterinaey bills for the animals that did need treatment. 

And as for the kicking - thats more bullsh!t but that you like to believe that hearsay. I cant possibly understand why when you are suppose to be an animal lover.  
	
	
		
		
	


	






[ QUOTE ]
<font color="black">  I have some questions of my own if you dont mind.

How many horses did you see in bad body condition?  <font color="red">   Too many <font color="black">

[/ QUOTE ]

How many?

[ QUOTE ]
And how long did he own those particular animals?  <font color="red">  You know the answer to this (apparently) so why are you asking me?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm asking you because you are the one blaming JG for the animals being in certain conditions. Maybe you should keep such statments to yourself when you dont actually know if they are correct.


[ QUOTE ]
 <font color="black">   How do you know he was not treating those sick animals?  <font color="red">  Because over 20 were dead

[/ QUOTE ]

Some were pets that he had lost ovet the years. As for the others - they suffered an undetected red worm. Something that could easy happen to your horse.

Concerning the sick animals which were removed - how do you know he was not treating them?


[ QUOTE ]
<font color="black">   How do you know those animals had not improved since he got them? <font color="red">  You obviously didnt pay attention when i answered this question earlier 

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously not - So How do you know those animals had not improved since he got them?


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Question for patty - Why did the RSPCA just turn up at SF?

They must have had a reason to be there in the first place. The RSPCA dont just turn up for no reason. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Where animal traders are concerned they DO just turn up for no reason. 

Claire Ryder was the local inspector who used to drop in unannounced at SF.


----------



## jhoward (28 May 2009)

correct to a degree patty. 

they do turn up unannouced IF they have had previous dealings with the person in question.. they do regualr checks. 

the rspca had HAD previous dealings with spindles farm/jamie gray had they not?


----------



## Gladioli (28 May 2009)

Patty you have said there was only one dirty barn which was not clean and fluffy (sorry paraphrasing and I cant copy and paste at the moment) How do you propose it got in that state if it was not for animals being in there, therefore they must have at some point have been living in there for it to get full of faeces? Do you agree? or am I missing the point here? Do you think it is ok for some horses to be housed like at all? 

An answer to these questions/ statements would be appreciated.

I have been involved with horses for over 20 years, I know the good dealers and I know the bad dealers, I know what obviously sick horses look like, I know what emaciated horses look like. I think you are insulting people's intelligence by suggesting that those horses were well looked after, if you wish to suggest that maybe a horse forum is not the best place to do it as most people here are experienced with the care of horses.  I also know the good work that organisations such as the ILPH and Redwings do, If they did not think that the horses were in need of rescuing they would have distanced themselves from the whole situation.  They would not be involved in something that could potentially harm their reputation.


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
it wasnt just the rspca though, it was also the police, which suggests that it was a well thought out raid. so... the answer .. beacuse somebody tipped them off? or because they had had previous dealings with jg and knew what was likly to be behind the closed doors. 

[/ QUOTE ]

It was most certainly a well thought out raid. Something which was denied by rspca. 

Apparently they had a call from a member of the public which was their reason for going to the farm on the 4th of Jan 08. 

The animals which were removed on the 9th were all deemed as safe by vets on the 4th. However, the rspca thinking they knew better than the vets went back on the 9th and removed the remaining animals. They denied that removing the remaining animals was their intention on that day but that was another lie. They had it all planned. None of those animals which were removed on the 9th had been examined by a vet to justify the removal. Vets arrived on site after the rspca. The animals were being numbered and loaded within 10 mins of the rspca arriving at SF on the 9th. Vet arrived during all the commotion.


----------



## Amymay (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 or worked from photographs and video footage taken by people there on the day. Perhaps the last could at a push be described as hearsay but not in my opinion 

[/ QUOTE ] 

No, hearsay is to repeat someone elses words as fact.  Evidence can be given based on photographs and an opinion sought on their content - that is not hearsay.


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As you did not go to the farm prior to the raid, how did you know the horses were not living in the dirty barns seen on the video?  You say it is the truth - according to who as you didn't see it?



[/ QUOTE ]

I asked the same question some pages ago and the reply I got :
[ QUOTE ]
Because Claire Ryder gave evidence that she had never had any problems with the beds at SF. This leads me to believe that what Mr Gray said concerning that barn is the truth. Those photos were taken on the 4th of Jan, that barn was being cleared on the 9th but KH had a stop put to it. She denied this of course but her peers did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

so  basically hearsay 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

In that case all the oral evidence given by the prosecution witnesses is all hearsay? 

[/ QUOTE ]

as I understand it the prosecution witnesses were either present on the day - so definitely NOT hearsay - or examined the horses themselves - again NOT hearsay - or worked from photographs and video footage taken by people there on the day. Perhaps the last _could_ at a push be described as hearsay but not in my opinion. Do you have any dated pictures of the farm and horses prior to the raid that can be posted that show conditions? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Claire Ryder was the rspca inspector who used to drop in at SF and who was present at the raid - so definitrly NOT hearsay.


----------



## teddyt (28 May 2009)

Ok Patty. You keep asking how do people know that the horses werent in a state when JG bought them. And how long he had owned them. And you keep maintaining that they were fed, etc. And you keep drawing attention to the fact that not 100% of the horses were thin. Also, that JG did make money.
So, from this i am gathering that JG bought horses in various condition. He did feed them and he did give some veterinary care. He didnt keep them very long but sold them for a profit. Unfortunately some that he bought were half dead anyway, they unfortunately died whilst in JG ownership. This was not due to his lack of care but due to the fact they were in a state when he bought them. This is what you are maintaining? Yes?

You say he doesnt sell for meat and that some were for riding but not all. You dispute that there was any underhand reason e.g. drugs. He couldnt have sold that many for riding as alot were very young, and he didnt have any employees, just him and his son. So, a small percentage of his money was made from riding horses. We are on page 18 now and the OP question has still not been answered- WHAT WAS JGs LINE OF BUSINESS?

There is quite a market for meat in holland, where you say JG travelled to frequently. Yet you are adamant this is not why he sold horses. The huge number of horses he dealt with must have an end use, so why not meat? And if not meat then why did he have such a huge turnover of animals and for what market? Page 18 and you have still not answered the question Patty. Either you have been fed a few lies from your 'contacts' or you are deluded into thinking JGs business was all pink and fluffy and the horses werent on their way to an abbatoir.


----------



## PoppyAnderson (28 May 2009)

Well let's face it, if they were on their way to the abbatoir, at least they would have finally been spared the living hell that was/is JGs place.


----------



## Donkeymad (28 May 2009)

Thankyou for answering my questions Patty. Sadly, you have lead us to believe that your notes were with someone else, and that you would give more information once you received them back. How sad that you have actually lost them


----------



## maybedaisy (28 May 2009)

I haven't read all of this thread but there are some things that are facts.

JG has been convicted
It is not the first time he has been investigated and found guilty in relation to offences of cruelty against his animals.
He was also separately investigated for breaching transport rule in relation to horses which led to them suffering.
People have been convicted for importing drugs and other items in horse boxes
However it would be obvious to any investigator if the drugs had been transported in an animal and removed without passing out naturally.
It is not normal to find animals in that state on any yard.
There will have been evidence that was not presented to the Court as JG's defence will have had it excluded.
Previous convictions will only have been brought up at sentencing
His actions are indefensible and I don't understand how anyone could criticise the RSPCA for taking the remaining animals into protection.


----------



## RantBucket (28 May 2009)

Well said Maybedaisey


----------



## SpruceRI (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Ok Patty. 

You say he doesnt sell for meat and that some were for riding but not all. You dispute that there was any underhand reason e.g. drugs. He couldnt have sold that many for riding as alot were very young, and he didnt have any employees, just him and his son. So, a small percentage of his money was made from riding horses. We are on page 18 now and the OP question has still not been answered- WHAT WAS JGs LINE OF BUSINESS?

There is quite a market for meat in holland, where you say JG travelled to frequently. Yet you are adamant this is not why he sold horses. The huge number of horses he dealt with must have an end use, so why not meat? And if not meat then why did he have such a huge turnover of animals and for what market? Page 18 and you have still not answered the question Patty. Either you have been fed a few lies from your 'contacts' or you are deluded into thinking JGs business was all pink and fluffy and the horses werent on their way to an abbatoir. 

[/ QUOTE ]

And well said teddyt  
	
	
		
		
	


	





This man is reportedly (by Patty) a horse trader.

But not trading in meat ponies?  Most of the ponies shown had no 'meat' on them.

And not as riding ponies given that many were young or pregnant.

He isn't a breeder as such.... the horses he buys in are already pregnant.

As teddyt said, 2 people to look after over 100 horses at a time isn't enough, unless they all lived out on ample grazing and were fed like cattle at feeders by a tractor.

So what EXACTLY is his trade?

Who buys his horses and for what purpose?


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
correct to a degree patty. 

they do turn up unannouced IF they have had previous dealings with the person in question.. they do regualr checks. 

the rspca had HAD previous dealings with spindles farm/jamie gray had they not? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong!! They turn up unannounced to anyone they know of dealing in animals. As for the previos dealing - I have explained this but of course it's not believed.


----------



## jhoward (28 May 2009)

they DONT turn up unless somebody has raised a reason for them to turn up. 

how do i know this? i used to work for the rspca.


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty you have said there was only one dirty barn which was not clean and fluffy (sorry paraphrasing and I cant copy and paste at the moment) How do you propose it got in that state if it was not for animals being in there, therefore they must have at some point have been living in there for it to get full of faeces? Do you agree? or am I missing the point here? Do you think it is ok for some horses to be housed like at all? 

An answer to these questions/ statements would be appreciated.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you read the thread you see I have already answered this question.


[ QUOTE ]
I have been involved with horses for over 20 years, I know the good dealers and I know the bad dealers, I know what obviously sick horses look like, I know what emaciated horses look like. I think you are insulting people's intelligence by suggesting that those horses were well looked after, if you wish to suggest that maybe a horse forum is not the best place to do it as most people here are experienced with the care of horses.

[/ QUOTE ]


With 20 years experience you'll know that dealers sometimes buy in horses that are not in top condition.

You only know what the rspca/media have told you about JG.

[ QUOTE ]
I also know the good work that organisations such as the ILPH and Redwings do, If they did not think that the horses were in need of rescuing they would have distanced themselves from the whole situation.  They would not be involved in something that could potentially harm their reputation. 

[/ QUOTE ]


Please dont be so naive.


----------



## patty19 (28 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Ok Patty. You keep asking how do people know that the horses werent in a state when JG bought them. And how long he had owned them. And you keep maintaining that they were fed, etc. And you keep drawing attention to the fact that not 100% of the horses were thin. Also, that JG did make money.
So, from this i am gathering that JG bought horses in various condition. He did feed them and he did give some veterinary care. He didnt keep them very long but sold them for a profit. Unfortunately some that he bought were half dead anyway, they unfortunately died whilst in JG ownership. This was not due to his lack of care but due to the fact they were in a state when he bought them. This is what you are maintaining? Yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

No he did not buy half dead horses but yes he did all the things a respnsible horseman would do.

[ QUOTE ]
You say he doesnt sell for meat and that some were for riding but not all. You dispute that there was any underhand reason e.g. drugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

JG brought all different kinds of horses but he was not into the meat trade. And the drug nonsense is just that - nonsense.


[ QUOTE ]
He couldnt have sold that many for riding as alot were very young, and he didnt have any employees, just him and his son. So, a small percentage of his money was made from riding horses. We are on page 18 now and the OP question has still not been answered- WHAT WAS JGs LINE OF BUSINESS?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, he brought all different types and did not go for any particular horse. His line of business was trading in horses.

[ QUOTE ]
There is quite a market for meat in holland, where you say JG travelled to frequently.

[/ QUOTE ]

And there is aslo a market for coloureds too. He also bought horses back to the UK from Holland.


[ QUOTE ]
Yet you are adamant this is not why he sold horses. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats because he didnt. If he was into the meat trade why would he have to hide the fact? It's not illegal.


[ QUOTE ]
The huge number of horses he dealt with must have an end use, so why not meat?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it simply was not meat. Why would he have to deny it if he was in the meat trade? 

[ QUOTE ]
And if not meat then why did he have such a huge turnover of animals and for what market?

[/ QUOTE ]

All types.

[ QUOTE ]
Page 18 and you have still not answered the question Patty. Either you have been fed a few lies from your 'contacts' or you are deluded into thinking JGs business was all pink and fluffy and the horses werent on their way to an abbatoir. 

[/ QUOTE ]

RLMAO....The public have been fed the mother of all lies.

Even though the horses were not on their way to the abbatoir, how would it have been illegal if they were?

Surely if that was the case then JG could have just told the rspca that the poor animals were destined for the abbatior within the next few day etc.....Surely that would have been in his better interest.


----------



## patty19 (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Thankyou for answering my questions Patty. Sadly, you have lead us to believe that your notes were with someone else, and that you would give more information once you received them back. How sad that you have actually lost them 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I have never lead you to believe they were with someone else and neither have I told you that I have actually lost them.....jumping the gun again I see!!


----------



## SpruceRI (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing that you're Anne Kasica then?  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

If you're right Madhossy, that would explain a lot:
_
_ 

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this you Patty?


----------



## SpruceRI (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok Patty. You keep asking how do people know that the horses werent in a state when JG bought them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Patty: No he did not buy half dead horses but yes he did all the things a respnsible horseman would do.

 <font color="red">  So they were well covered when he bought them, but became emaciated in the time they were on his property, is what you're saying? 

And then in the next breath, you say that's not true.  No wonder we're all confused with your explanations. </font> 

[


----------



## patty19 (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read all of this thread but there are some things that are facts.

JG has been convicted
It is not the first time he has been investigated and found guilty in relation to offences of cruelty against his animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have explained about the previous offense and I hope it will be corrected at sentencing.


[ QUOTE ]
He was also separately investigated for breaching transport rule in relation to horses which led to them suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again!! It's something to do with him not telling DEFRA that he had a previous conviction but JG did not think he needed to as it was overturned upon appeal. I cant be axact but it's something along those lines anyway.


[ QUOTE ]
People have been convicted for importing drugs and other items in horse boxes
However it would be obvious to any investigator if the drugs had been transported in an animal and removed without passing out naturally.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole drug idea came from the air between someones ears.


[ QUOTE ]
It is not normal to find animals in that state on any yard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has there never been poor horses taken on to a yard and had someone improve their condition?

[ QUOTE ]
There will have been evidence that was not presented to the Court as JG's defence will have had it excluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was most certainly evidence that was not presented but it was for the prosecution. Evidence such as the 111 NOT so emaciated horses, shetlands, donkeys, the hay stack, sacks of hard feed, bales upon bales of straw, clean barns with dry straw and clean water and food.

[ QUOTE ]
Previous convictions will only have been brought up at sentencing

[/ QUOTE ]

The so-called previous conviction was brought out during the trial.

[ QUOTE ]
His actions are indefensible and I don't understand how anyone could criticise the RSPCA for taking the remaining animals into protection. 

[/ QUOTE ]

The actions the rspca have accused him of are indefensible. But the reality of the matter is a completely different story.


----------



## patty19 (29 May 2009)

BUSHFIRE INQUIRY blog - :  www.sosnews.org/bushfires

24/7 news service NEWSFRONT - :  www.sosnews.org/newsfront

editor@sosnews.org

www.sosnews.org


----------



## patty19 (29 May 2009)

Paddywhack are you a cross dresser?  

Your secret will be safe with me


----------



## horseygirl28 (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Paddywhack are you a cross dresser?  

Your secret will be safe with me 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]


----------



## patty19 (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


And well said teddyt  
	
	
		
		
	


	





This man is reportedly (by Patty) a horse trader.

But not trading in meat ponies?  Most of the ponies shown had no 'meat' on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong!!! Most of the ponies had plenty of meat on them.

[ QUOTE ]
And not as riding ponies given that many were young or pregnant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where they ALL young or pregnent? No I didnt think so!

[ QUOTE ]
He isn't a breeder as such.... the horses he buys in are already pregnant.

[/ QUOTE ]

SOMETIMES buys in pregnent mares. Some mares not in foal -some were stallions and geldings. Kind of impossible for them to get preggers wouldnt you say?

[ QUOTE ]
As teddyt said, 2 people to look after over 100 horses at a time isn't enough, unless they all lived out on ample grazing and were fed like cattle at feeders by a tractor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just goes to show how much you know about the running of a farm.

The troughs in the fields are self filling and the hosepipe in the middle of the yard reaches every pen. 

JG did use a tractor to take large bales of hay into the fields but it was broken at the time of the raid. He used a large wheel barrow to distribute hay and hard feed around the barns. While his tractor was broken he used his vehicle to pull the bales of hay into the fields. 

[ QUOTE ]
So what EXACTLY is his trade?

[/ QUOTE ]

Horses.

[ QUOTE ]
Who buys his horses and for what purpose? 

[/ QUOTE ]

JG buys the horses.

To sell on.


----------



## patty19 (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
they DONT turn up unless somebody has raised a reason for them to turn up. 

how do i know this? i used to work for the rspca. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah more bull!! 

If you worked for the rspca your mouth would have run away with you long before now.


----------



## patty19 (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing that you're Anne Kasica then?  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

If you're right Madhossy, that would explain a lot:
_
_ 

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this you Patty? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please!! 

Heaven knows how many people I am supposed to be. Ask your friends who I am I'm sure they'll come up with several different names as they have done over the past 16 months.

I'm the queen of Sheba.


----------



## patty19 (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
So they were well covered when he bought them, but became emaciated in the time they were on his property, is what you're saying? 

And then in the next breath, you say that's not true.  No wonder we're all confused with your explanations. 

[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not saying that. 

He had less than a handful of poor horses that he bought in but it does not mean those horses were half dead. 

Answer me a some questions please. 

Do you know that those animals did not arrive at SF in poor condition?

Do you know that their conditions had/had not improved since JG brought them?

Do you know how long he had owned them before they were seized?


----------



## TheresaW (29 May 2009)

And round and round we go again!


----------



## teddyt (29 May 2009)

Patty- no, meat trading isnt illegal. But travelling horses live for meat is unpalatable to alot of people. How exactly do you feel about the Hook not Hoof campaign?

Dont be so naive Patty, of course JG sold horses for meat abroad and he bought back horses from Holland because it makes more sense than bringing back an empty lorry. I suggest he didnt own up to selling horses for meat because somewhere along the line it wasnt all above board, hence he kept it quiet to avoid further investigation and the possible uncovering of a less than legal actvity or a more serious charge than animal cruelty. He may have sold some coloureds as riding horses but not the number of horses he got through. There just isnt the market for that number of non-descript horses. Other than in the meat trade.

Wake up Patty, i dont know what you have been told but live export for meat is JGs business, possibly with a little sideline. We're at page 19 now and you have had a fair chance at answering the question, so ive answered it for you.


----------



## Paddywhack (29 May 2009)

Use the tune of "Rain rain go away"

"Patty Patty go away and don't come back another day"

And please use your brain for ONCE and don't quote me,
I CAN'T SEE IT IT AND PLUS I AM NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU GOT TO SAY,YOU ARE A FAKE LIVING IN PATTYLAND WITH GREEN FROGS JUMPING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH,YOU KNOW ABSOLUTE NOTHING,I KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HORSES AND YOU KNOW IT,J.G WAS FOUND GUILTY ACCEPT IT AND GET ON WITH YOUR SAD LITTLE LIFE....
WITH THAT OFF MY CHEST I AM OFF TO ENJOY THE REST OF MY DAY


----------



## Paddywhack (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty- no, meat trading isnt illegal. But travelling horses live for meat is unpalatable to alot of people. How exactly do you feel about the Hook not Hoof campaign?

Dont be so naive Patty, of course JG sold horses for meat abroad and he bought back horses from Holland because it makes more sense than bringing back an empty lorry. I suggest he didnt own up to selling horses for meat because somewhere along the line it wasnt all above board, hence he kept it quiet to avoid further investigation and the possible uncovering of a less than legal actvity or a more serious charge than animal cruelty. He may have sold some coloureds as riding horses but not the number of horses he got through. There just isnt the market for that number of non-descript horses. Other than in the meat trade.

Wake up Patty, i dont know what you have been told but live export for meat is JGs business, possibly with a little sideline. We're at page 19 now and you have had a fair chance at answering the question, so ive answered it for you. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Sad Patty is asleep across the continent


----------



## Rana (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
BUSHFIRE INQUIRY blog - :  www.sosnews.org/bushfires

24/7 news service NEWSFRONT - :  www.sosnews.org/newsfront

editor@sosnews.org

www.sosnews.org 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure this is very interesting, but it relates to the Australian RSPCA.  A completely different organisation with it's own systems and politics.


----------



## RantBucket (29 May 2009)

Maybe Patty is in Australia, the H&amp;H administrator will know the answer to that.


----------



## jacks_mum (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Answer me a some questions please. 

Do you know that their conditions had/had not improved since JG brought them?



[/ QUOTE ]

well I suppose death was an improvement for some of them, or perhaps more of a blessed release


----------



## horseygirl28 (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty- no, meat trading isnt illegal. But travelling horses live for meat is unpalatable to alot of people. How exactly do you feel about the Hook not Hoof campaign?

Dont be so naive Patty, of course JG sold horses for meat abroad and he bought back horses from Holland because it makes more sense than bringing back an empty lorry. I suggest he didnt own up to selling horses for meat because somewhere along the line it wasnt all above board, hence he kept it quiet to avoid further investigation and the possible uncovering of a less than legal actvity or a more serious charge than animal cruelty. He may have sold some coloureds as riding horses but not the number of horses he got through. There just isnt the market for that number of non-descript horses. Other than in the meat trade.

Wake up Patty, i dont know what you have been told but live export for meat is JGs business, possibly with a little sideline. We're at page 19 now and you have had a fair chance at answering the question, so ive answered it for you. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to get your facts straight. 
And may I ask, how do you know for a fact JG sold horses for meat abroad??
I think the answer is you dont know that for a fact, because you are wrong.


----------



## dozzie (29 May 2009)

But he was selling a lot of horses in Europe. How often did he take a lorry across to Belgium of Holland? He may not have been selling to the abbatoirs but he could have been selling to the farmers/dealers who fatten them. 

But that is not a crime is it? 

Maybe he was involved in bringing horses back for the French Rescue Sites too. Maybe dutch sport horses? Who knows? It is pure speculation. Again, not a crime in the eyes of the law providing all the paperwork is in order.


----------



## gingermuffin (29 May 2009)

Maybedaisey, the question of JG's previous conviction is very puzzling. looking at the court docs online RSPCA officer Phillip Wilson gave evidence to the court on the 28th January of a previous conviction on the 26th sept 2006 at West Herts Mags under the Animal Act 1911. On appeal at St Alban's Crown Court on the 15th Feb 2007 where the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.
If that was incorrect surely the defence would have put it right?
As to the other charges that information was reported on line by Horse and Hound on the 2nd April and also 20th April.
Are they also wrong?


----------



## competitiondiva (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

JG has been convicted
It is not the first time he has been investigated and found guilty in relation to offences of cruelty against his animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have explained about the previous offense and I hope it will be corrected at sentencing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry patty I may have missed this but his previous conviction for animal cruelty in 2006 was upheld on appeal, why do you think/believe he won the appeal???

And does it really matter everyone whether he was a horse trader to the meat trade or not, I believe he was a dealer in all horses where he thought there maybe a quick pound in it, this may sometimes mean selling to the riding market, some to the meat etc etc.  It really doesn't matter as it is irrelelvant to the case. 

Whatever his business, there is no excuse for having 31 dead carcases on site, another 3 horses needing euthanasia on seisure and another 15 horses within hours of death if not seized immediately......  If your defense is that he bought these horses in this condition then he was obviously a bad dealer, why spend money on a horse that is near to death?  There'd be no money to make in them, in fact it would cost him in vets bills, possible euthanasia and disposal (oh sorry he didn't dispose of them!!! LOL!)


----------



## SpruceRI (29 May 2009)

[/ QUOTE ]
"And does it really matter everyone whether he was a horse trader to the meat trade or not, I believe he was a dealer in all horses where he thought there maybe a quick pound in it, this may sometimes mean selling to the riding market, some to the meat etc etc.  It really doesn't matter as it is irrelelvant to the case. 

Whatever his business, there is no excuse for having 31 dead carcases on site, another 3 horses needing euthanasia on seisure and another 15 horses within hours of death if not seized immediately......  If your defense is that he bought these horses in this condition then he was obviously a bad dealer, why spend money on a horse that is near to death?  There'd be no money to make in them, in fact it would cost him in vets bills, possible euthanasia and disposal (oh sorry he didn't dispose of them!!! LOL!)"


This was the point of my question.

Trying to understand what his trade was?

I've no problem with meat traders either as long as the horses are properly cared for and transported all the time they are alive.

After all, it's no different to sheep/cattle farming.

But I just couldn't see why the chap would have emaciated horses in his barns.

Even if you bought them like that, you'd fatten them up for sale wouldn't you?

And he must have the paperwork for each horse that states when he bought it, so surely for the ones that were below correct weight, he could prove that he'd not had them long?

Again, that's my query?  Had they started off being fine and got to that stage through his mis-management?  

Even Patty can't answer that one surely?  She didn't reside with JG?  Or did she?  
	
	
		
		
	


	





If he didn't keep his paperwork in order then he was truly an idiot.


Anyway, 19 pages later and I'm none the wiser, though it's been an interesting debate.

Over and out!


----------



## maybedaisy (29 May 2009)

Gingermuffin I don't understand your point. I said that he did have previous convictions. 

Evidence of previous bad character/convictions are normally only heard at sentencing as they can prejudice the case.


----------



## maybedaisy (29 May 2009)

Patty its certainly not normal to find dead Horses on any yard. 

Yes I agree horses can come onto yards in poor condition. We have one at the moment, but we don't have any dead ones. He maybe thin but he is clean, has a clean stable, plenty of food and is not crammed into a dirty barn.


----------



## jacks_mum (29 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 There'd be no money to make in them, in fact it would cost him in vets bills, possible euthanasia and disposal (oh sorry he didn't dispose of them!!! LOL!) 

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure he was in to euthansia was he? More like let them drop and die


----------



## Sugarplum Furry (29 May 2009)

Slightly off topic, but wasn't JG in court this week on transportation charges? Any news on that?


----------



## RhiannonE (29 May 2009)

After watching those videos and reading all about the evidence (I know you can't believe everything you read but surely the evidence has to be 99% factual &amp; proved for it to be allowed to be used) I can't believe anyone would stick up for this guy. 
I know not everyone has horses as pets and they are sometimes a business but that's no excuse to neglect them. 

Madhossy- I also would like to know what his line of business was, just out of curiousity really! I suppose part of me thinks that whether he was trading them for meat, selling them as riding ponies or breeding from them surely he would have benefitted from treating them better?? No horse in poor condition will fetch much for anything so it doesn't make business sense! My uncle's a farmer and he breeds cattle for meat and all his cows live in huge barns etc -similar set up to this guy but everything is well looked after, the conditions are good etc - his cows are in good condition and he gets the best possible price for them. 
If they supposedly "arrived in that condition" then why have so many when he obviously couldn't cope with them. 
I don't suppose we will ever know what he really did business wise - not unless we ever meet someone who knew him or had business dealings with him! I live fairly near so maybe one day I might!


----------



## gingermuffin (29 May 2009)

Maybedaisy, I think it's now possible to put evidence of aprevious offence to the court. The DJ referred to the2006 conviction in his findings of fact on page 12 paragraph 43.
Patty had been denying that the conviction still held and I was trying to make the point that the defence hadn't questioned it.
The last bit was to make the point that it wasn't just a case of sorting out a little muddle but that there were still outstanding cases according to H and H news.
I tried to find out the result from the Court and also Kent trading Standards but they wouldn't give out any info.
Sorry for the confusion, trying to multitask, looking after baby granddaughter and horses and failing miserably!


----------



## jrp204 (29 May 2009)

After 20 sodding pages this argument is getting nowhere, i still don't understand why Patty is still defending this man. She says she's not sh*gging him, is she his mother? for gods sake why would anyone fight his corner when he has several convictions for virtually the same thing! As to his line of business perhaps he runs continental tours for horses, may explain all the to ing and fro ing, but no one has told him he supposed to feed his customers as well as himself.


----------



## RhiannonE (29 May 2009)

I agree - she has to have some connection with this man because why else would she back him up so much even though the courts have found him guilty on several charges?? 
Maybe she's a friend of the teenage son.


----------



## PoppyAnderson (29 May 2009)

patty - question for you. The thinest, poorest looking horses on the farm, how long had they been in JGs possession, ie, how long had he owned them for?


----------



## Tea_Biscuit (29 May 2009)

I'm convinced that Patty's true motivation in this case has little to do with the guilt or innocence of JG and everything to do with her mistrust of the RSPCA and other like organisations.  Whatever her issue is with these groups the JG case - and this forum - provided a very public platform for her to push her own agenda whatever it may be.  
I daresay that if the condition of those animals had become public and no one moved  to rescue them Patty would be shouting just as loudly - about the 'bad RSPCA and how could they allow this to continue'.


----------



## jhoward (29 May 2009)

ive edited my post, it was a reply to patty and to be frank shes really not worth any of my effort, we all know shes full of utter tosh.


----------



## RantBucket (29 May 2009)

What time is it in Pattyland?


----------



## jhoward (29 May 2009)

not dark yet.. she wont rise for a bit LOL


----------



## RantBucket (29 May 2009)

Probably when the tablets wear off!


----------



## maybedaisy (30 May 2009)

No problem. I just didn't want anyone to think I was in any way a JG supporter.


----------



## patty19 (30 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
And round and round we go again! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes rather tiring isnt it!?


----------



## patty19 (30 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty- no, meat trading isnt illegal. But travelling horses live for meat is unpalatable to alot of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not illegal so JG would have no reason to deny it.


[ QUOTE ]
How exactly do you feel about the Hook not Hoof campaign?

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with the campaign.

[ QUOTE ]
Dont be so naive Patty, of course JG sold horses for meat abroad and he bought back horses from Holland because it makes more sense than bringing back an empty lorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Purely speculation on your part. Lots of traders legally take horses abroad for purposes other than meat. Why should JG be any different?

You need to stop being naive - you and others have brought into the mother of all lies.

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest he didnt own up to selling horses for meat because somewhere along the line it wasnt all above board, hence he kept it quiet to avoid further investigation and the possible uncovering of a less than legal actvity or a more serious charge than animal cruelty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you get off on making such statments?  
	
	
		
		
	


	





Seriously woman, you could write scripts for Eastenders.

[ QUOTE ]
He may have sold some coloureds as riding horses but not the number of horses he got through. There just isnt the market for that number of non-descript horses. Other than in the meat trade.

[/ QUOTE ]

So says the worlds top horse trader. Go learn a thing or two about horse trading before you make anymore statments such as you have been making.

[ QUOTE ]
Wake up Patty, i dont know what you have been told but live export for meat is JGs business, possibly with a little sideline. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never been so awake. You need to wake up and stop dreaming such dreams to which there is no foundation.


[ QUOTE ]
We're at page 19 now and you have had a fair chance at answering the question, so ive answered it for you. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I have answered question after question and have asked people to point me to the questions they have accused my of ignoring.

You have answered your own questions with answers you IMAGINE _may_ have been the case.


----------



## patty19 (30 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Use the tune of "Rain rain go away"

"Patty Patty go away and don't come back another day"

And please use your brain for ONCE and don't quote me,
*I CAN'T SEE IT IT*

[/ QUOTE ]

Shame I dont believe you isnt it!?  
	
	
		
		
	


	






[ QUOTE ]
AND PLUS I AM NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU GOT TO SAY,

[/ QUOTE ]

Then maybe you should stop addressing me because you sure have a strange way of showing your so-called lack of interest.

[ QUOTE ]
YOU ARE A FAKE

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing fake about me is my hair colour.

[ QUOTE ]
LIVING IN PATTYLAND WITH GREEN FROGS JUMPING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH,YOU KNOW ABSOLUTE NOTHING,I KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HORSES AND YOU KNOW IT,J.G WAS FOUND GUILTY ACCEPT IT AND GET ON WITH YOUR SAD LITTLE LIFE....

[/ QUOTE ]


I have a very happy life indeed. Shame you haven't.
If you knew the truth you would use your time here to defend JG. Or you may know the truth but prefer to lie as you have been doing for the past 16 months. Thats why I have renamed you SERIAL LIAR!! Hope you appreciate my good will and my eye for spotting a liar when I see one. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[ QUOTE ]

WITH THAT OFF MY CHEST I AM OFF TO ENJOY THE REST OF MY DAY 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

A holiday is what you make of it so go right ahead I would.

While you're at it you may want to think about treating the nappy rash around your mouth, I'm sure you'll enjoy your day a lots better with some soothing cream slapped on it.


----------



## patty19 (30 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

Sad Patty is asleep across the continent  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah you wish.


----------



## patty19 (30 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BUSHFIRE INQUIRY blog - :  www.sosnews.org/bushfires

24/7 news service NEWSFRONT - :  www.sosnews.org/newsfront

editor@sosnews.org

www.sosnews.org 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure this is very interesting, but it relates to the Australian RSPCA.  A completely different organisation with it's own systems and politics. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Same unjust actions.

In your opinion do you think that the RSPCA down under is viewed in the same light that the RSPCA here is - That they risk life and limb to rescue unfortunate animals?

Or do you think the majority of the Australian public view the RSPCA as I do?


----------



## patty19 (30 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry patty I may have missed this but his previous conviction for animal cruelty in 2006 was upheld on appeal, why do you think/believe he won the appeal???

[/ QUOTE ]

Cant be certain of the exact date but it was discussed in court.

[ QUOTE ]
And does it really matter everyone whether he was a horse trader to the meat trade or not, I believe he was a dealer in all horses where he thought there maybe a quick pound in it, this may sometimes mean selling to the riding market, some to the meat etc etc.  It really doesn't matter as it is irrelelvant to the case. 

[/ QUOTE ]

It is irrelelvant to the case but still, he did not trade in meat.

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever his business, there is no excuse for having 31 dead carcases on site, another 3 horses needing euthanasia on seisure and another 15 horses within hours of death if not seized immediately......

[/ QUOTE ]

Was the exact reason ever noted as to what those animals would have died of if not removed immediately?

I dont recall any reason being given throughout the entire trial. But being it was broadcasted that JG starved his animals I assume the reason they would give would be that they would have died of starvation.

Maybe anorexic people who are within HOURS of death should be placed in the care of the RSPCA because apparently they can work miracles with a good square meal.


[ QUOTE ]
If your defense is that he bought these horses in this condition then he was obviously a bad dealer, why spend money on a horse that is near to death?  There'd be no money to make in them, in fact it would cost him in vets bills, possible euthanasia and disposal (oh sorry he didn't dispose of them!!! LOL!) 

[/ QUOTE ]

And there would be even less money to be made if he bought them in good condition just to starve them to death/near death.

The more logical and true expanation is that none of them were half dead, but yes, a handful of them were in poor condition when he brought them, and he was building them up to sell on for a profit.

This excludes the idea of him being a complete and utter fruit cake who spends money on well covered horses just to decrease their value by starving them, and sometimes suffering complete losses if they die.

How is it ever possible to keep a business running for so many years if it was run in the way people are suggesting it was? It would be totally impossible.


----------



## Brandysnap (30 May 2009)

Maybe we should all heed H+H's admin's sensible advice, and stop feeding the troll?

Just a thought.


----------



## patty19 (30 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

This was the point of my question.

Trying to understand what his trade was?

I've no problem with meat traders either as long as the horses are properly cared for and transported all the time they are alive.

After all, it's no different to sheep/cattle farming.

But I just couldn't see why the chap would have emaciated horses in his barns.

*Even if you bought them like that, you'd fatten them up for sale wouldn't you?*

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. There is not a shred of evidence to say that JG was not doing so.

[ QUOTE ]
And he must have the paperwork for each horse that states when he bought it, so surely for the ones that were below correct weight, he could prove that he'd not had them long?

[/ QUOTE ]

He did indeed have the paper work.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, that's my query?  Had they started off being fine and got to that stage through his mis-management?  

[/ QUOTE ]

JG has been trading in horses for his entire working life. If the animals he brought became poor due to him mismanaging them then he would have been broke years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
Even Patty can't answer that one surely?  She didn't reside with JG?  Or did she?  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Besides it being a proven fact that he did not starve or neglect his animals which were his living, it's also common sense. See above.


[ QUOTE ]
If he didn't keep his paperwork in order then he was truly an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

He had his paperwork in order.


[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, 19 pages later and I'm none the wiser, though it's been an interesting debate.

Over and out! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Have a serious think as to how any trader could possibly earn a living if he ran a business in the way people are suggesting JG ran his business.


----------



## patty19 (30 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty its certainly not normal to find dead Horses on any yard. 

Yes I agree horses can come onto yards in poor condition. We have one at the moment, but we don't have any dead ones. He maybe thin but he is clean, has a clean stable, plenty of food and is not crammed into a dirty barn. 

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not normal to have dead horses at a yard but not every yard has a red worm outbreak. Plus, is the yard you are speaking of a traders yard? Not saying that traders should have dead horses but surely any trader who deals with 100's of animals suffers loss.

Sadly, at that particular time JG suffered more loss than normal. 

If JG was the kind of trader people are saying he was who starved his animals to death how could he have afford to buy the animals that were seized?

And if it was his normal practice to not dispose of fallen stock, surely over the space of 9 years there would have been more bodies. And if those bodies were left where they fell surely they would have been seen by people who went to the yard in those 9 years.

They were not crammed in by JG. That was the handy work of the RSPCA after bringing them in from the field.


----------



## jacks_mum (30 May 2009)

Patty, could I just point out the difference between BOUGHT and BROUGHT please because you are driving me nuts with your consistent misuse of the two.

Bought - as in buy. when you buy  some thing you have BOUGHT it.

Brought - when you bring something with you, you BROUGHT it along.

Sorry to be a pedant but I am finding myself mentally shouting the correction when I read your posts and it is spoiling my enjoyment of this 'debate'.


----------



## RantBucket (30 May 2009)

That made me laugh out loud Jacks_Mum! Poor misguided Patty she isn't sure who she is MyJack or Patty never mind about being sure about what she writes on here.


----------



## jrp204 (30 May 2009)

Shall we start a game of hangman, you know the one........
JG's trade was _ _ _   _ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ _ _ _
Patty, you will need to start this one, guess we'll all get hung though!


----------



## dozzie (30 May 2009)

a






oops sorry. I meant to say e.


----------



## Happy Horse (30 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 No it's not normal to have dead horses at a yard but not every yard has a red worm outbreak. Plus, is the yard you are speaking of a traders yard? Not saying that traders should have dead horses but surely any trader who deals with 100's of animals suffers loss. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

You have told me when I asked previously that JG did not know the horses were dying of Redworm until the enquiry.  From this I gather that he had horses dying of unknown causes, you have also said that he did not have any post mortems done on the dead horses so he was putting the other horses at risk by not disposing of them or finding the cause and giving preventative treatment to the rest.

I don't dispute that someone dealing in that amount of animals will suffer loss but not hide them under rubbish, unsuccessfully attempt to burn them or leave them dead in a trailer for two weeks.  I am sure any farmer worth his salt who has more than one animal die in a short time from unknown causes would be finding out the cause and acting on the results.


----------



## maybedaisy (30 May 2009)

Patty the court obviously didn't accept the 'excuse' about the red worm outbreak and neither do I. 

The courts convict on a basis of beyond reasonable doubt. He's guilty!


----------



## dozzie (30 May 2009)

Patty

I have been thinking about all this long and hard. Hard to believe I know. 

Now if as you say he was set up, the question is why? Why would the charities have gone to such lengths to ensure that there was enough evidence to prosecute him and stop him trading? 

And you have given me the answers I was looking for. 

Is he guilty of cruelty? Yes he is Patty. It may have been legal, but nevertheless it was cruelty. Cruelty that had happened and cruelty that was going to happen.


----------



## Donkeymad (30 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty, could I just point out the difference between BOUGHT and BROUGHT please because you are driving me nuts with your consistent misuse of the two.

Bought - as in buy. when you buy  some thing you have BOUGHT it.

Brought - when you bring something with you, you BROUGHT it along.

Sorry to be a pedant but I am finding myself mentally shouting the correction when I read your posts and it is spoiling my enjoyment of this 'debate'. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for that, saved me the bother


----------



## Gladioli (30 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patty you have said there was only one dirty barn which was not clean and fluffy (sorry paraphrasing and I cant copy and paste at the moment) How do you propose it got in that state if it was not for animals being in there, therefore they must have at some point have been living in there for it to get full of faeces? Do you agree? or am I missing the point here? Do you think it is ok for some horses to be housed like at all? 

An answer to these questions/ statements would be appreciated.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you read the thread you see I have already answered this question.  <font color="blue"> I have read all of the thread and sorry but you have not </font> 


[ QUOTE ]
I have been involved with horses for over 20 years, I know the good dealers and I know the bad dealers, I know what obviously sick horses look like, I know what emaciated horses look like. I think you are insulting people's intelligence by suggesting that those horses were well looked after, if you wish to suggest that maybe a horse forum is not the best place to do it as most people here are experienced with the care of horses.

[/ QUOTE ]


With 20 years experience you'll know that dealers sometimes buy in horses that are not in top condition.

You only know what the rspca/media have told you about JG.  <font color="blue"> Not in top condition is understatement of the century. Some were dead, you dont get much poorer condition than that. How do you know that I was not there in the court room for the case? Maybe I have a friend who allowed me access to all of the evidence? </font>


----------



## Over2You (31 May 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty, could I just point out the difference between BOUGHT and BROUGHT please because you are driving me nuts with your consistent misuse of the two.

Bought - as in buy. when you buy  some thing you have BOUGHT it.

Brought - when you bring something with you, you BROUGHT it along.

Sorry to be a pedant but I am finding myself mentally shouting the correction when I read your posts and it is spoiling my enjoyment of this 'debate'. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish it were just that. Most of the contributors here (including Patty) simply cannot spell, punctuate or capitalize properly. It truly perplexes me as to how people can be as lazy. It only takes a minute to consult a dictionary or to run some kind of spell checker. I can remember a time when individuals would take pride in having a strongly held grasp of the English language. How I yearn for those days when I see the countless primary-school examples of it on this board.


----------



## patty19 (1 June 2009)

whot is the problom wiv my speling? i aways fort i waz a good spela and good wiv the inglish langwige. i lernd to reed rite and spel at a yung aje. lots ov peepal hear ar good spelers as far as i can sea. don wury abouwt it.


----------



## Over2You (1 June 2009)

No Patty, you most definitely are not a good speller. I could go through all your posts and quote them with the correct spelling, but (unlike you) I do not sit-up all night in front of my computer. Oh, and what exactly is a vulcher? I looked it up in the dictionary and couldn't find a definition. Perhaps you could enlighten me.


----------



## patty19 (1 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
No Patty, you most definitely are not a good speller. I could go through all your posts and quote them with the correct spelling, but (unlike you) I do not sit-up all night in front of my computer. Oh, and what exactly is a vulcher? I looked it up in the dictionary and couldn't find a definition. Perhaps you could enlighten me. 

[/ QUOTE ]

i sertinly am a good spela just look at my preeveoos post if yoo dont beleev me.  a vulcher is a werd i mayd up aw by mysewf.

i fink i need to teech yoo how to spel bekoos it looks lyk im the onlee persen hoo can spel rownd ear. 

my chooterin fees ar cheepist abowt so av a fink abowt it an get bak to me.  
	
	
		
		
	


	






if anywun els is intrestid i wil teech klarsers/groops to keep the pryse doun for yoo


----------



## RantBucket (1 June 2009)

Go to bed Patty its only 11 days until the sentencing you will need your beauty sleep if you are going to meet us all at Aylesbury. Don't forget to wear your name badge!


----------



## spaniel (1 June 2009)

Just to clarify....well just for Patty really.....the previous conviction WAS upheld on appeal.....really.....Ive read it.....he definitely did NOT win the case on appeal.....REALLY HE DID NOT.


Is that clear enough????


----------



## TheresaW (1 June 2009)

So, are you saying he didn't win the case on appeal? 
	
	
		
		
	


	





I think you are wasting your breath anyway.  Am sure Patty will have some evidence somewhere that she can't actually get her hands on to the contrary.


----------



## RantBucket (1 June 2009)

JG has a previous conviction for causing unnecessary suffering after failing to call a vet when a piebald colt needed treatment.  He was found guilty and fined £3,500 and ordered to pay £7,871 costs by Hemel Hempstead Magistrates Court in October 2006, in a case brought by the RSPCA. He appealed against the conviction on the advice of his solicitor but the appeal was unsuccessful.


----------



## PoppyAnderson (1 June 2009)

*Hello* patty *Waves*, it'd be great if you'd answer my question, which is a couple of pages back now. I've been through all 400 or so posts and you haven't answered this question in any of them directly. You've hinted and intimated but you haven't given a straight answer.


----------



## Paddywhack (1 June 2009)

Hopefully Patty has gone to sleep in Pattyland forever,she can't answer any questions since she does not know anything.........Hint and intimidation is Patty's speciality when she get cornered and does not have a clue


----------



## Paddywhack (1 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
patty - question for you. The thinest, poorest looking horses on the farm, how long had they been in JGs possession, ie, how long had he owned them for? 

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is the question again for Patty in case she can't find it 
	
	
		
		
	


	




Lets see how many green frogs will be jumping out of Patty's mouth this time


----------



## patty19 (1 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
patty - question for you. The thinest, poorest looking horses on the farm, how long had they been in JGs possession, ie, how long had he owned them for? 

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is the question again for Patty in case she can't find it 
	
	
		
		
	


	




Lets see how many green frogs will be jumping out of Patty's mouth this time   
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Hiya SL, aka PW. I just knew you does LUFF me reeeeeeelly because you have an extremely odd way of showing that you are not interested what I have to say. Mwa KISHES 4 ya.

Off the top of my nut JG had owned them from around the 18th of December.


----------



## PoppyAnderson (1 June 2009)

So he'd owned tham a couple of months or so then? Sorry, I genuinely don't know the timeline of events.


----------



## brummel (1 June 2009)

Patty

How often did you attend the trial and did you sit in the courtroom's public gallery on each occassion?


----------



## patty19 (1 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty

How often did you attend the trial and did you sit in the courtroom's public gallery on each occassion? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I was there throughout the trial and always sat in the court room. There were several days that I did not attend but those days consisted of legal arguments and applications.


----------



## brummel (1 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patty

How often did you attend the trial and did you sit in the courtroom's public gallery on each occassion? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I was there throughout the trial and always sat in the court room. There were several days that I did not attend but those days consisted of legal arguments and applications. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually sit in the public gallery?


----------



## patty19 (2 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patty

How often did you attend the trial and did you sit in the courtroom's public gallery on each occassion? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I was there throughout the trial and always sat in the court room. There were several days that I did not attend but those days consisted of legal arguments and applications. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually sit in the public gallery? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I sat in the public gallery. It consisted of 3 (could have been 4) rows of blue chairs with fold away writing tables on the right hand side of each chair. There was about 5/6 chairs per row. Kirsty Hampton sat at a table just in front of the gallery alongside a short hair woman with a wide butt. To the left of their table was another table where the defence veterinary experts sat. In front of those experts was a table where Nigel Weller sat - to the right of Mr Weller sat Mr Odonald who was the solicitor for the RSPCA. Just to the right of him was a single desk which Mr Peter Green (prosecution expert vet) sat. In front of these were long tables where Defence barristers sat and the prosecutor sat to the right of them. Then there was the clark of the court who faced the the said people - then behind her was the risen bench where the district judge sat facing the people. The defendants sat in a row with the public gallery to their right. Just in front of Mr Green was the desk where the prosecution witnesses gave their evidence. When it was time for the defence to give evidence the desk was moved to the other side of the court room. Anything else?


----------



## dozzie (2 June 2009)

The raid was on the 4th of January. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## brummel (2 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patty

How often did you attend the trial and did you sit in the courtroom's public gallery on each occassion? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I was there throughout the trial and always sat in the court room. There were several days that I did not attend but those days consisted of legal arguments and applications. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually sit in the public gallery? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I sat in the public gallery. It consisted of 3 (could have been 4) rows of blue chairs with fold away writing tables on the right hand side of each chair. There was about 5/6 chairs per row. Kirsty Hampton sat at a table just in front of the gallery alongside a short hair woman with a wide butt. To the left of their table was another table where the defence veterinary experts sat. In front of those experts was a table where Nigel Weller sat - to the right of Mr Weller sat Mr Odonald who was the solicitor for the RSPCA. Just to the right of him was a single desk which Mr Peter Green (prosecution expert vet) sat. In front of these were long tables where Defence barristers sat and the prosecutor sat to the right of them. Then there was the clark of the court who faced the the said people - then behind her was the risen bench where the district judge sat facing the people. The defendants sat in a row with the public gallery to their right. Just in front of Mr Green was the desk where the prosecution witnesses gave their evidence. When it was time for the defence to give evidence the desk was moved to the other side of the court room. Anything else? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't in the least bit interested in the description of the layout of the courtroom, just whether you actually sat in the public gallery every time you attended.  The reason being, according to a reliable source, there where only reporters present on quite a number of occassions..


----------



## Paddywhack (2 June 2009)

Too detailed information of the court room if you ask me 
(Patty IS on ignore btw but i could see the above post )..and also since she lives across the Atlantic i doubt very much that she attended at all...naah she is full of it,green frogs again


----------



## patty19 (2 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

I wasn't in the least bit interested in the description of the layout of the courtroom, just whether you actually sat in the public gallery every time you attended.  The reason being, according to a reliable source, there where only reporters present on quite a number of occassions.. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not have bothered going if I was not going to sit in the public gallery. That would have been pretty pointless.

As for your reliable source, I'm afraid that source cant possibly be reliable as alot of the time I was the only person in the public gallery. On many occassions there was not a single reporter there. On the last day it was packed inside and outside the court. I saw a woman there who posts here - I recognized her from the photos posted of the convoy for OE. She was wearing a green jacket with writing on the back. I think her name may be Michelle but I could be wrong.


----------



## patty19 (2 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Too detailed information of the court room if you ask me 
(Patty IS on ignore btw but i could see the above post )..and also since she lives across the Atlantic i doubt very much that she attended at all...naah she is full of it,green frogs again 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Oh SL, please do get over yourself. I live in the UK and there are 4 posters here who can verify that.

And just for the record, I dont believe for a single moment that you have me on ignore.


----------



## brummel (2 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
As for your reliable source, I'm afraid that source cant possibly be reliable as alot of the time I was the only person in the public gallery. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Patty, I can assure you they are very reliable.


----------



## SpruceRI (3 June 2009)

I know I wasn't going to comment further - but found this:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others-witnesses.pdf

Very long but an interesting read.


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for your reliable source, I'm afraid that source cant possibly be reliable as alot of the time I was the only person in the public gallery. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Patty, I can assure you they are very reliable. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Smallholder, I can assure you that your source is not very reliable. Either that or your source may have thought I was a reporter because I was writing notes. Either way I was most certainly there in the public gallery.

Maybe you should ask your reporter friend why he/she was not there a lot of the time.


----------



## brummel (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should ask your reporter friend why he/she was not there a lot of the time. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Patty, they where in the public gallery more often than you.


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should ask your reporter friend why he/she was not there a lot of the time. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Patty, they where in the public gallery more often than you. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]


I should know how often I was in the court. Your reporter friend is most certainly not a reliable source.


----------



## Happy Horse (3 June 2009)

I have been re-reading the ruling and have noticed that the horses were removed from Spindles Farm on January 9th yet John Parker, the vet giving evidence for the defence was not instructed until January 14th and did not examine them in their places of safety until January 20/21 a full 11 days following their removal from Spindles Farm.

He therefore did not see the state of the animals removed from the farm or the conditions they were removed from and did not see them until they had received 11 days of feeding and proper veterinary care and treatment.  

Why did this delay occur?  Why was he not called to examine the animals as soon as they were removed?  There is no way the condition of the horses would be the same as at the time of removal after 11 days of proper care.

He did not visit Spindles until February 1st, 22 days following the removal of the horses by which time I am certain that the conditions would have changed for his visit.

 [ QUOTE ]
 Mr. Parker produced a report on 1st February which included his noted body score forms. He uses a different range than the range advocated by the Equine Industry Welfare Guideline Compendium. His scores were different to those used by the vets dealing with the horses on the days of seizure and at the refuges. Partly, possibly, because of the different arithmetic involved. Mr. Parker was not able to spend as much time with each equine as he may have wished with so many to see in a short time. 

[/ QUOTE ]


----------



## Paddywhack (3 June 2009)

Patty was not there that's the end of it


----------



## RantBucket (3 June 2009)

Neither of the veterinary expert witnesses gave assistance to the court, they were both hired guns acting for JG and the Judge realised this so their evidence was dismissed. I found this rather interesting report written by Ms Madeleine Forsyth in which she goes to great lengths to state that the Vet expert witnbesses should assist the court in arriving at a verdict, but she obviously has not acted upon it as she and John Parker were anti RSPCA and did all they could to assist JG even to the point of making themselves look entirely stupid.
 [ QUOTE ]
 Veterinary Expert-or not ?  By Ms Madeleine Forsyth
The role of the veterinary surgeon as a witness in Court proceedings is a position of enormous importance, professionally, ethically and morally. And it isnt taken seriously enough. 
Recent cases make it clear that many veterinary surgeons do not understand their duty to the Court, their status as a witness, the effect of their opinion, and it is just as clear that the moral and professional dilemmas that often arise havent been considered before the Expert exposes themselves to inevitable criticism. 
What sort of Witness ? 
You may be a Witness of Fact, where you simply state your observations, or an Expert Witness, or both at the same time. It is in the latter case that an immediate conflict arises. If the witness of fact then gives an Expert opinion on their factual statement which leads to charges being laid, it is very difficult for that person to be objective if contrary ( and persuasive) Expert opinion is offered, as a change of mind will destroy the prosecution case. The RSPCA often employ a second veterinary Expert Witness to support the opinion of the Expert of fact, which avoids the dilemma. 
Veterinary Surgeons employed by state agencies such as Defra and MHS have a further dilemma in that it is their duty to enforce the legislation. This increases their need for objectivity, but also increases the risk that the law might be used as a weapon to control those who do not perfectly comply with those who audit their farms and abattoirs. 
The Game. 
UK law is adversarial, unlike the inquisitorial European systems where information is provided to the Court which makes its determination on the facts. In this country the prosecution and defence present their contrary cases and argue (often aggressively) to persuade the Magistrates or Judge to decide in their favour. Its a game, and a game of war in which the object is to discredit the Expert Witness for the other side. 
By nature the veterinary surgeon does not enjoy criticism and is accustomed to providing advice and guidance, which in the main is accepted with gratitude. However, under cross examination it is entirely normal for the opposing advocate to attack the statement, opinion and competence of the unsuspecting Expert, which can seem a most unpleasant personal and professional assault, but is to be expected in contested cases. 
Effect of Opinion. 
The effect of a veterinary surgeons opinion that unnecessary suffering has been caused to an animal is to provide the prosecution with a hugely powerful tool to secure a conviction, and of course this results in criminalising the defendant. Added to this there may be a custodial sentence or financial penalty ( 1 year and £20.000 under the Animal Welfare Act 2007), and disqualification from keeping animals, or any particular sort of animal for any length of time. 
Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, most criminal convictions can become 'spent' or forgotten after a 'rehabilitation period' of five years. 
There is however a very large category of people for whom convictions can never be spent, including people working in the following professions: doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives, lawyers, opticians, teachers, police officers and people working with children and vulnerable people. 
Giving an opinion which may result in someone receiving a criminal record carries with it a very heavy burden of responsibility to ensure that the opinion is objective, educated, considered, and truthful, and these duties are laid down in law. 
Duties of an Expert Witness 
An expert, according to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 35 is a person  instructed to give or prepare evidence for the purposes of Court proceedings, and this requirement is also followed in criminal matters as laid down by Lord Justice Cresswell in the case The Ikarian Reefer : 
The evidence of an expert should be: 
Independent objective and unbiased. 
Relate to matters in their field of expertise. 

The expert should: 
State facts and assumptions which form the basis of their expert opinion. 
Consider facts which are capable of detracting from their opinion. 
Clearly indicate when a matter falls outside their expertise, or that there is insufficient information to form more than a provisional opinion. 
Where the expert could not swear that the content of their report was true without adding a qualification, the expert should state that qualification. 
If it is so an expert should state, after exchange of expert reports, that their opinion has changed. 
The expert should provide the other party with photographs, clinical data, laboratory results etc to which their evidence refers. 

The duty of the expert is to the Court, irrespective of the party instructing them. 
A very common misconception is that because an Expert is called either by the prosecution or defence lawyers, their loyalty lies towards that party. This could not be further from the truth. The duty is to assist the Court with technical details of 
veterinary issues that the Court might not otherwise understand, and help them come to a fair conclusion. 
Of course the expert may have formed a view as to the strength or otherwise of the alleged charge, but it is NOT their duty to be judgmental, but to provide a balanced view of all associated issues so as to best allow the Court to make the ultimate decision. 
Writing Statements. 
The opinion should be that of the independent practitioner, and as such not dictated or assisted by a third party, nor written on the headed paper of that third party. The format of the statement can be found on any expert Witness website and should contain a statement of truth, qualifications and experience of the writer relative to the issues at trial, be dated and signed by the author and in complete compliance with the rules of the Ikarian Reefer and/or CPR 1998 Part 35, depending on whether the matter is heard in the Criminal or Civil Court. 
The evidence should not be discussed with any other Witness in the same case, nor should the writer be coerced into attending joint meetings with any other witnesses or enforcement agents as this is regarded as witness coaching . 1 It has the potential for a prosecuting body to allow the witnesses to rehearse their evidence before trial, and repair any weaknesses in the case. 
Court Etiquette. 
As a professional person you have a duty of courtesy to the Court which should be reflected in your dress-sober and formal, your manner, professional, objective and properly detached and particularly under cross examination, your manners. To the naïve witness the perceived aggressive affront during the testing of their evidence can cause a confrontational reaction-much to the satisfaction of the opposing advocate because it can reduce the credibility of the witness in front of the Court, particularly a lay bench of Magistrates. In the Crown Court the Judge is less likely to permit bullying of a professional witness, but the object is still the same-to discredit the witness to any extent. 
It is sensible to ask advice of the advocate as to how to address the bench, when to sit or stand, and how to answer questions, whether in full, or succinctly, but it would be even more useful for the aspiring witness to attend Court before appearing themselves to see the gladiatorial theatre ! 
In summary. 
A Veterinary Expert Witness is not judge or jury, or a hired gun for either party, but a robustly independent professional person, with best knowledge and understanding of the matters at issue before advancing an opinion that may assist to criminalise a 
1 R v Momodou [2005] EWCA 177 02/02/2005. 
defendant. They should consider all the evidence available, and ensure that is sufficient to form their opinion, rather than make an immediate assumption based on a snapshot of information. 
Everything about their behaviour should express their objectivity, and their proper conviction. 
Madeleine Forsyth (Expert Vet witness) 

[/ QUOTE ]


----------



## RantBucket (3 June 2009)

James Gray expected in court today 2nd June 2009 on welfare charges http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/283664.html

 [ QUOTE ]
 The trial of Buckinghamshire horse trader James Gray on trading standards charges restarts today (Tuesday) at Folkestone Magistrates Court. 

Mr Gray, of Spindle Farm, Amersham, faces fives charges, dating from September and October 2007, which are being brought by Kent County Council. 


He is accused of travelling horses through Dover in an unsuitable lorry and without a valid health certificate for the animals. 


The case was due to be heard on 27 May but Mr Gray was unwell. He denies all the charges against him. 


A verdict is not expected until 17 July. 



[/ QUOTE ]


----------



## M_G (3 June 2009)

OMG Patty are you still here  
	
	
		
		
	


	





Tell me one thing, It has been asked in another thread but you chose to ignore it. Are you Anne Kasica?


----------



## brummel (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

I should know how often I was in the court. Your reporter friend is most certainly not a reliable source. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes Patty, whatever you say...


----------



## native (3 June 2009)

Just reading the link that madhossy put up.

First thing that struck me was that on 4th December he let out horses out that were in pen 3 hampering the investigation.  It later goes on to say that there was the discovery of 2 dead horses in pen 3. Un-blurdi-believable that these horses were kept in such despicable rank conditions, and having to share with corpses.  

I've been following this closely since the horses were rescued and it beggars belief that this man and his family have someone on here defending him.


----------



## Gingernags (3 June 2009)

That link was really interesting - shows to me that the right decision was reached and doesn't back up Patty.

Oh and re: the transporting charges they date back to 2007 therefore not adding more to this case, it predates by a long way!

So the tally so far, one cruelty charge - convicted, fined, horse siezed.  Appeal UNSUCCESSFUL, current one guilty of lots of charges of cruelty, plus seperate transport charges being looked at currently.

Yup, paragon of society!  Nice of them to provide their kid with such a good start in life too - homeschooled but 2 years behind the average for his age.  Tried to say the horses were his.  Lovely family eh?


----------



## RantBucket (3 June 2009)

And don't forget Gingernags, he was found guilty of assault on PC Metcalf, and also of vandalising an RSPCA van, and has a previous animal cruelty conviction dating back to 2006. He seems to be quite a little rascal doesnt he, no wonder he has a delinquent son who is 2 years behind his year group! Never mind only 9 days to go until JG is sewing mail bags in prison!


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I have been re-reading the ruling and have noticed that the horses were removed from Spindles Farm on January 9th yet John Parker, the vet giving evidence for the defence was not instructed until January 14th and did not examine them in their places of safety until January 20/21 a full 11 days following their removal from Spindles Farm.

He therefore did not see the state of the animals removed from the farm or the conditions they were removed from and did not see them until they had received 11 days of feeding and proper veterinary care and treatment.  

Why did this delay occur?  Why was he not called to examine the animals as soon as they were removed?  There is no way the condition of the horses would be the same as at the time of removal after 11 days of proper care.

He did not visit Spindles until February 1st, 22 days following the removal of the horses by which time I am certain that the conditions would have changed for his visit.

 [ QUOTE ]
 Mr. Parker produced a report on 1st February which included his noted body score forms. He uses a different range than the range advocated by the Equine Industry Welfare Guideline Compendium. His scores were different to those used by the vets dealing with the horses on the days of seizure and at the refuges. Partly, possibly, because of the different arithmetic involved. Mr. Parker was not able to spend as much time with each equine as he may have wished with so many to see in a short time. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter Green who was the expert vet acting for the RSPCA had not EVER seen the animals. His opinions was formed by looking at photos.


----------



## M_G (3 June 2009)

It has been asked in another thread but you chose to ignore it. Are you Anne Kasica?


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
That link was really interesting - shows to me that the right decision was reached and doesn't back up Patty.

Oh and re: the transporting charges they date back to 2007 therefore not adding more to this case, it predates by a long way!

So the tally so far, one cruelty charge - convicted, fined, horse siezed.  Appeal UNSUCCESSFUL, current one guilty of lots of charges of cruelty, plus seperate transport charges being looked at currently.

Yup, paragon of society!  Nice of them to provide their kid with such a good start in life too - homeschooled but 2 years behind the average for his age.  Tried to say the horses were his.  Lovely family eh? 

[/ QUOTE ]

The cruelty charges which resulted from the raid were also dated back to 07 - April 07 infact. The only animals seized by the RSPCA which belonged to Mr Gray during April 07 were pets which he had owned for years. 

There were no pending cases against Mr Gray at the time of the raid.


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
It has been asked in another thread but you chose to ignore it. Are you Anne Kasica? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Like many posters who have accused me of ignoring questions - you are wrong.

Take the time to look for them.


----------



## Happy Horse (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have been re-reading the ruling and have noticed that the horses were removed from Spindles Farm on January 9th yet John Parker, the vet giving evidence for the defence was not instructed until January 14th and did not examine them in their places of safety until January 20/21 a full 11 days following their removal from Spindles Farm.

He therefore did not see the state of the animals removed from the farm or the conditions they were removed from and did not see them until they had received 11 days of feeding and proper veterinary care and treatment.  

Why did this delay occur?  Why was he not called to examine the animals as soon as they were removed?  There is no way the condition of the horses would be the same as at the time of removal after 11 days of proper care.

He did not visit Spindles until February 1st, 22 days following the removal of the horses by which time I am certain that the conditions would have changed for his visit.

 [ QUOTE ]
 Mr. Parker produced a report on 1st February which included his noted body score forms. He uses a different range than the range advocated by the Equine Industry Welfare Guideline Compendium. His scores were different to those used by the vets dealing with the horses on the days of seizure and at the refuges. Partly, possibly, because of the different arithmetic involved. Mr. Parker was not able to spend as much time with each equine as he may have wished with so many to see in a short time. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter Green who was the expert vet acting for the RSPCA had not EVER seen the animals. His opinions was formed by looking at photos. 

[/ QUOTE ]

The vets giving evidence saw the animals on the day of the removal.  I am sure both expert witnesses took that evidence into account as well.  At least the photos were taken on the day of removal and not 11 days later!


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty was not there that's the end of it 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this how exacty?


----------



## M_G (3 June 2009)

we don't all have as much time to waste as you seem to Patty


----------



## RhiannonE (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I know I wasn't going to comment further - but found this:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others-witnesses.pdf

Very long but an interesting read. 

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting thank you. Hate the part about "100 horses all but 6-10 had suffered significantly".


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Neither of the veterinary expert witnesses gave assistance to the court, they were both hired guns acting for JG and the Judge realised this so their evidence was dismissed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong!! Mr Parker was hired by JG first solicitor and Ms Forsyth was hired by Nigel weller. John Parkers evidence was dismissed because he was unwell for ONE day during the trial, and Ms Forsyths evidence was dismissed because she could not agree with Peter Green who was acting for the RSPCA.

Should Mr Greens evidence not also have been dismissed because he could not agree with Ms Forsyths evidence?


[ QUOTE ]
I found this rather interesting report written by Ms Madeleine Forsyth in which she goes to great lengths to state that the Vet expert witnbesses should assist the court in arriving at a verdict, but she obviously has not acted upon it as she and John Parker were anti RSPCA and did all they could to assist JG even to the point of making themselves look entirely stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ms Forsyth was not anti RSPCA - She is an expert who has acted for the RSPCA in previous cases.

Please do explain just how they made themselves look idiots?

Did Mr Parker make himself look an idiot because he was unwell for ONE day during the trial?

Did Ms Forsyth make herself look an idiot because she did not agree with the RSPCA's expert witness Peter Green?

I ask this because these were the only reasons for their evidence being dismissed.


 [ QUOTE ]
 Veterinary Expert-or not ?  By Ms Madeleine Forsyth
The role of the veterinary surgeon as a witness in Court proceedings is a position of enormous importance, professionally, ethically and morally. And it isnt taken seriously enough. 
Recent cases make it clear that many veterinary surgeons do not understand their duty to the Court, their status as a witness, the effect of their opinion, and it is just as clear that the moral and professional dilemmas that often arise havent been considered before the Expert exposes themselves to inevitable criticism. 


What sort of Witness ? 
You may be a Witness of Fact, where you simply state your observations, or an Expert Witness, or both at the same time. It is in the latter case that an immediate conflict arises. If the witness of fact then gives an Expert opinion on their factual statement which leads to charges being laid, it is very difficult for that person to be objective if contrary ( and persuasive) Expert opinion is offered, as a change of mind will destroy the prosecution case. The RSPCA often employ a second veterinary Expert Witness to support the opinion of the Expert of fact, which avoids the dilemma. 
Veterinary Surgeons employed by state agencies such as Defra and MHS have a further dilemma in that it is their duty to enforce the legislation. This increases their need for objectivity, but also increases the risk that the law might be used as a weapon to control those who do not perfectly comply with those who audit their farms and abattoirs. 
The Game. 
UK law is adversarial, unlike the inquisitorial European systems where information is provided to the Court which makes its determination on the facts. In this country the prosecution and defence present their contrary cases and argue (often aggressively) to persuade the Magistrates or Judge to decide in their favour. Its a game, and a game of war in which the object is to discredit the Expert Witness for the other side. 
By nature the veterinary surgeon does not enjoy criticism and is accustomed to providing advice and guidance, which in the main is accepted with gratitude. However, under cross examination it is entirely normal for the opposing advocate to attack the statement, opinion and competence of the unsuspecting Expert, which can seem a most unpleasant personal and professional assault, but is to be expected in contested cases. 
Effect of Opinion. 
The effect of a veterinary surgeons opinion that unnecessary suffering has been caused to an animal is to provide the prosecution with a hugely powerful tool to secure a conviction, and of course this results in criminalising the defendant. Added to this there may be a custodial sentence or financial penalty ( 1 year and £20.000 under the Animal Welfare Act 2007), and disqualification from keeping animals, or any particular sort of animal for any length of time. 
Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, most criminal convictions can become 'spent' or forgotten after a 'rehabilitation period' of five years. 
There is however a very large category of people for whom convictions can never be spent, including people working in the following professions: doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives, lawyers, opticians, teachers, police officers and people working with children and vulnerable people. 
Giving an opinion which may result in someone receiving a criminal record carries with it a very heavy burden of responsibility to ensure that the opinion is objective, educated, considered, and truthful, and these duties are laid down in law. 
Duties of an Expert Witness 
An expert, according to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 35 is a person  instructed to give or prepare evidence for the purposes of Court proceedings, and this requirement is also followed in criminal matters as laid down by Lord Justice Cresswell in the case The Ikarian Reefer : 
The evidence of an expert should be: 
Independent objective and unbiased. 
Relate to matters in their field of expertise. 

The expert should: 
State facts and assumptions which form the basis of their expert opinion. 
Consider facts which are capable of detracting from their opinion. 
Clearly indicate when a matter falls outside their expertise, or that there is insufficient information to form more than a provisional opinion. 
Where the expert could not swear that the content of their report was true without adding a qualification, the expert should state that qualification. 
If it is so an expert should state, after exchange of expert reports, that their opinion has changed. 
The expert should provide the other party with photographs, clinical data, laboratory results etc to which their evidence refers. 

The duty of the expert is to the Court, irrespective of the party instructing them. 
A very common misconception is that because an Expert is called either by the prosecution or defence lawyers, their loyalty lies towards that party. This could not be further from the truth. The duty is to assist the Court with technical details of 
veterinary issues that the Court might not otherwise understand, and help them come to a fair conclusion. 
Of course the expert may have formed a view as to the strength or otherwise of the alleged charge, but it is NOT their duty to be judgmental, but to provide a balanced view of all associated issues so as to best allow the Court to make the ultimate decision. 
Writing Statements. 
The opinion should be that of the independent practitioner, and as such not dictated or assisted by a third party, nor written on the headed paper of that third party. The format of the statement can be found on any expert Witness website and should contain a statement of truth, qualifications and experience of the writer relative to the issues at trial, be dated and signed by the author and in complete compliance with the rules of the Ikarian Reefer and/or CPR 1998 Part 35, depending on whether the matter is heard in the Criminal or Civil Court. 
The evidence should not be discussed with any other Witness in the same case, nor should the writer be coerced into attending joint meetings with any other witnesses or enforcement agents as this is regarded as witness coaching . 1 It has the potential for a prosecuting body to allow the witnesses to rehearse their evidence before trial, and repair any weaknesses in the case. 
Court Etiquette. 
As a professional person you have a duty of courtesy to the Court which should be reflected in your dress-sober and formal, your manner, professional, objective and properly detached and particularly under cross examination, your manners. To the naïve witness the perceived aggressive affront during the testing of their evidence can cause a confrontational reaction-much to the satisfaction of the opposing advocate because it can reduce the credibility of the witness in front of the Court, particularly a lay bench of Magistrates. In the Crown Court the Judge is less likely to permit bullying of a professional witness, but the object is still the same-to discredit the witness to any extent. 
It is sensible to ask advice of the advocate as to how to address the bench, when to sit or stand, and how to answer questions, whether in full, or succinctly, but it would be even more useful for the aspiring witness to attend Court before appearing themselves to see the gladiatorial theatre ! 
In summary. 
A Veterinary Expert Witness is not judge or jury, or a hired gun for either party, but a robustly independent professional person, with best knowledge and understanding of the matters at issue before advancing an opinion that may assist to criminalise a 
1 R v Momodou [2005] EWCA 177 02/02/2005. 
defendant. They should consider all the evidence available, and ensure that is sufficient to form their opinion, rather than make an immediate assumption based on a snapshot of information. 
Everything about their behaviour should express their objectivity, and their proper conviction. 
Madeleine Forsyth (Expert Vet witness) 

[/ QUOTE ] 


[/ QUOTE ]


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


The vets giving evidence saw the animals on the day of the removal.  I am sure both expert witnesses took that evidence into account as well.  At least the photos were taken on the day of removal and not 11 days later! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course those vets saw the animals on the day they were seized. Whatever you do, if you are ever raided by the RSPCA do NOT allow them to speak with your vet.

As for the vets from the sancturies - RLMAO. Dont be so naive.

If their evidence was enough why did the RSPCA feel they needed to employ Peter Green?

Re the photos - yes, the photos taken by a member of the Gray family were also produced to the court and the animals in those photos were identified by prosecution witnesses.

KH told the family member that she did not need to take photos because the family would recieve a copy of the photos she was taking. Good job that member of the Gray family did not listen to KH because no copies were ever given to the family - neither did the RSPCA produce all of their photos to the court.


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
we don't all have as much time to waste as you seem to Patty  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Well thats just tough.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





And if you don't all have as much time as I have maybe you should THINK of that before you accuse me of ignoring questions.


----------



## Happy Horse (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 27. It was clear during the his evidence that Mr. Parker was unwell and had found the trial stressful . I believe he fell into error in reaching conclusions earlier on for a different purpose and then seeking to develop the immediate challenge to that set of facts into an explanation based not on Mr. Grays behaviour but on disease and illness
he could not have dealt with without veterinary assistance. I am unable to rely upon his expert reports in assisting me to determine the relevant facts.


[/ QUOTE ] 

It sounds like more than a days illness - more like his evidence was unreliable or not well researched and as such could not be used.   If he found it too stressful he should not have accepted the role.

 [ QUOTE ]
She does not agree with the feeding requirements Mr. Green identifies from his experience and the records of feed required by the horses in the refuges as they recover and put on weight. She does not agree with his opinion on the suitable dimensions for stock densities in the pens and fields at Spindles Farm, preferring to compare what was there with space requirements for 1 to 2 year old cattle. Spindles Farm used to be a dairy farm but it is not clear that comparisons between bovine and equine behaviour are appropriate at this level of disagreement. She disagrees with his rejection that many of the horses at Spindles Farm are store
horses and links the 10% mortality rate of cattle and sheep for animals farmed as store animals in those trades with what happened at Spindles Farm Again a basic disagreement on what should be a factually agreeable issue. She mirrors Mr. Parkers concern that the Compendium is not directed at the commercial and agricultural equine industry but more specifically at the requirements for keep of the individual horse or pony in a leisure capacity. Thus it is a guide and not a statutory requirement. It does not take into account the economic reality of the management and disposal of animals of little worth who historically have been farmed in much the same way as done by Mr. Gray . She returns to her assertion that cyathostomes can cause the death of their host and maintains that the laboratory blood tests and faecal counts and biochemistry results all point to a picture of cyathostomiasis. Further that the tests in relation to urea:creatinine are indicative that the animals were not starved but lost weight because of a protein losing enteropathy. She cautions against relying on a snapshot and that veterinanrian is under an obligation to make every effort to aarive at a diagnosis of the cause of the poor condition, even if the diagnosis must await laboratory results (taken from Mr. Greens tutorial) She appears to missed the irony of cautioning against relying on a snapshot and yet using singular test results to support a concusion of overwhelming small strongyle infestation likely to lead to sudden death. A diagnosis not supported in any of the papers or literature supplied to the court.
32. The more concerning feature of the second and in fact third paper submitted is the attempt to qualify the agreement reached between the prosecution and Mr. Fullerton on the correct interpretation of the Beaufort Cottage Laboratory test results commentary where it was stated that no abnormal metabolic activity meant no damage to the liver or kidneys and could not be used to indicate anything about the energy level or nutritional status of the animal. She introduced the phrase in the absence of any biochemical change  into the Laboratory test comment to support her contention that what a single sheet of paper produced on a single occasion i.e. a snapshot, was a determinative scientific foundation to rule out that it was being deprived of food and removing responsibility for its condition from Mr. Gray or others. It was a blatant withdrawal from the acceptance that Annalisa Barrelet had correctly informed the court on what could be inferred from the test result .As a consequence the prosecution were permitted to call her to rebut the misstatement as to the meaning of the phrase.
33. Unable to retreat from a position that was to prove unsustainable, Ms Forsyth introduced more scientific information about the basal metabolism required to carry out the activities of the resting, fasting cell in a further attempt to establish that the chemical indicators revealed by the tests could be read to confirm that the animal had sufficient energy to fuel basal metabolism. It is hard to avoid interpreting the move from a considered suggestion that if the worming was being carried out, it was the cyathostome infections that caused sudden unexpected death to the assertion that the lab tests prove that the horses were not being starved, as a reactive and subjective response rather than an objective development to assist the court reach a better understanding.
34. The indication that Ms Forsyth considered herself to be a mixed practitioner in the veterinary field with a significant part of her practice being avian, and specialised flock management, domestic animals and horses together with the inability to accept
what was patently obvious from the author of the lab test, leads me to be unable to rely upon her expert reports to assist me in determining the facts in this case. This leaves the Court to consider the two reports of Peter Green in determining the facts and understanding the behaviour of equines, their needs in terms of feed, space, company, exercise, cleaning, bedding, and susceptibility to disease internal and external parasites and the reasonable steps that are required to be taken for the above.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Slightly more to it than not being able to agree with Peter Green!  It seems like she completely misinterpreted the blood test results and changed her mind on what they did or didn't show.  In the light of such a change of opinion it is no wonder the evidence was dismissed!


----------



## Happy Horse (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The vets giving evidence saw the animals on the day of the removal.  I am sure both expert witnesses took that evidence into account as well.  At least the photos were taken on the day of removal and not 11 days later! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course those vets saw the animals on the day they were seized. Whatever you do, if you are ever raided by the RSPCA do NOT allow them to speak with your vet.

As for the vets from the sancturies - RLMAO. Dont be so naive.

If their evidence was enough why did the RSPCA feel they needed to employ Peter Green?

Re the photos - yes, the photos taken by a member of the Gray family were also produced to the court and the animals in those photos were identified by prosecution witnesses.

KH told the family member that she did not need to take photos because the family would recieve a copy of the photos she was taking. Good job that member of the Gray family did not listen to KH because no copies were ever given to the family - neither did the RSPCA produce all of their photos to the court. 

[/ QUOTE ]

What accusations are you making against the vets from the sanctuaries exactly?  Would you care to put them in writing? Are they in on the conspiracy theory as well?!


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 [ QUOTE ]
 27. It was clear during the his evidence that Mr. Parker was unwell and had found the trial stressful . I believe he fell into error in reaching conclusions earlier on for a different purpose and then seeking to develop the immediate challenge to that set of facts into an explanation based not on Mr. Grays behaviour but on disease and illness
he could not have dealt with without veterinary assistance. I am unable to rely upon his expert reports in assisting me to determine the relevant facts.


[/ QUOTE ] 

It sounds like more than a days illness - more like his evidence was unreliable or not well researched and as such could not be used.   If he found it too stressful he should not have accepted the role.

 [ QUOTE ]
She does not agree with the feeding requirements Mr. Green identifies from his experience and the records of feed required by the horses in the refuges as they recover and put on weight. She does not agree with his opinion on the suitable dimensions for stock densities in the pens and fields at Spindles Farm, preferring to compare what was there with space requirements for 1 to 2 year old cattle. Spindles Farm used to be a dairy farm but it is not clear that comparisons between bovine and equine behaviour are appropriate at this level of disagreement. She disagrees with his rejection that many of the horses at Spindles Farm are store
horses and links the 10% mortality rate of cattle and sheep for animals farmed as store animals in those trades with what happened at Spindles Farm Again a basic disagreement on what should be a factually agreeable issue. She mirrors Mr. Parkers concern that the Compendium is not directed at the commercial and agricultural equine industry but more specifically at the requirements for keep of the individual horse or pony in a leisure capacity. Thus it is a guide and not a statutory requirement. It does not take into account the economic reality of the management and disposal of animals of little worth who historically have been farmed in much the same way as done by Mr. Gray . She returns to her assertion that cyathostomes can cause the death of their host and maintains that the laboratory blood tests and faecal counts and biochemistry results all point to a picture of cyathostomiasis. Further that the tests in relation to urea:creatinine are indicative that the animals were not starved but lost weight because of a protein losing enteropathy. She cautions against relying on a snapshot and that veterinanrian is under an obligation to make every effort to aarive at a diagnosis of the cause of the poor condition, even if the diagnosis must await laboratory results (taken from Mr. Greens tutorial) She appears to missed the irony of cautioning against relying on a snapshot and yet using singular test results to support a concusion of overwhelming small strongyle infestation likely to lead to sudden death. A diagnosis not supported in any of the papers or literature supplied to the court.
32. The more concerning feature of the second and in fact third paper submitted is the attempt to qualify the agreement reached between the prosecution and Mr. Fullerton on the correct interpretation of the Beaufort Cottage Laboratory test results commentary where it was stated that no abnormal metabolic activity meant no damage to the liver or kidneys and could not be used to indicate anything about the energy level or nutritional status of the animal. She introduced the phrase in the absence of any biochemical change  into the Laboratory test comment to support her contention that what a single sheet of paper produced on a single occasion i.e. a snapshot, was a determinative scientific foundation to rule out that it was being deprived of food and removing responsibility for its condition from Mr. Gray or others. It was a blatant withdrawal from the acceptance that Annalisa Barrelet had correctly informed the court on what could be inferred from the test result .As a consequence the prosecution were permitted to call her to rebut the misstatement as to the meaning of the phrase.
33. Unable to retreat from a position that was to prove unsustainable, Ms Forsyth introduced more scientific information about the basal metabolism required to carry out the activities of the resting, fasting cell in a further attempt to establish that the chemical indicators revealed by the tests could be read to confirm that the animal had sufficient energy to fuel basal metabolism. It is hard to avoid interpreting the move from a considered suggestion that if the worming was being carried out, it was the cyathostome infections that caused sudden unexpected death to the assertion that the lab tests prove that the horses were not being starved, as a reactive and subjective response rather than an objective development to assist the court reach a better understanding.
34. The indication that Ms Forsyth considered herself to be a mixed practitioner in the veterinary field with a significant part of her practice being avian, and specialised flock management, domestic animals and horses together with the inability to accept
what was patently obvious from the author of the lab test, leads me to be unable to rely upon her expert reports to assist me in determining the facts in this case. This leaves the Court to consider the two reports of Peter Green in determining the facts and understanding the behaviour of equines, their needs in terms of feed, space, company, exercise, cleaning, bedding, and susceptibility to disease internal and external parasites and the reasonable steps that are required to be taken for the above.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Slightly more to it than not being able to agree with Peter Green!  It seems like she completely misinterpreted the blood test results and changed her mind on what they did or didn't show.  In the light of such a change of opinion it is no wonder the evidence was dismissed! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong!!

I was there and heard the exact reasons why the judge dismissed the evidence of the defence experts.

Those reasons I have stated several times.

He also dismissed the evidence of all defendants because they did not comment in their interviews to the RSPCA - Interviews in which they were not bound by law to attend.
They did not comment because a lawyer advised them not to.


Sod the irrefutable documented evidence provided to the court by Mr Gray - he and his family made no comment interviews so therefore, it's good practice to overlook that evidence and find them guilty on the basis that they gave such interviews.


----------



## Paddywhack (3 June 2009)

If it comes to tell the truth and to defend someone you get on with it no matter how ill you are !! 
Nah he tried to buy himself free and it did not work and the clever judge saw straight through it 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 He is toast it's as simple as that 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 It's great to be on the winning side isn't it ???? 
	
	
		
		
	


	




Does not need to lie with green frogs jumping out of my mouth to defend a scumbag......HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY
Does not understand why Patty can't get that through her thick scull,what a waste of energy .....


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The vets giving evidence saw the animals on the day of the removal.  I am sure both expert witnesses took that evidence into account as well.  At least the photos were taken on the day of removal and not 11 days later! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course those vets saw the animals on the day they were seized. Whatever you do, if you are ever raided by the RSPCA do NOT allow them to speak with your vet.

As for the vets from the sancturies - RLMAO. Dont be so naive.

If their evidence was enough why did the RSPCA feel they needed to employ Peter Green?

Re the photos - yes, the photos taken by a member of the Gray family were also produced to the court and the animals in those photos were identified by prosecution witnesses.

KH told the family member that she did not need to take photos because the family would recieve a copy of the photos she was taking. Good job that member of the Gray family did not listen to KH because no copies were ever given to the family - neither did the RSPCA produce all of their photos to the court. 

[/ QUOTE ]

What accusations are you making against the vets from the sanctuaries exactly?  Would you care to put them in writing? Are they in on the conspiracy theory as well?! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Make up your own mind.


----------



## Happy Horse (3 June 2009)

So again the court scribe is lying and we are to believe you who won't even tell us who you are!

I have made my views on the no comment interviews very clear.  I think the guilty verdict was based on the evidence given by all the practicing vets, RSPCA officers and police who attended the farm and several occasions backed up by other witnesses such as the knacker man and farrier and those expert witnesses who didn't apparently change their evidence half way through!  The Grays had their opportunity to produce all their 'evidence' before the trial.  If they were advised incorrectly by their solicitor why are they not now suing him?


----------



## Happy Horse (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]


Make up your own mind. 

[/ QUOTE ]

My own mind is that they are doing the very best for the horses which reached them in dreadful condition.  If you are accusing them of anything else please do share - if what you are accusing is true you have nothing to lose by putting it in writing do you


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
If it comes to tell the truth and to defend someone you get on with it no matter how ill you are !! 
Nah he tried to buy himself free and it did not work and the clever judge saw straight through it 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 He is toast it's as simple as that 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 It's great to be on the winning side isn't it ???? 
	
	
		
		
	


	




Does not need to lie with green frogs jumping out of my mouth to defend a scumbag......HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY
Does not understand why Patty can't get that through her thick scull,what a waste of energy ..... 

[/ QUOTE ]

SL, the vet did not try to buy himself anything - he was unwell for ONE day - simple as. It was the judge that used that one day as a reason to dismiss his evidence.

More [****] flying from didcot.


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Make up your own mind. 

[/ QUOTE ]

My own mind is that they are doing the very best for the horses which reached them in dreadful condition.  If you are accusing them of anything else please do share - if what you are accusing is true you have nothing to lose by putting it in writing do you  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

If only you knew!!


----------



## Happy Horse (3 June 2009)

Please do tell us!


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
So again the court scribe is lying and we are to believe you who won't even tell us who you are!

I have made my views on the no comment interviews very clear.  I think the guilty verdict was based on the evidence given by all the practicing vets, RSPCA officers and police who attended the farm and several occasions backed up by other witnesses such as the knacker man and farrier and those expert witnesses who didn't apparently change their evidence half way through!  The Grays had their opportunity to produce all their 'evidence' before the trial.  If they were advised incorrectly by their solicitor why are they not now suing him? 

[/ QUOTE ]

The judge gave his reasons for dismissing the experts evidence and the evidence of the defendants.

No they are not suing a lawyer for giving them legal advice.

The lawyer wasnt to know the judge would dismiss all their irrefutable documented evidence just because they went no comment in an interview that they were not even bound by law to attend.


----------



## Happy Horse (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it comes to tell the truth and to defend someone you get on with it no matter how ill you are !! 
Nah he tried to buy himself free and it did not work and the clever judge saw straight through it 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 He is toast it's as simple as that 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 It's great to be on the winning side isn't it ???? 
	
	
		
		
	


	




Does not need to lie with green frogs jumping out of my mouth to defend a scumbag......HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY
Does not understand why Patty can't get that through her thick scull,what a waste of energy ..... 

[/ QUOTE ]

SL, the vet did not try to buy himself anything - he was unwell for ONE day - simple as. It was the judge that used that one day as a reason to dismiss his evidence.

More [****] flying from didcot.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

 [ QUOTE ]
 I believe he fell into error in reaching conclusions earlier on for a different purpose and then seeking to develop the immediate challenge to that set of facts into an explanation based not on Mr. Grays behaviour but on disease and illness
he could not have dealt with without veterinary assistance 

[/ QUOTE ] 

So why did the judge not simply say "Mr Parker was ill for a day so I can't accept  his evidence?"  Why bother making up a very plausible explanation?


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Please do tell us! 

[/ QUOTE ]

RLMAO - Like you'd actually believe me.

I have shown photos and even they have been questioned. Get real!!


----------



## Happy Horse (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So again the court scribe is lying and we are to believe you who won't even tell us who you are!

I have made my views on the no comment interviews very clear.  I think the guilty verdict was based on the evidence given by all the practicing vets, RSPCA officers and police who attended the farm and several occasions backed up by other witnesses such as the knacker man and farrier and those expert witnesses who didn't apparently change their evidence half way through!  The Grays had their opportunity to produce all their 'evidence' before the trial.  If they were advised incorrectly by their solicitor why are they not now suing him? 

[/ QUOTE ]

The judge gave his reasons for dismissing the experts evidence and the evidence of the defendants.

No they are not suing a lawyer for giving them legal advice.

The lawyer wasnt to know the judge would dismiss all their irrefutable documented evidence just because they went no comment in an interview that they were not even bound by law to attend. 

[/ QUOTE ]

So they had this irrefutable evidence that would according to you have proved their innocence, presumably they discussed this with the lawyer and instead of telling them to produce the irrefutable evidence when questioned he told them to make no comment -okaaaay!  Makes perfect sense


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it comes to tell the truth and to defend someone you get on with it no matter how ill you are !! 
Nah he tried to buy himself free and it did not work and the clever judge saw straight through it 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 He is toast it's as simple as that 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 It's great to be on the winning side isn't it ???? 
	
	
		
		
	


	




Does not need to lie with green frogs jumping out of my mouth to defend a scumbag......HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY
Does not understand why Patty can't get that through her thick scull,what a waste of energy ..... 

[/ QUOTE ]

SL, the vet did not try to buy himself anything - he was unwell for ONE day - simple as. It was the judge that used that one day as a reason to dismiss his evidence.

More [****] flying from didcot.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

 [ QUOTE ]
 I believe he fell into error in reaching conclusions earlier on for a different purpose and then seeking to develop the immediate challenge to that set of facts into an explanation based not on Mr. Grays behaviour but on disease and illness
he could not have dealt with without veterinary assistance 

[/ QUOTE ] 

So why did the judge not simply say "Mr Parker was ill for a day so I can't accept  his evidence?"  Why bother making up a very plausible explanation? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably for the same reason he did not give much detail to the witness evidence in his report.

Take another look at the report.


----------



## dozzie (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
  If it comes to tell the truth and to defend someone you get on with it no matter how ill you are !! 
Nah he tried to buy himself free and it did not work and the clever judge saw straight through it  He is toast it's as simple as that  It's great to be on the winning side isn't it ????  
Does not need to lie with green frogs jumping out of my mouth to defend a scumbag......HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY HE IS GUILTY
Does not understand why Patty can't get that through her thick scull,what a waste of energy ..... 

[/ QUOTE ] 

It all makes sense now! He is your supplier! That is how you knew he was smuggling drugs. Can you get me some as it seems like it is bloody good stuff!


----------



## Happy Horse (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please do tell us! 

[/ QUOTE ]

RLMAO - Like you'd actually believe me.

I have shown photos and even they have been questioned. Get real!! 

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are prepared to make these accusations and not back them up in any way?  Just making sure I am understanding you.  I assume as youhavetaken this stance on this you will not be posting any more as no one believes anything else you have said either yet you are still commenting!

With regards to the photos you have shown an empty barn and a patch of clean straw that could have been anywhere, it's hardly proof of anything you have been saying is it?!  

Anyway, when is the sentencing?  Perhaps I'll come along to watch


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So again the court scribe is lying and we are to believe you who won't even tell us who you are!

I have made my views on the no comment interviews very clear.  I think the guilty verdict was based on the evidence given by all the practicing vets, RSPCA officers and police who attended the farm and several occasions backed up by other witnesses such as the knacker man and farrier and those expert witnesses who didn't apparently change their evidence half way through!  The Grays had their opportunity to produce all their 'evidence' before the trial.  If they were advised incorrectly by their solicitor why are they not now suing him? 

[/ QUOTE ]

The judge gave his reasons for dismissing the experts evidence and the evidence of the defendants.

No they are not suing a lawyer for giving them legal advice.

The lawyer wasnt to know the judge would dismiss all their irrefutable documented evidence just because they went no comment in an interview that they were not even bound by law to attend. 

[/ QUOTE ]

So they had this irrefutable evidence that would according to you have proved their innocence,

[/ QUOTE ]

ABSOLUTELY - without a shadow of a doubt!!!


[ QUOTE ]
presumably they discussed this with the lawyer and instead of telling them to produce the irrefutable evidence when questioned he told them to make no comment -okaaaay!  Makes perfect sense  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I dont believe they discussed this evidence. They first met the lawyer at the police station after they were asked to attend. 

They were threatened with arrest if they did not take the interviews. The lawyer arrived at the station and told them to take the interview but make no comment.


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please do tell us! 

[/ QUOTE ]

RLMAO - Like you'd actually believe me.

I have shown photos and even they have been questioned. Get real!! 

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are prepared to make these accusations and not back them up in any way?  Just making sure I am understanding you.  I assume as youhavetaken this stance on this you will not be posting any more as no one believes anything else you have said either yet you are still commenting!

With regards to the photos you have shown an empty barn and a patch of clean straw that could have been anywhere, it's hardly proof of anything you have been saying is it?!  

Anyway, when is the sentencing?  Perhaps I'll come along to watch  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I have made lots of accusations and none have been believed.

And the photos are genuine which were taken at SF during the raid. Apart from a couple which I took the day after the raid.

12th of June - I'm hoping to attend.


----------



## Happy Horse (3 June 2009)

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?


----------



## Happy Horse (3 June 2009)

Excellent, if I can make it we can have a custard pie fight in the gallery!

You remind me of a mosquito, I can't see your purpose and you really irritate me but I admire your tenacity!


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ 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.


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent, if I can make it we can have a custard pie fight in the gallery!

You remind me of a mosquito, I can't see your purpose and you really irritate me but I admire your tenacity! 

[/ QUOTE ]


----------



## Happy Horse (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

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 (3 June 2009)

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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

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


----------



## Happy Horse (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

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 (3 June 2009)

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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

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?


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

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


----------



## patty19 (3 June 2009)

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Sandwich board.


----------



## spaniel (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

Mine will say PATTY IS A FANTASIST!


----------



## competitiondiva (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

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


----------



## jhoward (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (3 June 2009)

[ 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 (4 June 2009)

[ 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 (4 June 2009)

[ 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 (4 June 2009)

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 (4 June 2009)

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 (4 June 2009)

[ 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 (4 June 2009)

[ 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 (4 June 2009)

[ 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 (4 June 2009)

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 (4 June 2009)

[ 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?


----------



## Gingernags (4 June 2009)

It would never occur to me not to co-operate TBH.  We've had the RSPCA call in at our yard a few times- not for the horses but there are cattle on the hill next to us and a couple had lain dead for a few weeks and complaints had been made by the public.  They called in to our yard to see if anyone knew how to contact the owners (I'll stress they are nothing to do with us).

Our yard is in a very public and overlooked place and sometimes we get misguided souls who instead of asking us things, ring the RSPCA.  (Our winter paddocks can get very wet and muddy, but we put out haylage and prefer them to have a few hours out in the mud to being stabled 24/7.

Nothing has ever come of it and the stables are all clean bedded, the horses are in excellent condition, and the officers understand the public are a bit fluffy and soft and don't really understand.  Don't think the RSPCA have every even followed up the calls - only the cows ones as unexplained dead animals left to rot in a field are not something they want to see.  Saying that its 2 cows out of about 80 which is about a 2.5% rate of loss...

I would insist on my vet being present though if they ever did descend to look at the horses for any reason.

Quite honestly I'd rather have the RSPCA call in and check on the animals welfare and go away knowing there's nothing wrong and that our time was wasted by some misguided individual, than them do nothing and people get away with real cruelty.

Personally I'd like to see the owner of the cows prosecuted for as I think leaving dead animals to rot without even finding out what killed them and risking the rest of the animals, is disgusting.  But I suspect as there is water and plentiful haylage and the cows aren't in bad condition, that they may not - but they are looking into it.  though I think leaving plastic wrapped bales in the field that the cows have to chew through to get at the haylage, is very wrong too.


----------



## competitiondiva (4 June 2009)

A round of applause to you mother_hen, well said and totally correct, thank you for putting people straight!!!

I don't understand why people seem to get so defensive when the rspca appear.  It is usually because someone has seen the animal looking poor, knows nothing of its history or sometimes even of its normal husbandry!!! (i.e the hundreds of calls to rspca to report plastic stuck on horses heads when fly masks first made an appearance!!) anyway, so the rspca attend to establish if there is cruelty going on or if there is a genuine reason for its condition.  If you cooperate then it could all be ironed out very quickly, whereas if you don't cooperate then you may (if they have just cause), be faced with having police/animal health officers attend with the rspca to gain access....  I know which option I'd pick!!!!

And when I say rspca this also applies to WHW officers as they are also not warranted.


----------



## patty19 (4 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
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. 

[/ QUOTE ]

As any decent human being I would hate for any animal to be tortured/neglected, or suffer cruelty. I also think the law stinks where the punishments for such crimes are concerned. 

But the RSPCA have too much power in my opinion. Why should members of the public have rights to enter anyones premises? If the RSPCA are truely that concerned then maybe they should stop with their bullying ways because it's not helping animals that are being tortured.


If it was not for the tactics used by the RSPCA then groups such as the SHG would not exist. Maybe if the RSPCA were the organization they like the public to think they are then people would not have a problem welcoming them onto their property to look at their animals. 

I believe you care for animals but do you believe you should have the right to freely enter a home if you suspect an animal is being ill treated? 

The advice on the SHG is given for a good reason - the RSPCA have misused the power they do have and have ruined lives.

If people are fighting against the RSPCA's powers then it's only the RSPCA who are to blame. If they were a decent "charity" then people would welcome them with open arms. - Well I know I would anyhow.


----------



## spaniel (4 June 2009)

Why should members of the public have rights to enter anyones premises? 

They dont Patty and neither do RSPCA unless a police officer is present.


----------



## the watcher (4 June 2009)

i have said before patty, and reiterate - your hatred for the RSPCA (which I can't agree with) has blinded you to the facts and evidence in this case - and the links in your previous post are factually incorrect on several levels.

Maybe you should really research your subject, not just dig out the flawed, one sided arguements


----------



## spaniel (4 June 2009)

http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/

Care to comment Patty?


----------



## patty19 (4 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Do some research and find out for yourself. I say this because no matter what I say I am shot down and have been accused of being a liar - something I am NOT!!!! 


I am a member of the public yes.


----------



## patty19 (4 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/

Care to comment Patty? 

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way do you expect me to comment?


----------



## spaniel (4 June 2009)

No Patty thats the point....you HAVENT.  All through these threads you keep saying that people have a lot to learn and that theres more to everything than meets the eye.

However what you DONT, WONT or CANNOT do it actually enlighten us.

If you are so wise and well informed then do the decent thing and actually educate us with your knowledge.

A well thought out answer giving actual  <u>proven</u>  facts would stop these threads stone dead and give you credibility.  Sadly I dont think this is ever going to happen.

Either cough up the FACTS properly and in full or give it up as this is just going round and round and round.....


----------



## patty19 (4 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
i have said before patty, and reiterate - your hatred for the RSPCA (which I can't agree with) has blinded you to the facts and evidence in this case - and the links in your previous post are factually incorrect on several levels.


[/ QUOTE ]

Before I researched the JG case I had NO argument against the RSPCA.

Maybe you should point those "factually incorrect levels" out to me.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should really research your subject, not just dig out the flawed, one sided arguements 

[/ QUOTE ]

Please heed your own advice.


----------



## the watcher (4 June 2009)

spaniel - from that link I followed another and it led me to the 2007 petition

'We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Hold a public enquiry into the polices and running of the RSPCA."

Details of petiton:"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Hold a public enquiry into the polices and running of the RSPCA."

"now that the rspca are going to police the new animal welfare law who is going to police them, there is and never has been a watchdog for the rspca,we are not saying that given the right circumstances the rspca can not do a good job but on pass history they need the right direction"

and the government response...

"The Animal Welfare Act 2006 - as with most other legislation - is a common informers act. That means any person or organisation can bring a private prosecution under the legislation. It is because anyone can initiate criminal proceedings under animal welfare legislation that the RSPCA successfully prosecutes between 750 and 1,000 people each year who have been found to have caused unnecessary suffering to animals.

There is no evidence to show that this current arrangement is not working. Indeed the evidence suggests the contrary: the RSPCA are successful in some 97% of cases they bring before the courts (2004). That is a very high success rate and clearly justifies the RSPCAs general approach. The Government is not aware of any complaints from Magistrates Courts about the way the RSPCA bring cases before them and we are satisfied that there are adequate safeguards in place within the judicial system to ensure that the right to bring private prosecutions is not abused.

The Government works closely with the RSPCA to ensure this country has the highest animal welfare standards. The RSPCA has played a crucial role as enforcers of animal welfare law for more than a hundred years, and the Government hopes that they will continue to do so in the future."


----------



## patty19 (4 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
No Patty thats the point....you HAVENT.  All through these threads you keep saying that people have a lot to learn and that theres more to everything than meets the eye.

However what you DONT, WONT or CANNOT do it actually enlighten us.

If you are so wise and well informed then do the decent thing and actually educate us with your knowledge.

A well thought out answer giving actual  <u>proven</u>  facts would stop these threads stone dead and give you credibility.  Sadly I dont think this is ever going to happen.

Either cough up the FACTS properly and in full or give it up as this is just going round and round and round..... 

[/ QUOTE ]

You post a link to a website and ask me if I care to comment.

I'm not getting what you expect me to comment on. Maybe you should be the one making comments about the website as it's you and others who disagree with it's contents.


----------



## spaniel (4 June 2009)

Thats what I was initially looking for Hen,  well done.

Now obviously this proves that the whole of the legal profession and right up to Govt level is actually corrupt and in cahoots with or more likely governed by the RSPCA!


----------



## SpruceRI (4 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



 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 ]


[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you know that?

Katy Robinson might've told JG that the grey needed extensive veterinary treatment and JG told her to shove it?


----------



## patty19 (4 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



 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 ]


[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you know that?

Katy Robinson might've told JG that the grey needed extensive veterinary treatment and JG told her to shove it? 

[/ QUOTE ]


Why would JG call her out if he was only going to tell her to shove any advice? 
	
	
		
		
	


	





This evidence concerning the gray was given to the court. 

Same goes for a little donkey. On the 5th of Jan it was deemed as fit and healthy by vets but was dead on the 6th. This evidence was also given to the court.


----------



## competitiondiva (4 June 2009)

Ahhh but mother_hen Patty will say that they are only getting the 97% success rate through bribing (sp?) and forging evidence! rather than the obvious that they are good at what they do and only bring cases where they believe they have a good chance of success. If they didn't do this then they would be wasting charity money.

Plus if there was any substance to half these anti rspca claims do you not think that the charity commission would have investigated AND found them guilty and removed their charitable status????


----------



## the watcher (4 June 2009)

competitiondiva, added to that, if JG had co-operated fully from an early stage and voluntarily signed the animals over it might never have come to a court case, IMO, although in many respects I am glad it did as has shown JG and his standards up very clearly.


----------



## competitiondiva (4 June 2009)

In Fact actually Patty if you are accussing the rspca of any illegal actions, I urge you to go to the charity commission with whatever evidence you have and put your case forward, if not then please be quiet!!!!!!  And stop spreading malicious rumour against a charity that relys on donations in order to continue bringing prosecutions against the likes of JG....


----------



## Happy Horse (4 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Do some research and find out for yourself. I say this because no matter what I say I am shot down and have been accused of being a liar - something I am NOT!!!! 


[/ QUOTE ] 

I have done the research I need to do by working alongside the very vets you are accusing for five years, which is more than I think you have ever done.  If you have conclusive proof of any wrongdoing by the vets then please report them to the RCVS - it is pointless throwing about unsubstantiated allegations on here.


----------



## brighteyes (4 June 2009)

Righto, apart from the discredited vets (and yourself, with Dozzie hanging on your coat-tails) are there any other 'defenders' of JG and his 'dealings'?

If so, where?

There seems to be just you and Dozzie.

Although he has been 'in business' for many years, I haven't heard that anyone has come forward to help prove his innocence. Could anyone possibly defend him?  Surely with all his connections, and presumably countless satisfied customers, his defence lawyer could have found a few people to vouch for him? Or did the RSPCA 'get to' them first/also?


----------



## Dahlia (4 June 2009)

Horsegirl28 or something is another of JG's supporters. She mainly converses via the medium of  
	
	
		
		
	


	
















 and a few Lols scattered here and there which there is no denying, help lay depth to Patty's claims of JG's innocence....


----------



## the watcher (4 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should really research your subject, not just dig out the flawed, one sided arguments 

[/ QUOTE ]

Please heed your own advice. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is, long before this case and the seizures I knew all I needed to know about JG and his family and their activities - so when it came to the RSPCA and Police finding dead and starving animals on his farm I wasn't surprised, although even I was shocked at the sheer numbers involved.


----------



## Paddywhack (4 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should really research your subject, not just dig out the flawed, one sided arguments 

[/ QUOTE ]

Please heed your own advice. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is, long before this case and the seizures I knew all I needed to know about JG and his family and their activities - so when it came to the RSPCA and Police finding dead and starving animals on his farm I wasn't surprised, although even I was shocked at the sheer numbers involved. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto that !!!!! He was reported so many times by the public,but he was very clever and got away with it for too long,but those days are over now and hopefully he will be banned from ever having animals again..


----------



## RantBucket (4 June 2009)

Only 8 days to wait until the ban Paddywack, lets hope he gets a decent spell in prison too, he deserves it.


----------



## Paddywhack (4 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Only 8 days to wait until the ban Paddywack, lets hope he gets a decent spell in prison too, he deserves it. 

[/ QUOTE ]
He sure do,unfortunately I am going away next Thursday and wont be in UK for the sentencing......otherwise i would be up in Bicester in that court room for the sentencing with Tar and Feahers 
	
	
		
		
	


	




(Was actually at Bicester Village shopping today


----------



## RantBucket (4 June 2009)

The sentencing is at Aylesbury Magistrates Court Paddywhack on 12th June at 12 noon as far as I understood it.


----------



## dozzie (4 June 2009)

Are you suggesting I am a follower? 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Nah! I am a rebel! Always have been, always will be! And totally against corruption, bullying and lieing. It is the reason I never made Prime Minister.


----------



## siennamum (5 June 2009)

But starvation, brutality &amp; cruelty towards horses is ok, eh


----------



## dozzie (5 June 2009)

No, it is definitely not ok.

They shouldnt get away with it.


----------



## Happy Horse (5 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Patty

I have been thinking about all this long and hard. Hard to believe I know. 

Now if as you say he was set up, the question is why? Why would the charities have gone to such lengths to ensure that there was enough evidence to prosecute him and stop him trading? 

And you have given me the answers I was looking for. 

Is he guilty of cruelty? Yes he is Patty. It may have been legal, but nevertheless it was cruelty. Cruelty that had happened and cruelty that was going to happen. 







[/ QUOTE ]

Dozzie I am confused - did you actually write this or was it someone else?  You seem unclear as to your position on this.


----------



## dozzie (5 June 2009)

Yes I did. 

I havent got time to explain as I need to go to work. It will take a while to explain! But I will get back to you.


----------



## Happy Horse (5 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I did. 

I havent got time to explain as I need to go to work. It will take a while to explain! But I will get back to you. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I'd be interested to find out.

I have been doing my sums, 32 dead horses and 111 removed is a fataility rate of 22%.  Presumably if the cause of death was not a result of the management or conditions on the farm as we are expected to believe and this is an acceptable rate of loss for livestock a further 24 horses should in theory have died since being removed if the care being provided at Spindles Farm was as good as we are supposed to believe.  I have heard of one that died since removal - have there been any others?


----------



## Gingernags (5 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

I have been doing my sums, 32 dead horses and 111 removed is a fataility rate of 22%.  Presumably if the cause of death was not a result of the management or conditions on the farm as we are expected to believe and this is an acceptable rate of loss for livestock a further 24 horses should in theory have died since being removed if the care being provided at Spindles Farm was as good as we are supposed to believe.  I have heard of one that died since removal - have there been any others? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, putting it like that is pretty blunt reading isn't it?  Can't see how anyone can defend him on that basis.


----------



## jacks_mum (5 June 2009)

Sadly the maths doesn't work like that. You would need to determine the date of death of the longest dead animal and then ascertain how many horses JG had through his doors between that date of death and the date of the raid in order to get a true percentage of death rate. It may be that the longest dead had been dead for 5 years and in that interveneing 5 years  he had had a million horses through his premises, which would give a very low death rate. However if the longest dead was 6 weeks and he had had only those 143 horses through his doors in that time then as you say, a high death rate.


----------



## SpruceRI (5 June 2009)

As someone said on here, where are all his satisfied customers?

You'd think at least ONE  person would come out of the woodwork admitting (or claiming) to have bought a horse from him that they love/loved??

Even if he only sells to traders (which I believe he must do) in UK or abroad, you'd think wouldn't you, that one of them would come forward in the Press at least and state that all the horses they bought from him were in good nick?


----------



## Happy Horse (5 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Sadly the maths doesn't work like that. You would need to determine the date of death of the longest dead animal and then ascertain how many horses JG had through his doors between that date of death and the date of the raid in order to get a true percentage of death rate. It may be that the longest dead had been dead for 5 years and in that interveneing 5 years  he had had a million horses through his premises, which would give a very low death rate. However if the longest dead was 6 weeks and he had had only those 143 horses through his doors in that time then as you say, a high death rate. 

[/ QUOTE ]

We are led to believe that the deaths all occured over no more than a couple of weeks if Patty is to be believed (the carcasses had all rotted quickly in the rain apparently) they were just waiting to be buried......  Of course if the carcasses had been hanging around for much longer then yes, the rate would seem more realistic


----------



## jacks_mum (5 June 2009)

to be fair we are only looking at a possible snapshot in time and without extensive and accurate records it is impossible to put a death rate percentage on JG's business. Is not really like looking at a GP% unless you want to compare QOQ or YOY figures.


----------



## brighteyes (5 June 2009)

Have you jumped ship?


----------



## Paddywhack (5 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Have you jumped ship? 

[/ QUOTE ]
I was thinking the same  
	
	
		
		
	


	




Someone GOT to text me after the sentencing ! 
How I wish that I could be there with my thick tar and feathers but  I am in another country attending my nieces graduation on the 12th and then I am off on a business trip until Tuesday


----------

